Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

I'll call it being rational.

I think my position is about as honest as one can get--we simply do not know the origins of the universe. We simply do not know the purpose of life. We have tried, since we lost our tails, to come up with explanations. Some are better than others--some rely on evidence, some rely on superstition. My prediction: We will continue to do so until our own sun vaporizes everything around us and we cease to exist. I could be wrong, of course. But I don't think I am.

When I deride faith it is when the faithful presume to tell me how to live my very short life, or worse, infringe on my right to live my very short life in a manner of my choosing. If the faithful could just learn to mind their own business, they would hear not a peep out of me.

I have never called you or anyone on this forum a child molester.

I'm not sure I have ever called you delusional--but if I have I apologize.

It's a fair question on my part. The only reason I even care about your beliefs is when they intersect with my life and the lives of my fellow citizens. If the faithful could simply leave well enough alone, they'd enjoy the same courtesy from me. But you're right when you say that your beliefs have no bearing on mine--because I have none.

 

Because YOU say so? Is that how rationality works?

You are skeptical about everything but your own excuses.

No it isn't it. That is called throwing your hands up and quitting.

It also leaves totally unaddressed why atheists, when challenged, site the exact same virtues that are central to Christianity as the purpose?

People will make up their minds as they always have. Atheism wil change, as it has, where it will go from its current brand of intensive anger and derision back to respectful disagreement as it did in its inception and as it did after the rise of communism invalidated the angry and baseless.

People will still find God.

You are in a debate forum slick. You are not a victim.

And people are not knocking down your door are they? We are allowed to talk about our faith, and you are allowed to disagree, you are not allowed to silence dissent or differing opinions because you pull on a victim cloak.

Give the victim schtick a rest will ya?

I mean why would anyone want to run around in paranoia viewing anything different as a threat rather than a possibility? A challenge? An explorative question?

I guess the victim cloak gets more sympathy? Or is at least, easier.

You routinely claim that our faith results in child molestation. You ar espillting hairs in what is known as rationalization.

It fools no one.

See above.

You chose voluntarily to come into a debate forum. To question OTHERS faith and values. We have every right to push back.

Doubly so when you ask for answers, get them, and then tell us your interpretation of our faith is the correct one. Who indeed, super victim, is attemting to push their values on others?

Isn;t that exactly what you little test is about?

Do you see why I keep coming back to OBJECTIVE STANDARDS? Why I continue to point out the amorphous qualities of atheism and how it shifts in context to just be the opposite of whatever a Christian claims?

Do we see how atheism return to the self - to you?

Oh, but all my observations are the result of mean spiritedness toward atheists are they? Really?

 

Someone who will never belong to a religion here.

I value truth. Science is a tool to find that truth. It's not always right, but if it's not right, I'm more than glad to be corrected by facts, research and evidence.

Atheism has no agenda. A person who is an idiotic hater may have an agenda against religions, but atheism is a simple lack of belief in deities. Being an atheist is very similiar to not believing Harry Potter is real.

If there is a God and you can prove it scientifically and give actual evidence, I am happy to acknowledge his/hers/its existance. I'm an atheist because I believe existance of god is false, if god exists then I'm obviously wrong.

The question of his/hers/its personality is a whole another debate. A lot of religions seem to have different opinions on that subject.

My personal belief is that religions were made up by humanity to give us comfort in this dark, cold world. I'm willing to give other people that, but it doesn't mean I should have to believe the same thing. Even if you believers are right and god exists: then he created us and gave us the free will. I regret nothing and I will stand proud and tall at my judgement.

If science proves the existance of god, I will accept that. I don't see how it (the proving) can be done, but if someone does come up with evidence, I will believe it.

--

I'm technically an agnostic leaning towards atheism, but usually atheism is perceived as "anti-religion" so I said I'm atheist.

 

ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]
adjective
1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:
3.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid:
4.
endowed with the faculty of reason:
5.
of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.

Drawing a conclusion without all the facts is--how did you put it? Lazy. Mine is the intellectually honest position: We don't know.

Please clarify.

