“Why are atheists so interested in God?”

[Audie]

often times the nonbeliever points his finger at me and claims.....I am afraid of dying
and my belief is nothing more than a comfort crutch

not so

and I suspect such postings are evidence of fear on the part of the nonbeliever
that Something Greater is waiting for the last breath
and will be standing over them as the spirit they have become....stands from the dead carcass

they fear what they do not know

That we all betimes fear the unknown is news of the well known.

Your suspicions are news of your comprehension-of- others
difficulties.

 

[74x12]

One ignorant or foolish thing I’ve seen people saying about atheists is some variation of “If atheists really don’t believe in God, then why are they so interested in Him?” This is sometimes followed by saying or insinuating that they must secretly really believe in God, or have some need or desire to.

Maybe what they’re so interested in is not God himself, but the popularity of believing in some God-with-a-capital-G or other? Maybe the reason they’re so interested in that is because of the popularity of using some God-with-a-capital-G as an excuse for cruelty, vandalism, violence and oppression?

ETA: Including vandalizing forums, and intrusive, invasive and oppressive behavior in forums.

I don't exactly agree with you. That may be true for some atheists. But you can't speak for all of them.

Atheists are human and many are looking for answers like anyone else. The idea of a God is fascinating. Interesting. Whether you believe in it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Umm....if adults believe in what you would classify as fairy tales, you think they are smart?

Not necessarily. Many are only deluded, and that is the correct term. Who knows why, there could be multiple causes. Often fear is at the base of it. For example if a person belongs to a cult that will kick you out if you do not for the line, then that person may deny reality, even though most Christian churches do not have a problem with science. They do not want to lose the group that they belong to.

 

[Deeje]

Not really - where is the bit where believers are accused of being "morons", where is the bit where the poster trumpets his education and claims to "know everything that science teaches"?

You've never listened to Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne? They have degrees in condescension. These are the mentors for the ones who come to these forums and claim their victims. The students are only reflecting their teachers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've never listened to Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne? They have degrees in condescension. These are the mentors for the ones who come to these forums and claim their victims. The students are only reflecting their teachers.

Dawkins tends to be condescending only to those that went out of their way to earn that condescension. It is hypocritical to complain about that. Jerry Coyne I am unfamiliar with.

 

[Milton Platt]

One ignorant or foolish thing I’ve seen people saying about atheists is some variation of “If atheists really don’t believe in God, then why are they so interested in Him?” This is sometimes followed by saying or insinuating that they must secretly really believe in God, or have some need or desire to.

Maybe what they’re so interested in is not God himself, but the popularity of believing in some God-with-a-capital-G or other? Maybe the reason they’re so interested in that is because of the popularity of using some God-with-a-capital-G as an excuse for cruelty, vandalism, violence and oppression?

ETA: Including vandalizing forums, and intrusive, invasive and oppressive behavior in forums.

Seems an odd question. Everyone starts out knowing nothing at all about any god. I mean babies aren't born pre-loaded with the Bible.If nobody every took interest in any of the religions, they would have all died out long ago.

 

[Deeje]

Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy in your statement here? And what about me? Where would you put me on the "condescension scale"? Do you suppose I have a science degree or not?

Where did I imply that this was personal? It was a general statement. In my experience...and I have been on RF a long time and had many such conversations...those with science degrees are the one who usually like to throw their credentials around to make believers in ID appear to be the poor uneducated ones. If we only knew what science teaches, we too would fall at their feet......sorry, but I like to read and evaluate things before I accept them or reject them. Isn't that what intelligent people do?

 

[Deeje]

Out of interest, do you think science does this across the board, or specifically in the area of evolutionary biology only?

My beef is not with science at all LnM....my beef is with evolutionists who use proven bits of science to conflate the truth about other bits of science that cannot possibly be proven. e.g. using adaptation as a springboard for all manner of events regarding organic evolution.

