It’s a myth that ‘science disproves religion’ in any general sense. Sure, science undermines many forms of religious belief,... — Wayfarer
... but questions as to whether the Universe is animated by an underlying cause are quite out of reach for science.
Science simply disproves many religious beliefs, such as with evolution and other scientific discoveries that the people who invented world religions had no clue about, so it's not a myth. — praxis
Science simply disproves many religious beliefs — praxis
Science simply disproves many religious beliefs, such as with evolution — praxis
Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)]
Atheism has been invented by those who fear God, — Drazjan
That was written by Augustine, 430 AD De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis). One can assume he would take a dim view of today's fundamentalism. — Wayfarer
It’s a myth that ‘science disproves religion’ in any general sense. — Wayfarer
The fact is, that facts and reason support anti-religionism — god must be atheist
Do you understand what ‘positivism’ is? Or ‘scientism’ Do you know why Dawkins/Dennett are accused of ‘scientism’? — Wayfarer
god must be atheist
429
Arguing with religious fanatics, I've noticed it on several philosophical websites, is like drinking a strong poison and not dying from it.
The best is to leave them alone. If you don't, you may blow up in anger or in frustration by seeing them claim so many fallacious, improper, stupid, and ignorant facts and arguments, and then sticking by them despite overwhelming evidence, both a priori and empirical.
Religions are no longer opiates that sedate... they have turned noxious. The shelf-life has expired a long time ago, and the followers of them still try to force them dow our throats.
2 days ago Options
Wayfarer
7.9k
↪god must be atheist This often also applies to anti-religious fanatics.
2 days ago — god must be atheist
This often also applies to anti-religious fanatics.
— Wayfarer
I'd say it applies to even to moderates of both camps.
a day ago — Coben
Wayfarer and Coben, you just proved my point.
— god must be atheist
Please show how I proved your point.
The fact is, that facts and reason support anti-religionism. You can't say "this applies to anti-religious as well."
— god must be atheist
You seem to be confusing the merits of a position with the behavior of the adherents. I was writing about the latter. Nothing I said is countered by what you say here.
You are right that we, the anti-religious are toxic for you, make you angry and frustrated,
— god must be atheist
I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me nor that they make me angry and frustrated.
I agree with you, however, that the debates should stop. They are fruitless, they are vengeful, and they create a level of unnecessary frustration.
— god must be atheist
I didn't say the debates should stop.
Please don't include me in lists, if you are going to assign positions to me. — Coben
OK, seems a stretch to me to assume I meant everything and not that last portion, but fine, I get how you took it now. In any case I saw those quaities of debating style in both groups and extended this to include moderates of both sides. I was not referring to the debates being useless. Now, one could wonder if I also agreed with your conclusion that the debates are useless. IOW one ought to be able to see the difference between what is potentially implicit in my agreement andYes, you did say it, when you expressed your agreement with Wayfarer, who said my statements of the religious also apply to anti-religious fanatics. Wayfarer did not specify which part of my script applies, so the infernece is valid,that all my text applies. Therefore by agreeing with Wayfarer you agreed that the debates should stop. — god must be atheist
Janus, you speak truly like one who is devoted to a faith, and facts, arguments, will never daunt you. This diatribe you wrote only proves your ignorance borne out of blind faith and borne out of a conviction to never accept an otherwise valid argument if it speaks against your religion.
Your devotion to faith on the expense of rejecting known facts and valid teories is well described in your little note there.
When you say "they can provide no good argument" you admit that the huge amount of good arguments already extant, you simply, by necessity of convenience, ignore. — god must be atheist
To call these tales scientific metaphors or moral- or religious metaphors is one the vile tricks the religious employ to defend their indefendible faiths.
OK. I didn't recognize the phrase 'toxic to me' I can see now it's a reasonable paraphrase of what you originally wrote. Next time a direct quote instead of a synonym would be better. I intended to agree with the last part of you post that I thought he was referring to. I can see how you applied it to the whole post."I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me" yes, you did say it by agreeing with Wayfarer, who stated this as a counter-claim to mine. I you read the texts carefully, you will see. — god must be atheist
Socrates did not fear gods. He just realized the god-concept is an unnecessary concept.
Most atheists I know don't fear god. If you believe something does not exist, then it's impossible to fear it. That is self-evident.
You seem to imply that atheism is born, or created, by a fear of god. That may be partly true, in some instances, but in most instances of atheism, people are raised without a god-belief and they simply follow the crowd, much like religious follow the crowd.
There is a slim stratum of atheists, who are the most vocal, and their atheism is stemmed from their realizing that religions are self-contradictory, and although they would otherwise accept it, they can't abide by a system that is ruled by logical self-contradictory tenets.
For an overwhelming majority of Europeans life now is understandable and science answers more and more questions now, which could only be answered by religious faith before. The need for religion is fading fast in western type democracies in the Europe.
And there are a lot of needs of humans and societies, that can be satisfied, while no prayer or other appeals to gods are needed-- so mankind can and does cast those practices away, along with the belief in the supernatural.
I don't think you are right in saying that atheists simply fear god and therefore they deny its existence. Many people do use denial as a defence mechanism against anxiety, but the atheists mostly don't, they instead chose a no-god world view because they can and because it is conducive to their lives. In fact, if anything, then it is the LACK of fear of god that enables the atheist to cast away or stay away from a belief in god. — god must be atheist
For an overwhelming majority of Europeans life now is understandable and science answers more and more questions now, which could only be answered by religious faith before. The need for religion is fading fast in western type democracies in the Europe. — god must be atheist
How, then, is an Intelligent Designer going to be able to foresee all eventualities and kick off a fine-tuned universe when we don't even have the math to solve the three body problem — PoeticUniverse
Anthropic — Wayfarer
... assuming that all Christians are fundamentalist... — Wayfarer
Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.
In the case of the creation account in Genesis, about the only people who believe it is literally true are called young-earth creationists. They believe that the earth was miraculously created a few thousand years ago and that the science of radio-carbon dating and everything of the kind is wrong.
Very few people believe that, — Wayfarer
While the number of people who believe in biblical inerrancy is slowly diminishing, that number is still quite large - and these people have significant influence on American (and global) politics. — EricH
"I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me" yes, you did say it by agreeing with Wayfarer, who stated this as a counter-claim to mine. I you read the texts carefully, you will see.
— god must be atheist
OK. I didn't recognize the phrase 'toxic to me' I can see now it's a reasonable paraphrase of what you originally wrote. Next time a direct quote instead of a synonym would be better. I intended to agree with the last part of you post that I thought he was referring to. I can see how you applied it to the whole post.
I hope that's clear to you now. — Coben
I didn’t say you were. — AJJ
So implicitly your answer is “no”. — AJJ
It’s what follows from you implicitly answering ‘no’ to my previous question. — AJJ
and also the respective methods of arriving at belief are opposed and incompatible for any given belief.
— S
What is the scientific method for arriving at the belief in a transcendent God, and why is it incompatible with the Kalam Cosmological Argument’s method, say? — AJJ
I appreciate your effort.
— god must be atheist
That’s what she said. — Noah Te Stroete
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.