As is usually the case with humans who would rather just accept something on faith than exercise intellectual rigor.

Not sure what you mean by this or how it's relevant.

You mean people will still believe in something they can't prove exists.

I never claimed to be a victim.

NO. But they are injecting their faith into the organs of my government--something they do thoughtlessly and arrogantly. Through their actions, my freedoms are limited, as are the freedoms of my fellow citizens. If they could simply learn to practice their faith and leave the rest of us alone, I'd habe no quarrel. And SOME of the faithful certainly ARE "knocking down my door" (figuratively speaking) if we consider events that transpired ten years less one day ago.

Absolutely. And I would never suggest otherwise--nor have I.

Of course.

I've never even remotely suggested that I would like to do that.

I have, again, never claimed to be a victim.

Again, please clarify.

It is no empty claim that the Catholic Church has systematically enabled child abuse for at least the past five decades around the globe. It is a fact. I never called YOU or anyone on this board a child molester as you falsely allege.

You are welcome.

Of course you do. I'd prefer that you push back with facts and data, however. This is not always the case.

If the answers are based on speculation and superstition rather than rational facts, how would you expect a rational, dispassionate debater to respond?

No. My test was about something else. It will be revealed shortly.

My position has remained consistent since I joined this forum.

That's something you'll have to figure out for yourself.

 

So, agreeable to reason is ... whatever your opinion is? The faculty of reason is .... whatever your opinion is? SOund judgement is .... whatever your opinion is?

Maybe you should look up rationalization while you are it?

Yes you do. You run around dancing the jog and insulting people who have repeatedly staed that the evidence for God is inconclusive, people use things other than science - duh!

Nope, you are an atheist, and we are treated to the changling qualities of atheism that indicate that you are not certain - you just claim there is not God and (*)(*)(*)(*) over everyone else's faith because ... why?

Because you justify your opinions and change your beliefs to be ostinate that is why. THAT IS ATHEISM.

Agnostic atheism, which is what you are now advocating, that tired reasoning of illogic, is current Creationism of atheism.

As you bash Creationists, and you do, be very aware that you do exactly what they do. And spare us the intellectual gainsay - if you think there is no God? Fine.

If you think your faith allows you to run around questioning everyone else's and that yours must be treated as sacred? Well, you will find that such a pretense will cause you an awful lot of grief.

So says the atheist without proof.

So says the atheist advicating a known fallcy.

So says the atheist who thinks the FSM is logical.

So sayeth the atheist without a single objective standard fr comparison.

We clear yet?

Yep, atheists do it everyday. You believe there is nothing with no proof. Only you want your BS held to a different standard.

Yep, just that people are attempting to thrust their beliefs on you - while you do teh exact opposite. You are not a victim, so stop acting like one!

Well, that non-victim status did not last long did it.

You are in a debate forum kiddo. And the vast conspiracy that you refer to simply does not exist. I mean what are atheists suing about now?

A cross at 9-11? So your are suing to remove other people's religion from public? My, my you are oppressed!

Faith based initiatives, which atheists on this very forum say proves the invalidity of fundamentalist who do not want them to go out - bt validate all the faiths that look at teh constitution and say funding should be blind to faith? Yep, you lost that one.

It is you, atheists, who are attempting to impart YOUR agenda on others. Of course you have no agenda - nothing that you will actually defend save yourself.

Your God is you. And everything else is its enemy.

That is exactly what you do when you play your victim violen about religious people attempted to force things on you - its your rationalization. People taing about their faith ... waaaa!

WHAT!?!

How does that make you a repressed victim?

Help, help I am being repressed!

It hen you jump into one thread after another to make the claim about all Christians - when you demand changes that have already been made - when you turn a blind eye to child abuse in any other area.

It more rationalization for your anti-religious crusade.

And WHERE O WHERE are your facts and data? You demand them the most, and use them the least. This is not about evidence - its about your convictions of teh fault in others - a supposition you refuse to challenge.

Objective standards.

Apply it to your position. No evidence - still an atheist. Fine for you, bad for everyone else.

Running around calling others childish and other insults? But now you value dispassionate debate? What?