Using something that is true in a very limited sense and building a whole scenario out of it on nothing but suggestion and imagined happenings is not science IMO. The power of suggestion is used to promote all manner of unthruths to a willing public. Just get someone famous or with credentials to promote a product and the masses will flock to the stores to buy it. It might be complete garbage, but the damage is done once a person invests their faith...and parts with their money. But its the ability to keep selling a dodgy product because people believe in it that is a problem. This is what I see evolutionary science doing....the dodgy product is still being sold and most alarmingly to young impressionable children. By the time they reach University, the brainwashing is complete, no questions asked. Mission accomplished.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello. I am sure there are a variety of reasons why self-described atheists would frequent a religious forum. But clearly some of those folks (no names!) are here simply because they think they are smarter than those who believe in God, think they need to be here to set the believers straight. Pretty arrogant (and foolish, IMHO).

Atheists come in all manner of persons and have a range of reasons why they identify as atheist, so I am sure there are some of those. But you paint too broadly. Most atheist never type a single word on any of these forums. As to arrogance, I can assure you that a creationist telling every one that he somehow knows that some 200 years of carefully studied evidence is somehow wrong even though he as not spent a moment working in any of the relevant fields and in many cases seems to have only read creationist literature appears to be the very definition of arrogant.
I have no idea why you see it as foolish to question people's beliefs when those beliefs are broadcast at every chance. I do not see it foolish to require sufficient good evidence for a claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My beef is not with science at all LnM....my beef is with evolutionists who use proven bits of science to conflate the truth about other bits of science that cannot possibly be proven. e.g. using adaptation as a springboard for all manner of events regarding organic evolution.

Using something that is true in a very limited sense and building a whole scenario out of it on nothing but suggestion and imagined happenings is not science IMO. The power of suggestion is used to promote all manner of unthruths to a willing public. Just get someone famous or with credentials to promote a product and the masses will flock to the stores to buy it. It might be complete garbage, but the damage is done once a person invests their faith...and parts with their money. But its the ability to keep selling a dodgy product because people believe in it that is a problem. This is what I see evolutionary science doing....the dodgy product is still being sold and most alarmingly to young impressionable children. By the time they reach University, the brainwashing is complete, no questions asked. Mission accomplished.

Sorry Deeje, you can't have it both ways. Evolution is based upon the proper application of the scientific method. If you want to claim that they do not do so correctly the burden of proof is upon you. Or you could ask nicely and people here will gladly try to help you.

 

[SomeRandom]

You've never listened to Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne? They have degrees in condescension. These are the mentors for the ones who come to these forums and claim their victims. The students are only reflecting their teachers.

Dawkins does not suffer fools gladly. I mean he's kind of a curmudgeonly old jerk to be sure. But when he is trying to teach people science, there is a sincere earnest encouraging tone in his voice. However when he is reacting against stupidity he does have a tone of condescension. But to be fair the only towards people who have earned such treatment. Some of the dumb bricks he's debated over the years have made me question how the man has not pulled out all his hair yet.
Don't know about Jerry.
I mean maybe one could argue Hitchens was rather condescending. He was certainly less patient than Dawkins and more acerbic. But again, a lot of his opponents kind of deserved it.

 

[Deeje]

Please, Deeje, let’s be more precise. What you’re talking about is popular science, which I’ll admit is all we ever see on all sides in media stories and Internet stories. That needs to be distinguished from the kind of science that deserves its good reputation, and made the word “science” and its derivatives popular as a way of trying to intimidate and shame people.

Indeed...and why is it called "popular science" ? Because its not that deep and anyone with half a brain can swallow it with a decent bit of computer generated imagery, especially kids.

The kind of science that deserves a good reputation is the kind that does not destroy faith in the Creator. Most provable science demonstrates the amazing creative abilities God has.....I have no beef with any of that. Evolutionary science is the only one that people debate....hotly....with religious fervor almost. Its like a war with science seeing themselves on the winning side triumphant, vindicated, standing over the bloodied corpses of the believers. Whilst the believers warn of all manner of dreadful things befalling those who deny the Creator. Its like a bad movie plot actually.

