Why do atheists think that religious people are delusional?

considering the attacks Atheists get and used to get from Christians and Muslims, this thread is sadly ironic.

scratch that, I believe ISIS and the Taliban sees Atheism as a crime punishable by death.

so maybe, Atheists should try not to mimic those who attack them.

Im just sayin'.

 

See your own text above which I have emphasized. You admit that it "is not proof of anything"... then you attempt to justify (rationalize - make excuses) by referring to a term like "best". "best" is very ambiguous.

 

I'm not "admitting" or "rationalizing" or "making excuses" at all. I'm stating a characteristic of modern science and I'm defending that position when you or others disagree. Too many people don't know how science works.

When we hear from science that there is 80% confidence that the the temperature increase over the next 50 years will be between x and y degrees, our response can't be, "I'm wanting until you prove that."

Newt Gingrich points out that we should be watching for cases where the odds of an event times the cost of that event goes high. In those cases, public policy needs to be considered.

FEMA does that, for example. From science of their own and others, they have an idea of the likelihood of major disasters and the cost of those disasters - what's needed, etc. The result is that they create infrastructure, store goods, identify sources, work with states to coordinate response to future events, figure out how much is likely to have to be done on an emergency basis, etc. - investing in solutions based on the odds of a disaster times our understanding of the costs of those disasters - scaling their investment in planning and material to the magnitude of the likely need for their services.

THAT is a good model for incorporating science in public policy - involving the likelihood of disasters times the cost of the services that FEMA provides for such events.

"Let's wait for proof," is a bad model.

 

And there are others that do, and that seems to irritate those who like to say... you just don't understand how science works. I have already provided a link to a page regarding how science works and how people of the lower or even lowest caste use the scientific method every day in their activities and problem solving.

Why can't it be our response, when logically all that we can do is wait until it is proven. Of course we won't be waiting for the scientists to prove such a thing, but we will have to wait for nature to prove it. The government don't have complete control over the weather just yet.

Political viewpoints also lead to conditions such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You are probably referencing the science of 'social control'. I read in the Florida Statutes, where FEMA has the authority to confiscate any and all property belonging to private persons to meet the needs of the State in cases of Emergency where FEMA is called in. FEMA, IMHO is nothing more than a method of escalating an absolute Police State.

As pointed out in my previous paragraph above, FEMA does not need to add anything to the "cost of their services"... they are paid sufficiently considering that they can confiscate private property... including food, clothing, housing, etc.

That all depends on what the agenda is.

 

so now its ok to attack Theists?

 

More unsubstantiated opinions you can't support. modern human secularist
care for all humans? When are you going to start acting as you believe? All
you do is spew hate, and lots of it.

Here's a science question, you've claimed to be be science based. Tell us
how the so-called big bang happened. How did lifeless compounds suddenly
become life (abiogenesis).

We'll await your scientific answer. Please don't use the usual cop out phrase
that science doesn't have all the answers.

Please put up or shut up. Thank you.

 

All Atheists need to do is DISPROVE those positive claims with which we can legitimately show are false using the preponderance of scientific evidence we can't disprove a simple claim ,[insert deity or pantheon of them] exists and I believe that in my heart, but if you then make a claim God of the Torah exists and the Exodus account is absolutely true as written than evidence and the tools of science can debunk very easily there's no evidence. No stories of a massive plague of locusts sweeping Egypt and to the West eating people to death, no laying low of the greatest nation in the known world in that area, no moving of 2 million Hebrew slaves (men plus a wife and two children on the average) etc. We can do this for any faith with claims some are more plausible Islam can at least prove the Battle of Medina did happen as states well enough to lean to its truth. Usually we don't bother fighting simple claims King David being the Jewish King there is evidence for and a talking donkey is silly but is a claim not refutable.

There is another area of battle using the Bible as a moral text, not literal, but of values you claim are good and from a just divine source then we look at it not with science but as what you claim as this god inserting what traits you claim it has and compare it to the holy text and if its in line its fine its a book of fables and morals leading if followed to good aims over evil ones and if not its faulty and shouldn't be used as such. This can be the Torah, Bible, Koran etc. Again using the Torah just that way it also fails a test in that a good and just god at the least wouldn't promote as a morality slavery, death penalties over petty things like sexual acts, lying (one not the Sodom and Gomorrah story where if so many innocent men were in the cities god would spare it, they must have under their culture have male slaves therefore victims and therefore innocent so god lied he wiped out innocent men and women and babies) and rape (forced marriage by taking of the unwilling maiden and forcing her to be your husband, no choice equals rape). And I do use modern standards if your god is just and all then its morality should be greater than what we use now and shown in the text.

So yes either way I can claim your delusional no rational mature human being with a conscience could support religion in most cases on either factual grounds on claims made or as moral philosophy basing the religion based on your texts with very few exceptions.

And as a personal note religious people creep me out praying to invisible sky beings and believing in talking animals and the crazy rituals and brainwashing children into this I find creepy and often disturbingly harmful to children if not the larger society but that's a personal opinion.

 

Reducing human impact on warming is one direction. For that, you are right that we don't have complete control, but we are hearing from science that we can make an important difference.