The standards of atheism shift again.

Oh, you will reveal your excuse for the double standards shortly? You invalidated you test when you passed the FSM but failed God.

Yep it has remained circular.

1. Atheism is perfectly logical, the ONLY logical position.
2. Atheism has no supporting documentation, however, using absurd logic you see we have no basis of proving a negative.
3. What you say, you can prove a negative? Well, that is OK, we are all agnostic atheists and we have no burden of proof since we are not claiming anything.
4. So, lets start a test about the evidence for God! See number 1.

Its nothing BUT shifted context and you know it.

Yep, the shift changing atheists can't bear to look at it. I'll figure it out ... wait, I did.

 

Except that's not what you said...

How does a Soviet leader from the 60's equate to American Atheists of today?

No he wasn't. Communism yes, but it had nothing to do with atheism. He was talking about slowly introducing socialism into US politics.

Your link is just typical conservative tea party fear-mongering. Try this one...

"I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."
-- Ron Paul (referring to President Obama)

 

a strawman
American Atheists exactly express the beilefs taugh in the USSR's schools and universities as "Scientific Atheism".

do you have any logic or facts behind this ungrounded belief of yours? Yes?No?

''the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot."

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner, former communist and atheist.

 

You shouldn't use terms that you obviously have no idea what they mean.

I had not heard the phrase "Scientific Atheism" until you just used it, so I looked it up...

"Scientific Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods, or the supernatural."

Based on this definition, it is a 100% factual and logical statement. Which also means that your argument was a strawman, since it had nothing to do with the discussion - communism/atheism and government/politics.

See, atheists in the US aren't trying to introduce legislation to force their (lack of) views/beliefs on the rest of the country, but rather, we want to prevent theists from doing just that. The more vocal atheists oppose religious expression in public areas. "Public" here does mean just out in the open where people can see it, but "public" as in government endorsed/sponsored/supported/etc, such as schools and court houses for example. If you want to put a sign in your front yard that says "I heart baby Jesus", go right ahead. No one is trying to take away your private right to worship freely.

Trying to equate any of that to communism is just outright lying.

By facts and logic, do you mean where I immediately followed my statement with a quote from Khrushchev himself which explains exactly what he meant by the quote posted by Incorporeal? Or did you make up your own definitions for "facts" and "logic", like you did for "strawman"?

Well good for Mr. Solzhenitsyn. Again, this has nothing to do with what we were talking about - Khrushchev's statements. Figure out what a strawman is yet? You should, you keep using them.


Can you be any more dishonest?

 

That sums it up for me really. Not sure why this is such a terribly unwarranted position to hold based on the evidence we have.

 

I said: “American Atheists exactly express the beliefs taught in the USSR's schools and universities as "Scientific Atheism".”

I see you have no objections.

I said: “American Atheists exactly express the beliefs taught in the USSR's schools and universities as "Scientific Atheism".”
I see you have no objections.

I did not discuss if it was logical or not. I just point that American atheists recite positions of "Scientific Atheism" taught in schools and universities of the oppressive to human rights and freedoms the USSR, where one couldn’t get a Master of Science degree in mechanical engineering without passing exams on the subjects called Scientific Atheism and Scientific Communism; and where one couldn’t be admitted to a higher education institution while being a Xn. The less one could be a teacher or professor if one was not professing atheism.
I just state facts and let people to make conclusions and compare to American colleges. It is up to the people to see or not to see that American Atheists represent a clear and immediate danger to American freedoms and rights.

No to both strawmen, obviously.

I understand you have no objection to one of the witnesses and participants. It is good for him and it is good for Americans of all beliefs and walks of life to know that:


''the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot."
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner, former communist and atheist.

Khrushchev's statements state exactly the same, - that the USSR will destroy the USA from within (without firing a shot) http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-doesnt-suit-their-agenda-19.html#post4432157 , by hands of agitated atheists and other deviants from American values. Spreading atheism and other deviations in the USA had been one of the main tasks of the KGB for decades.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8"]Yuri Bezmenov ex KGB Psychological Warfare Techniques. Subversion & Control of Western Society 1/7 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDDBZuheQxs&feature=related"]Former Russian Agent: Public Schools Targeted! - YouTube[/ame]

 

Except I was referring to your incorrect usage of the term "strawman".