I believe that this planet belongs to the one who made it and everything on it....those who don't acknowledge the Creator as the rightful sovereign over his own creation, and who want to dictate their own terms on this life, will be forced to face the "Landlord" one day and explain why they broke the terms of the tenancy agreement.....will it be an unpleasant encounter?.....I can only go by what the Bible indicates. (John 3:16)

 

[siti]

Where did I imply that this was personal? It was a general statement.

Deeje - I wasn't taking it personally, I was just wondering where you estimate I would fall in your estimation of the science education/condescension correlation. Anyway, its not that important if you feel uncomfortable answering my question.

 

[Milton Platt]

Indeed...and why is it called "popular science" ? Because its not that deep and anyone with half a brain can swallow it with a decent bit of computer generated imagery, especially kids.

The kind of science that deserves a good reputation is the kind that does not destroy faith in the Creator. Most provable science demonstrates the amazing creative abilities God has.....I have no beef with any of that. Evolutionary science is the only one that people debate....hotly....with religious fervor almost. Its like a war with science seeing themselves on the winning side triumphant, vindicated, standing over the bloodied corpses of the believers. Whilst the believers warn of all manner of dreadful things befalling those who deny the Creator. Its like a bad movie plot actually.

I believe that this planet belongs to the one who made it and everything on it....those who don't acknowledge the Creator as the rightful sovereign over his own creation, and who want to dictate their own terms on this life, will be forced to face the "Landlord" one day and explain why they broke the terms of the tenancy agreement.....will it be an unpleasant encounter?.....I can only go by what the Bible indicates. (John 3:16)

I come from a different side of the aisle than you, but I like your tone.

 

[siti]

The kind of science that deserves a good reputation is the kind that does not destroy faith in the Creator.

You see the problem with this is that it presupposes the conclusion an therefore cannot be science. "Faith in the Creator" is irrelevant to science - if there is a supernatural creator, there will not be any scientific way to prove it because science is naturalistic - it does not leave any room for supernatural answers. Science says nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of a deity. But it says a lot about the natural process of biological evolution. Where faith and science collide is where faith insists God did it when there is a perfectly plausible naturalistic explanation which has abundant evidential support. If someone does not believe that there is evidence for evolution, then that person's education is certainly lacking - but that doesn't make them a fool - its what they choose to do about it that will determine that.

 

[Deeje]

Dawkins does not suffer fools gladly. I mean he's kind of a curmudgeonly old jerk to be sure.

Some of his Youtube encounters take arrogance to a whole new level.

But when he is trying to teach people science, there is a sincere earnest encouraging tone in his voice. However when he is reacting against stupidity he does have a tone of condescension. But to be fair the only towards people who have earned such treatment. Some of the dumb bricks he's debated over the years have made me question how the man has not pulled out all his hair yet.

Why is there a need to tear his hair out in the first place? Does he see it as his primary task to convince the world that he is right and that all who believe the Bible must be intellectual midgets? Why can't he allow people the privilege of choice....does he take the rejection of his ideas personally? Will he not rest until he has all believers come around to his way of thinking as if it must be the only valid one?

Don't know about Jerry.

You might like Jerry...his condescension is laced with humor, designed to take ridicule to a whole new level. Each of these men are gifted in their own way...not the right way....but that is just my opinion.

I mean maybe one could argue Hitchens was rather condescending. He was certainly less patient than Dawkins and more acerbic. But again, a lot of his opponents kind of deserved it.

I find one similarity with all of these men....an air of complete superiority when it comes to the "scientific explanation" as enough proof for everything they hold to be true. But in my own investigations into evolutionary explanations, all I found was countless suggestions, backed up by inference and extrapolated by wishful thinking. It was all of course, presented as fact, but the truth is there were no facts....as the scientists among us here on RF keep telling me. Science doesn't deal in facts....how odd.


And since I find YEC equally galling in this endless debate, I don't subscribe to either of these arguments. There is middle ground that takes the best of proven science and the best of the Bible to create a scenario that for us is very balanced. You don't need to dismiss one to accept the other. Most people have no idea such a balanced approach is even possible, and it doesn't even require one to believe that God created evolution. ...because he didn't....he created in every creature the ability to adapt to a change in environment. Adaptation is small changes within a single species which can produce variety within that taxonomic family but it does not ever result in new creatures.