Plus, there are acts we can take to be better prepared, to become more resilient. We can be smarter about water usage and more cognizant of the demands on water of plans for growth. We can view our aquifers as not being endless supplies, based on information concerning how a warming planet is likely to change regional weather patterns here. We can be better aware of national security problems stemming from regions where agriculture is likely to fail. For example, a significant reason for the problem in Syria today is that their years long drought drove people into the cities in numbers too large for the Assad government to handle - leading to a stupendously expensive national security problem. China is diverting a river, reducing water supplies to South Asia. That could be justification for war. India has been extending its wall against Bangladesh, where agricultural problems leave the populace starving. The warming Arctic has led Russia to claim vast new expanses in the Arctic as its own, applying to the UN in what is likely to be a successful extension of that nation.

These events are expensive, including expensive to us. When science points to more of this happening in specific places, we need to know about, as there are actions we need to take.

Perhaps more importantly, I wasn't trying to make this thread about climate change. My posts have been about how to incorporate science in our public policy decisions. Climate, FEMA, black crows, engines that won't start - these are just examples you and I raised to be more concrete in the discussion.

FEMA is addressing the problem of finding an appropriate level of effort toward preparedness given that we have no proof of future events. This is the problem we've been talking about. Science being key, but not having proof.

You and I can both complain about various parts of that response, but that is a different topic. Science will be less of a contributor on the issues of how costs should be divided, how much should be done for those in a disaster, what kind of risk we're willing to take, etc.

 

This is just a basic misunderstanding.

Religion has pat answers. If something looks amazing, then "God did it". So, there is absolutely nothing that a theist doesn't know!!

Science doesn't work that way. Science fully recognizes that there are numerous questions that are so far unanswered. In fact, just about everything science figures out leads to even more unanswered questions.


Some people think that makes scientists stupid. On the other hand, I can not even slightly understand acceptance of the meaningless answers that theists propose with such empty monotony.


So, the fact that there isn't an accepted theory of the cause of the big bang (or what came before) comes from science not knowing. And, it's pretty understandable given that we're inside the big bang, not an outside observer, and it happened nearly 14 billion years ago.

It's somewhat similar for abiogenesis. There are some ideas with this one, though.

One aspect that people seem to forget is that there are about 70 billion trillion stars in our observable universe - that is a 7 with 22 zeros after it. Some percent of those stars have planets where life somewhat similar to ours could form. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Thirteen billion years times the planets around 70 billion trillion stars is one HECK of a lot of "lab time" in which to cough up a life form.

 

You really are missing some points or perhaps you are making presumptions that cannot be supported but can also be as easily debunked or refuted. As an example. I have debunked the use of the scientific method by showing that the use of presumptions were necessary to justify the use of the scientific method. As yet, no-one has been able to show PROOF that I am wrong in that debunking session. As for 'refuting'....Science and all of its proponents have not proven anything with regard to the 'Bible'. Remember, science cannot prove anything but can only disprove something (thesis).

The use of man-made logic also cannot be used to refute the Theologic. The created (man) is in no superior position to judge the Creator. The use of the 'Bible' as a moral point of reference, presupposes the existence of God, therefore under that presupposition of the existence of God, man becomes inferior to God and cannot judge God. So, if you are wanting or desiring to judge God, then you must make those judgments without reference to something that presupposes the existence of God. In other words, show PROOF that there is no God and then your precedent setting document, argument, evidence, would require all people to judge God from a man-made set of standards. PROOF being "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Good luck with that one.

Oh,,, so you admit that there are "exceptions". Well, with your admission of there being exceptions, then the opening portion of your statement in the paragraph above is faulty. Of course, your grammar in the writing immediately above is appearing to be composed of a run on sentence where you have seemingly enjoined two separate thoughts within one sentence.

Deal with it. You will find yourself being creeped out for the remainder of your life.... and probably by some members of your family and your close friends and neighbors.

 

Well, as I see it, those are all problems relating to secular government and the activities that such government promotes. Change the form of government or of those controlling the government and you might find a solution. It has according to what you have stated above, nothing to do with 'religion'. Perhaps Philosophy but not religion.

That would then indicate that you posted this in the wrong section of the forum.

Then it would appear that science is failing in its effort or perhaps in its goal. Proof as you have seen me repeat is "evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." I have seen others on this forum allege that one of the goals of science is to seek out that which is or represents "truth".

With science (according to you) being less of a contributor on those things you mention above, then who (what group of people) will be the primary contributor of those things? My guess is that you will suggest the government, the powers that be, FEMA, Congress, etc.... which again points toward a secular political problem.... not necessarily a 'religious' problem.

 

most Atheists don't have such insulting and offensive views of Religious poeple.

 

Yes. Religion has no answers to issues such as natural disasters, dead batteries, and what not.

America was designed such that decisions are made by a political process involving the people and their representatives.

We don't have a dictatorship. We don't have an Christian version of an Ayatollah.

America is predicated on elected representatives combining information (science) and the needs of the people to form policy.

One thing we need to minimize today is religion blocking the flow of information from science.