The only thing I'm not objecting to is that American atheists (or at least I assume most of them) agree with the definition of the term "Scientific Atheism" that I posted. The schools which teach this, what else is taught by those schools, any discrimination that takes place in those schools, where those schools are located, and the views of the governments of the countries where those schools are located, is completely irrelevant to that point.

American atheists are not attempting to have "Scientific Atheism" taught in schools in the US - only to keep theism out of them (and even then, only in certain aspects). The two are not equivalent.

LMAO. So let's see...

Someone posts a vague quote by a person with the interpretation of its meaning. I post another quote, by the same person, that directly explains what he meant by the first vague quote, contradicting the posters interpretation, and removing the need for any interpretation.

This is somehow an "ungrounded belief" and a strawman? No, I don't think so. Here, I'll help you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Now you're doing it. Here is that quote again...

So no, Khrushchev was not saying the same thing. He was talking about spreading socialism, not atheism.

 

Your comment was "How have you possibly come to this conclusion? I haven't seen anyone advocate anything remotely like what the communists did.", to which I brought to your attention the comment made by Nikita Kruschev. By presenting that comment to you, you can no longer say that you "haven't seen anyone advocate anything remotely like what the communists did." because now you have. As already pointed out to you by another poster, the communist regime was operating (at least in part) on an agenda of ridding the people of 'religion'... which is also seemingly the agenda of Atheists of today.

 

No, because I was responding to your comment about American atheists of today ("So, it appears that in the United States the atheists are seeking a revival of that old tool used by the communist countries."). So to spell it all out instead of looking through various posts, I was saying...

I haven't seen any American atheists of today advocate anything remotely like what the communists did.

To which you responded with a quote by a Soviet leader from the 60's, who obviously is not an American atheist of today.

 

Now you move to making a false representation of your previous comment.
http://www.politicalforum.com/4432078-post180.html
In that comment, you said NOTHING about "American atheists of today". Your comment was all inclusive in your use of the word "anyone". Be honest with the people on this thread, because unlike you, some will go back to the source and either quote what you previously stated or in the least provide a link to that source wherein the evidence of your false representation is found.

Yes! Nikita Kruschev is a member of that all inclusive body which you previously labeled as "anyone".

 

Why stop there? American atheists also accept the theory of gravity just as it was taught in Soviet schools! American atheists accept Boyle's Law, just as it was taught in Soviet schools! American atheists accept Bernoulli's Law, just as it was taught in Soviet schools!

It's clear all of science is a Bolshevik plot. We need to return to the good old pre-science days of the Middle Ages, where we will all be safe from the worldwide communist conspiracy.

 

Don't forget to mention what was previously pointed out... that the soviet government also had a very dominant agenda against the existence of religion of any form, which is something that the US Government does not engage itself in.

 

You are a liar.

I was responding to a specific comment of yours. Obviously, my response was within context of the comment in which I was responding.

You are completely incapable of forming actual arguments. You do nothing but vomit deception and misdirection.

 

No need for me to lie when you are caught red handed in a very bold lie ... a lie created by altering your original statement and attempting to represent that altered statement as though it were the original statement.

You are also projecting your misconduct and directing it toward me. Another unethical display of conduct.

 

Yep, that is what he said. He clearly said all science, as opposed to, exactly what you guys claim, 'scientific atheism'.

So, might as well just jump to absurd and never implied claims, and respond with what is basically a strawman.

But, the point remains. You again, justify your faith with science. So go ahead an do it. Show us, scientifically, how there is no God! Go ahead.

I predict, like all the atheists before you, you will discover when teh debate is over that you are actually an agnostic-atheist - and all semblance of science will be forever banished from your claims - for there isnt even evidence upon which to make a claim - a conclusion that every atheist comes to when given the very evidence they demand.

