'True lies of new Atheism'.

Science is in its essence nothing but a tool to validate experiences of the world. As such it has 'always' existed. We couldn't have survived without such methods of validation. Metaphorically speaking, everyone would simply eat the same poisonous plant. Modern science merely consists of putting this validation into a system of strict and principal methodology. But the application is basically the same.

Religion, magic, spirituality etc. have also 'always' existed. There is no sequence of development between this and science or science and this, there are only different applications. Science is about the world around us, while spirituality is about us in the world.

 

Yeah, I get blasted frequently for not believing in the OT in a literal sense, although I do love to read it. The KJV and the Rubaiyat are some of my favorite prose.

 

Heh heh. Awesome.

 

And the tendancy of atheists to make stuff up continues.

1. : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

Science is about explaining how things work. It is not about validating your experiences or metaphores.

It is about what is, not what YOU see.

For some reason, loads of religious people understand this and understand that science BENEFITS religion, it doesn't cancel it out.

But then both religion and science are not you. Perhaps why atheists have such a hard time with both.

 

Ye Elde Englisc had an undeniable flair for poetic expression.

 

True

False

 

Oh, people saw the world as flat. Science disagreed.

People saw the world as the center of teh universe. Sceince disagreed (religion told us the same thing - you know, others not us).

People though the planets were formed in one method, and sceince disagreed.

When you introduce yourself into science, its called subjectivity BTW, you corrupt science.

Science is not about you at all.

 

Atheism is a passionate disbelief in the unknown. Theism isn't proven fact, so any discussion on it is speculatory.

Can an opinion be a lie? No.

 

Yes, an opinion can be a lie.

It can be your opinion that black people are inferior to white people - when you state that, its still a lie.

God is knowable, but not when you deny him through pithy statements rather than the actual study that atheists claim - and then go and make silly statements like opinions cannot be lies ...

 

I'm an atheist and I believe in lots of stuff that is not known.

Atheism is an absence of belief in particular unknowns, or, to be technically correct, in particular claims about something that cannot be empirically known.

Whether or not there is passion I don't think has anything to do with absence of belief. It may have something to do with presence of said beliefs, though. And maybe proportional, even, with how massively they are present.

 

atheism is absence of belief in God.

there are all kinds of atheists.

no matter how hard you try, they won't all fit neatly into your little box.

 

so ... just checking ... are you a christian?

if so - do you believe that Jesus died on the cross so that you could be rude, nasty and insulting to people who don't share your views?

 

basically a truely honest person does not have to lie to have faith in reality.

a liar will create the belief; the next mind often learns the lie (from a beast/a liar)

the new is, honesty is clearly better than sustaining a lie to be acceepted. No leader, preacher or even you can force a person to be a liar. That is what freedom is all about. many of the old days, did not have that right (of freedom; the bonds of beliefs)

on the contrary, without being a 'witness' the good cannot lie.

Honor of (any) god, is to not false witness, first.

 

I don't know about that .. I don't have a "passionate belief in the unknown" at all.

I am passionate about a lot of things, but that isn't one of them. I do object to people trying to fit me into some category that doesn't fit - and that can include their inaccurate definitions of what an atheist is.

I also get sick and tired of people trying to present myths as fact, They can have their myths (and in calling them myths I am not denigrating the belief - many myths have significant value) - but confusing myth with reality is childish.

and ... I get sick of people who tell me those who believe in God (any god) are better than me. they aren't. or if they are - they need to prove it.

 

No one is saying ALL atheists fit this description, but do you have any idea how many times I have seen atheists throw that exact arguement at me?

You do realize that modern atheism has taken upon itself to adopt circular logic, to essentially say, "You religious people are stupid!" Which is interesting given your concern for manners and civility. To be blunt, this behavior from atheists is not specific to this forum. We find that nonsense everywhere.

And that is the issue. When atheists, and there are a LOT of them, lecture us about how stupid we are, throw grotesque caricatures of magic spaghetti and repeatedly claim the mantel of both superior intellect and education, one would think those claiming such a manner, in such a haughty manner, would have their stuff locked down as irreproachable. It isn't.

When we ask for clarification, what we get is akin to tap dancing. Evidence? Who needs evidence when religious people have the burden of proof? And when we push through that illogical claim, and it becomes clear that claiming there is no God requires supprt, then we get magic grammar. At that point, we get the absurd notion that there is just a lack of belief, that nothing at all is being claimed (even though it a position that is supposed rock solid enough to insult people from its perfection). And we end with a position that is not a position and that does not have or require evidence.

It is then, almost immediately, now perfectly evidenced, the basis for again attacking other faiths. Who once again wonder why they are being attacked from people who cannot evidence their own positions while demanding evidence from others. But you see, they have no burden of proof ... etc.

It is amazing how many atheists, using the exact tricks of 'strong' atheism, when pressed are actually 'agnostic' atheists.

Such antics are not about being right in the sense of seeking truth. Such antics are the desire to simply lecture and belittle others, about being 'right' in a personal sense to maintain the illusion of superiority.

And modern atheism is paying a price for such antics:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

You may not like it Cas, but the more atheists act like this, the lower they slide on that scale and the more hostility they generate toward themselves. And when the backlash that comes from this behavior is generated, it won;t be the skin flints who abuse others in the name of atheism - it'll be the real atheists who refused to reign in this behavior who will bear the brunt.

