Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Satsujin]

Really, you've never seen the atheist icon? Wow, and you've been wondering why there's been such a militant debate with all this over the past decade.

I notice you still didn't provide this mystical icon of atheism:no:....just waxed on about it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Really?
What is this icon/symbol?
And what does this icon/symbol say?

He's talking, AFAIK, about this:

I've only seen it used by the more "militant" atheists, though. I think it was created by Dawkins.

And religion does not need to prove itself true. Unlike science, which needs to confirm itself, religion is pure.

Then religion has not been confirmed as corresponding to reality. What is the use of beliefs that do not correspond to reality?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I do not believe that all atheists try to disprove religion, secretly or obviously, but the fact that there is an atheist icon/symbol speaks volumes.

There's a unified symbol for atheism?

What it is, is a 'high' that some theoreticians are getting because of scientific advancement.

It dthe same high that makes me jump up[ and down and decalre "Praise Darwin!"

It appeases me to know that such an atheist is an idiot. The origins of reality will always only be speculative,

Atheists are more likely to say they don't know about "the origins of reality." In contrast, theists are more likely to say "God did it." It's the difference between admitting ignorance and feigning knowledge.

and science hasn't even been able to prove that the Abrahamic religions are false.

I can't tell if you're being dishonest or ignorant but science doesn't address god(s) /the supernatural/ficiton. There's been no ongoing experiments in which scientists have been aiming to disprove dieties of any kind.
In any case, it's not on science to disprove a god claim, it's on the people who believe the claim to provide evidence that it's true.

And as a Christian, I say unto them: You are wasting your time

As an atheist, I say you've wasted mine.

 

[Satsujin]

And religion does not need to prove itself true. Unlike science, which needs to confirm itself, religion is pure.

Religion can be anything it wants to be since religion is grounded in faith --- not knowledge.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

What is the use of beliefs that do not correspond to reality?

Entertainment?

 

[McBell]

Really, you've never seen the atheist icon? Wow.

Nope, I never have.
And I STILL have not.
Interesting how you go on about this mysterious and elusive icon/symbol yet cannot even link to it....

And religion does not need to prove itself true.

It does if it wants to have any credibility outside its choir.

Unlike science, which needs to confirm itself, religion is pure.

Since religion is unable to show it is true, let alone "pure", I will chock this up as nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

It just so happens that science fails to confirm itself in this respect.

I have to disagree.
Science not only has loads of people who take in on faith, but it has loads of people who actually understand it and know what is and is not comfirmable.

Unlike religion, which has nothing but unsubstantiated claims that the claimers further claim need no substantiation.

Nice little merry-go-round.

Here you are again confirming what I spoke in the other thread: trying to bash religion with an imaginary club. Way to go.

It is not my fault that you are not willing to accept reality.
Religion has nothing going for it other the willingness of the followers to follow.

You completely "forgot" to answer this question during your rant:

And what does this icon/symbol say?​

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Then religion has not been confirmed as corresponding to reality. What is the use of beliefs that do not correspond to reality?

To put it simply, science dismisses religious intrigue on account that we do not see such things taking effect, as if 'right now' defines what could have happened 1000's of years ago. So scientists make vast assumptions.
For example, the biblical Great flood. It explains aquatic fossils on the tops of mountains. It explains that fossil fuels would have rapidly formed due to decay, pressure, and burial resulting from it.
And yet, because there are mountains and there isn't an existing flood today to show how those fossils got up there, there just has to be millions of years of stratum-colliding masses to form them, when they could have immediately been made at the beginning chaos of the Earth being formed.

What is the use of science if it only 'discovers' what it wants to 'discover'?

 

[tumbleweed41]

To put it simply, science dismisses religious intrigue on account that we do not see such things taking effect, as if 'right now' defines what could have happened 1000's of years ago. So scientists make vast assumptions.
For example, the biblical Great flood. It explains aquatic fossils on the tops of mountains. It explains that fossil fuels would have rapidly formed due to decay, pressure, and burial resulting from it.
And yet, because there are mountains and there isn't an existing flood today to show how those fossils got up there, there just has to be millions of years of stratum-colliding masses to form them, when they could have immediately been made at the beginning chaos of the Earth being formed.

You really have no understanding of Geology, do you?

What is the use of science if it only 'discovers' what it wants to 'discover'?

I think what you mean is, what business does religion have within the realms of science when it encourage willful ignorance in order to support its claims?

 

[PolyHedral]

To put it simply, science dismisses religious intrigue on account that we do not see such things taking effect, as if 'right now' defines what could have happened 1000's of years ago.

It does, generally. The laws of the universe don't vary with time.

So scientists make vast assumptions.
For example, the biblical Great flood. It explains aquatic fossils on the tops of mountains. It explains that fossil fuels would have rapidly formed due to decay, pressure, and burial resulting from it.

It doesn't explain where the required hundreds of billions of tons of water come from and disappear too, though. That is a far more pressing issue than fossils stuck up mountains.

 

[tumbleweed41]

For Sum1sGruj,

Recommended reading...

Amazon.com: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms: Essays on Natural History (9780609601419): Stephen Jay Gould: Books

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To put it simply, science dismisses religious intrigue on account that we do not see such things taking effect, as if 'right now' defines what could have happened 1000's of years ago. So scientists make vast assumptions.
For example, the biblical Great flood. It explains aquatic fossils on the tops of mountains. It explains that fossil fuels would have rapidly formed due to decay, pressure, and burial resulting from it.
And yet, because there are mountains and there isn't an existing flood today to show how those fossils got up there, there just has to be millions of years of stratum-colliding masses to form them, when they could have immediately been made at the beginning chaos of the Earth being formed.