Atheism is many things, but it is not the result of scientific examination.

Modern atheism begin with the French Revolution. Its not until decades after the French Revolution that evolution is even published.

Deism, the French Revolution, these are not exactly timid scientific claims that have been made are they? And at their root, they are emotional claims - the claim that all things can be expained through science.

Its interesting to look at the Revolution, what it got right and what it got wrong - but limits of atheism pop up in the French Revolution, and, despite all the claims since, all the scientific examination and progress since, the limits remain.

Perhaps you should study your roots rather than make spurious claims?

 

The debate has most likely moved on from this, but I really like these questions, so I will answer them anyway. None of you know where I live. I'm not an Athiest, but I am Agnostic, so I will answer them as if you meant "Agnostic."

I love science that doesn't fit my agenda (which is not bashing Christianity). It makes me think about things that I didn't before, and I come out a better person for it. For example, I learned last year that there was no such thing as a Brontasaurus. That was super interesting, so I googled it. I was very entertained for quite a while, and learned even more on the topic, like how much of what we know about dinosaurs has changed just over 2 or 3 decades, and that we believe they were much more like birds than lizards.

The Big Bang Theory is one of the strongest theories we have about the possible creation of the universe, but there are many others. I love that second question because there is SO MUCH MORE we can learn about this! There is a whole new dimension of facts we can learn as a species about the start of it all, and that excites me for the future. What kinds of different theories will there be 100 years from now?

The Entropy Theory is one of many theories. Personally, I haven't researched this at all, but I did see 5 minutes of a TV show pertaining to it; don't take my opinion as educated, seeing as I don't have one. I'm not sure whether I believe that it will collapse on itself or keep expanding until everything is much to far apart to be heated at all (another theory based on the fact that the universe continues to expand constantly). I prefer not to think about it. It's interesting and I'd like to know, but I'm much more of a history person than a future person.

I'm not talking about Athiests or Agnostics when I type this, but a good scientist does not deny any information. A good scientist will form an unbiased, educated idea of what the answer might be first. Then, if the evidence doesn't support his idea or claim, he or she would accept that, and change his opinion based on the evidence. When technology changes and what was previously thought to be true turns out to be false, all of science changes to accomodate the new information. No good Athiest or Agnostic would deny ANY science. That's more than I can say for religion. No matter what happens, religion doesn't change. Their frames of reference are all in their holy books, which could have been written thousands of years ago, when the world was flat. While it is accepted now worldwide that the world is indeed a sphere, religions still use holy books written in a time where it was flat as their entire frame of reference. Science changes, even if it is unpopular, with time, while religion does not. Simple as that.

What kinds of science, specifically, improves the theist's argument? This isn't a challenge. I want specification so I can address that specifically.

I like riddles. My answer is "Charitable organization."

 

Not if you put it that way. But a lot of US politicians enjoy saying (over and over) that the US is a Christian nation and ought to be governed that way.

It seems to me that both the Soviets and the Christian Right have the same stupid problem: they want to impose their religious beliefs on others through governmental means. I haven't seen that kind of advocacy from current American atheists. All I have seen from them is an insistence that the Constitution's religious neutrality be upheld for their beliefs just like any other.

Of course if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will point it out.

 

I'm sure he'll point it out even if you're not.

 

Wrong only in your observational skills. On this forum, there are atheists who promote the total elimination of religion... banning the right of any religious person from speaking in public with regard to their belief system, because they (the atheists) might hear the name of God as it falls upon their ears.

As for the government issue. I agree, Ecclesiastical matters should be stricken from the consideration of government and those items that have been taken from the Ecclesiastical to be returned to their rightful places.

On the other side of that same coin, To remove any and all religious influence from our government(s), it would of necessity require that there be no people involved in government, because those people will carry with them, all of the training, biases, prejudices, and religious cultural influences, that will in turn influence their decisions as government employees. Mayhem would follow.

 

Are those American atheists?

 

Obviously not all of them, considering that some on this forum lay claim to be hailing from various geographical areas outside the US. I do not believe that I indicated that they were American atheists... just some atheists on this forum.