 

I'm agnostic.

And I call it like I see it.

 

FIRST BEFORE I REPLY, LET ME SAY I AM HAPPY TO SEE SOME NON SECULARS IN HERE, THE WORLD NEEDS MORE SPIRITUAL WARRIORS, NOT SAYING EVERYONE THAT IS SECULAR IS A WARRIOR, BUT IF THE VIRTUAL COMBAT BOOT FITS...

I do care. Well ...SOMEWHAT. Why? Because as a Christian I have a responsibility to at least try to explain my relationship with God to everyone in the world. But as per scripture it should be done with kindness and gentleness. I got the first part down pat. It’s that kind and gentle part that I sometimes have problems following. If I hear falsehoods or lies about my religion I should defend it according to scripture. As far as an atheist or non believer trying to hurt my feelings etc. Go for it, this ain't my first rodeo.

If he were an athiest hindu etc I would temp them with a beer or beers maybe some sacerement and then engauge him in conversation of our mutual beleifs, or paradigm ie world views. We both might learn something and I could accomplish my responsibilites. The differences between having a face to face meeting and talking anyosmloy over the web is one of respect. I would ask the Hundi to leave and assist him if need be if the discussion turns disredpectful. I allow everyone even on these fourms two verbal slaps ie two insults due to my christanity. After that the gloves come off.

With all due respect, I think you have a few errors in that paragraph.

Its worse that that! Some of the atheists insist that we are wrong and then they say ‘I am right but don’t have a burdan of proof nor do I have to explain or defend atheism why I believe as I do! Why in the world wouldn’t someone want to defend their beliefs? Why doesn’t a murder suspect want to take the stand? Both answers and reasons
are structurally identical. They are dishonest and covering up a lie, even if they are in full blown denial they are blinded by it IMO.

 

You have a greater responsibility not to urinate in the swimming pool. Atheism is a mild dose of chlorine.

 

Good luck with your theocracy.

Ahh, but there's a mismatch in this; while you can never hurt my feelings with your faith, you get your feelings hurt by the mere fact that I don't share your faith.

In other words, it seems your responsibility is to get your feelings hurt.

 

atheist dont actually sustain beliefs in a god like a wingnut does, so they have no beliefs to defend like a wingnut does.

ie....most atheist are simply people who dont believe what the wingnuts do and the primary reason they will not side with the wingnuts is because they choose not to lie to themselves.

ie.... the religious wingnut is the murderer and will lie out the gazoo to sustain their opinion.

It is why i came to the perfect description:

The best way to observe an anti-christ can be often found in observing christians.

the reason is to be considered a christian, they must lie to themselves (the 'creed')

 

You want evidence of atheism? You realize it is impossible to definitively prove something does not exist? We would have to be able to inspect every inch of the universe at the same time to prove there is no god (in our universe at least), and that is of course impossible.

That is why the burden of proof lies on believers, they are the ones who claim that something exists even though it leaves no trace of existence and any shred of proof ever.

 

Yes, the idea that we are part of a simulation is a nice conjecture, but there is no evidence for that, so I don't believe it just like I don't believe in YHWH, Zeus, fairies, etc.

 

There yo ugo again, thinking I'm saying things I'm not saying at all.

Science is AT BEST about SEEKING what is. That does not mean it actually succeeds. I would even argue that it is irrelevant whether science actually discerns what really is or not.

The foundation of modern science is scepticism, withholding final judgment as a philosophical principle. Without this principle, science can become just as bad as religion in its unwillingness to change. Hence there is no real science without maintenance of doubt. This is why I say you are wrong when you say that science is about what is. It's not. Better is to say it is a machine whose function is to minimize wrongness...for it is much easier to rule out certain hypotheses based on data than to prove that you have found the one and only correct one.

What you were talking about is objectivity vs subjectivity. At best objectivity can mean seeing things as they really are. I doubt there is or even could be much true objectivity in this sense. As America's current poet laureate once wrote, "We can have little knowledge." A better conception of objectivity, then, is that if a bunch of people look at the same thing and describe it as honestly as they can, all their descriptions will be the same.

Get it now? I am not saying science is subjective. But I am disputing that it is objective in any absolute sense, a sense I consider entirley fanciful. The function of science is to minimize subjectivity.

 

Of course I don't believe it, but at the same time I have no reason to rule it out. Besides, this misses the point I was trying to make, which can be elucidated by asking this question:

Is it possible for a human to become God? If not, then there is a fundamental, unsurpassable, qualitative difference between being a human and being God. And if this is true, it is of no help to the theist because we can then define God by those things that are forever beyond the reach of a human. And this is why, as I said, the ability to "create" can not be considered an attribute of God, for God can (and indeed must) be defined by those things that are inherently and permanently beyond human capacity.

On the other hand, if the answer to my original question is yes, the concept of God is destroyed. For if we can become God, then we can define him as just another human in all important ways and thus not inherently worthy of any greater attention than anyone else.

What Rev failed to understand is that his "creation argument", as I'll call it, in fact does only 1 of 2 things: it avoids the question of the existence of God, or it destroys him outright.

 

You may not like it Neutral, but the more christians who display narrow minded bigotry when referring to atheists, the more atheists will believe that all christians are narrow minded bigots as well.