If you want to hold a revolution, you better have more than you've come with so far.

 

Then kill all the people, because if you don't there will remain at least one who will be influenced by his/her religious or anti-religious (which is a form of religion in itself) upbringing and such influence might lessen the amount of information or funds available to that one remaining person to play with.

 

That was already addressed. Yes, science strives to understand how our universe works.

But, you picked a definition of "proof" that you then misapply. Scientific process has NOTHING to do with convincing the general public. You want to judge science on whether Americans believe results from science. But, that is a political objective of those who believe science has something to contribute to public policy.

I'm guessing that you still see science and religion as being in competition - that the "two sides" are trying to "prove" they are right. That is a mistake. As the Pope pointed out, science and religion are different realms. You can choose both - not just one or the other. Seeing them in opposition or competition makes no sense.

 

It's just a misunderstanding. Science has pat answers. If something looks
amazing then, "science doesn't have all the answers?

It's a two way street. By the rest of your post was a non-answer.

Would you, or anyone else, PLEASE provide a scientific reason for
abiogenesis without using that cop out phrase, "science doesn't have
all the answers. How about the so-called big bang theory? How did
nothing become something?

 

There isn't any justification for demanding answers to stuff we clearly do not know.

There are no "pat answers" in science. There is no mechanism that could possibly create something like that.

It is NOT a two way street. The methods of science are VERY different from the methods of religion. Expecting ANY kind of equivalence is ridiculous. The rules for each simply don't allow for that.

Your demand for a "reason" is something science can never supply if what you mean by "reason" is some form of intelligence or overarching logic of purpose. Science has detected no such intelligence, so it isn't part of any scientific result.

Scientists have measured particles materializing and dematerializing. Of course, it's not on the scale of the big bang and may or may not have anything to do with what happened 13.8 billion years ago. As I pointed out, it's hard for us to see that far back in time, especially because we are inside the big bang - not an outside observer. Wherever we look, we see stuff from the big bang. Testing hypotheses on what came before is beyond human capability so far as I know.

 

Based on the growth and progress of science, I'm thinking we'll know what happened before the Big Bang w/in 200 years. The Bible can tell us about 6000 years back, and science about 13 billion years back (but no, not prior to that, yet), so science can tell us our history, correctly, over 2 MILLION times (6000 times 2 million is under 13 billion years) more than the Bible can. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Never give in to evil.
Mohammad said to "kill those who leave their Islamic religion", and of course Muslims won't say that he was immoral to say that, so all Muslims are empowering ISIS/AQ/Taliban/Boko/AlShabab/Hamas, etc.

 

Then why do you and others attempt to use science in an apparent attempt to convince the readers of this forum (presumably most being members of the "public") that their religious beliefs are in error at least according to scientific standards? Why would you want to use science to be used against the other public known as the State and Federal officials... You do realize that the buildings they occupy are known as public facilities and that they have the right to restrict entry by other members of that lesser group also known as the public (general public). Public policy is not written by the general 'public' but rather by government agents.

As for the definition I used: It is the primary definition found at www.tfd.com/proof . If you would prefer one of the other definitions at that location, I will also show you how those other definitions are at the end of the day, dependent upon that primary definition.

That is like saying the Boston Bruins are in competition with the Chicago Bears while participating in a tennis match.

No kidding. Did the Pope really say that? Wow! I am impressed..... NOT. You might want to stop all that guessing... or at least figure out why you have to do so much guessing.

 

You say correctly that scientists don't know. Why trust them? Seriously.

In reality God didn't snap his fingers and walk away. He spoke it into existence and
never left.

Faith is faith. You can try to discount it as a spiritual thing but it's not.

Whether or not the so-called requirement of knowledge is mind boggling is irrelevent.
I'm assuming you mean laymans terms. The fact is this, if it can't be explained
scientifically then something else must have happened.

Better, those who you believe are smarter than you.

Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest astrophysicist of the past century was shaken at the
fact that abiogenesis could have possibly occurred. There is no rational amount of reason
as to how lifeless molecules some how created life. It's obvious that something else
happened.

This is the usual cop out answer. I don't count it as credible.

 

Au contraire, there is plenty of justification. If you want to believe science then you
better have 'justification' in doing so.

The typical cop out. How blase. At any rate, there is a mechanism that 'did and
quite possibly' create life from lifeless molecules. You're not accepting the reality
of that statement.

Wrong again. It IS a two way street. The methods of science are very similar to the
methods of religion. The same rules apply.

Another cop out answer. Science loses yet another time.

Yet it's inundated with it on a daily basis. Funny how that works.

How did the so-called big bang occur? How did nothing become something.

 

Cop out. C'mon you really believe this? Where is the evidence? Any at all.
Put up something or shut up. You didn't answer the question. How did life occur from
lifeless molecules? How did the so-called big bang happen? Here's another good
one for you, how did chaos (the so-called big bang) create order. That completely
contradicts thermal dynamics, i.e. order cannot come from chaos.

Do you have yet another non answer.

Wishful thinking. You're trusting someone you don't know for evidence? How do
you know they didn't fix the numbers? That's what they do with climate change
and evolution.

Good grief.