 

[siti]

Why is there a need to tear his hair out in the first place? Does he see it as his primary task to convince the world that he is right...does he take the rejection of his ideas personally? Will he not rest until he has all believers come around to his way of thinking as if it must be the only valid one?

More projection Deeje?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My beef is not with science at all LnM....my beef is with evolutionists who use proven bits of science to conflate the truth about other bits of science that cannot possibly be proven. e.g. using adaptation as a springboard for all manner of events regarding organic evolution.

Using something that is true in a very limited sense and building a whole scenario out of it on nothing but suggestion and imagined happenings is not science IMO. The power of suggestion is used to promote all manner of unthruths to a willing public. Just get someone famous or with credentials to promote a product and the masses will flock to the stores to buy it. It might be complete garbage, but the damage is done once a person invests their faith...and parts with their money. But its the ability to keep selling a dodgy product because people believe in it that is a problem. This is what I see evolutionary science doing....the dodgy product is still being sold and most alarmingly to young impressionable children. By the time they reach University, the brainwashing is complete, no questions asked. Mission accomplished.

So...evolutionary biology only, then?

 

[Deeje]

Deeje - I wasn't taking it personally, I was just wondering where you estimate I would fall in your estimation of the science education/condescension correlation. Anyway, its not that important if you feel uncomfortable answering my question.

I have found you to be defensive and even sarcastic on occasion, but then so am I if I let my guard down. My interest in you is not about your science degree or lack of it....you know it is about something way more important.

You appear to me to be one who was looking for an out all those years ago and you found one. I think if you had wanted to stay, you would have found reasons to do that too.
I find them all the time.....way more reasons to stay than to ever deny my Creator, who proves himself to me every day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of his Youtube encounters take arrogance to a whole new level.

Did you not pay any attention to the people that he was dealing with? He was dealing with amazingly ignorant and arrogant people. That earns condescension. Perhaps you should think about that.

Why is there a need to tear his hair out in the first place? Does he see it as his primary task to convince the world that he is right and that all who believe the Bible must be intellectual midgets? Why can't he allow people the privilege of choice....does he take the rejection of his ideas personally? Will he not rest until he has all believers come around to his way of thinking as if it must be the only valid one?

Because there are people that take ignorant people that claim 2 + 2 = 7 seriously.

You might like Jerry...his condescension is laced with humor, designed to take ridicule to a whole new level. Each of these men are gifted in their own way...not the right way....but that is just my opinion.

Once again, context is key. Is he dealing with people like Ken Ham? Dr. <snicker> Kent Hovind? The Banana Man? If that was the case then he would have been more than justified in his approach.

I find one similarity with all of these men....an air of complete superiority when it comes to the "scientific explanation" as enough proof for everything they hold to be true. But in my own investigations into evolutionary explanations, all I found was countless suggestions, backed up by inference and extrapolated by wishful thinking. It was all of course, presented as fact, but the truth is there were no facts....as the scientists among us here on RF keep telling me. Science doesn't deal in facts....how odd.

They have that air because they can support their claims with valid sources. Something that creationists cannot do. And since you won't let yourself learn your experiences are not worth much. If you would let yourself learn then you may be able to have a valid comment. Until then you are as bad as Wendy Wright.

And since I fine YEC equally galling in this endless debate, I don't subscribe to either of these arguments. There is middle ground that takes the best of proven science and the best of the Bible to create a scenario that for us is very balanced. You don't need to dismiss one to accept the other. Most people have no idea such a balanced approach is even possible, and it doesn't even require one to believe that God created evolution. ...because he didn't....he created in every creature the ability to adapt to a change in environment. Adaptation is small changes within a single species which can produce variety within that taxonomic family but it does not ever result in new creatures.

But the theory of evolution is "proven science" at least as far as science can prove anything. There is no evidence for your beliefs. Or at least you can seem to find any. And you still need to learn how to define your terminology. What do you mean by "new creatures"? It appears that you do not understand evolution at all. There is no "change in kind" in evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still a vertebrate, and you are still a eucaryote. Where was the "new creature"?