What is the use of science if it only 'discovers' what it wants to 'discover'?

What absolute nonsense. The reason the Biblical flood is discredited in science is because there is no evidence to suggest that it is even remotely true. Science can only come to conclusions based on the available evidence, so to assert that science discounting a global flood is the result of science being somehow "biased" is complete BS.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You really have no understanding of Geology, do you?

No, your not going to play that card. I have much understanding. Why don't you whip out some understanding?

I think what you mean is, what business does religion have within the realms of science when it encourage willful ignorance in order to support its claims?

Scientific hypothesis' are built on willful ignorance- willing to ignore anything that replaces or denies it.

 

[PhAA]

Scientific hypothesis' are built on willful ignorance- willing to ignore anything that replaces or denies it.[/QUOTE]

scientific hypotheses are subjected to intense scrutiny. It undergoes research and investigation and tries to remove as much bias as possible. Just because science can't prove your god doesn't mean that it is ignorant. It can simply mean that it does not exist. If you can't understand something, it doesn't mean it is beyond understanding. There is still about 5 billion years to go before the sun burns out, so thats still plenty of time to understand things. Don't rush.

Now, answering "god" to something that you don't understand is ignorance. And that's exactly what the religious leaders want.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I think he's a troll

 

[Sum1sGruj]

scientific hypotheses are subjected to intense scrutiny. It undergoes research and investigation and tries to remove as much bias as possible. Just because science can't prove your god doesn't mean that it is ignorant. It can simply mean that it does not exist. If you can't understand something, it doesn't mean it is beyond understanding. There is still about 5 billion years to go before the sun burns out, so thats still plenty of time to understand things. Don't rush.

Now, answering "god" to something that you don't understand is ignorance. And that's exactly what the religious leaders want.

My religion is based on historical and witnessed accounts.
No atheist will ever know the origin of reality beyond speculation, so it's not as if science is unlimited.
The simplest life-form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab, so how did it occur naturally in chaotic circumstances?
The Great Flood very easily accounts for many far-fetch ideas in geology, as well as other things such as fossil fuels.
The fossil record is so dotted that I can't even believe it's taken as seriously as it is.
Dating techniques are assumed to be way more than they are. The only thing they conclude is possibility.
You might want to consider the condition of reality a little further as it is now before insulting religion on something as baseless as today's science, which runs on theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, your not going to play that card. I have much understanding. Why don't you whip out some understanding?

Yes, I will play that card.
Plate tectonics is an observed phenomenon that shows how mountain ranges come into existence. This not only explains seashells on mountains, but also other geological and paleontological features of those mountains.

You see, anyone who understood geology and hydrology would know that floods erode mountains and deposit sediments in the valleys below.

Another ignored fact is the areas of the Earth that contain absolutely no evidence of ever being under water. No seashells in areas that were never under shallow seas.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

My religion is based on historical and witnessed accounts.
No atheist will ever know the origin of reality beyond speculation, so it's not as if science is unlimited.
The simplest life-form cannot be created in the most controlled, sophisticated lab, so how did it occur naturally in chaotic circumstances?
The Great Flood very easily accounts for many far-fetch ideas in geology, as well as other things such as fossil fuels.
The fossil record is so dotted that I can't even believe it's taken as seriously as it is.
Dating techniques are assumed to be way more than they are. The only thing they conclude is possibility.
You might want to consider the condition of reality a little further as it is now before insulting religion on something as baseless as today's science, which runs on theory.

Blind faith is fun to watch, especially when it comes from people so completely ignorant of observed facts.

What do you say to the people that share your religion that do not discount science? The one's that believe in the fact of evolution? The one's that don't take the biblical flood, adam & eve, the burning bush, etc. literally?

They exist, and there are more every day. The militantly religious numbers are dwindling as more start to embrase science, which I might add, has never once tried to disprove your fictional God man.

It's funny you call science baseless. How did you post on this forum? Science.
You ever get a flu shot? Science. Ever take a vitamin or supplement? Science.
Have a cell phone? Science.

Suppose all those things are just figments of your imagination eh?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Blind faith is fun to watch, especially when it comes from people so completely ignorant of observed facts.

What do you say to the people that share your religion that do not discount science? The one's that believe in the fact of evolution? The one's that don't take the biblical flood, adam & eve, the burning bush, etc. literally?

They exist, and there are more every day. The militantly religious numbers are dwindling as more start to embrase science, which I might add, has never once tried to disprove your fictional God man.

It's funny you call science baseless. How did you post on this forum? Science.
You ever get a flu shot? Science. Ever take a vitamin or supplement? Science.
Have a cell phone? Science.

Suppose all those things are just figments of your imagination eh?

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's the only thing science exceeds in. Technological/medical advancement.
Take into account that, and you can see how far behind the other aspects of science are. Surely if they weren't struggling, the ideas of evolution and geology wouldn't be so lacking in comparison.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Here's a good source that not only demonstrates that geology has obscurities, but that there is in fact evidence of a great flood.

Furthermore, if one took the entire Bible as a metaphor, one just feels they must heed everything of science, no matter how far-fetched or inconclusive most of it is.

I suggest many of you look back to my earlier posts and think before laying crude insults on things you know little about and trying to throw science up like it actually means something as it currently stands.
There is nothing blind about my faith unless your saying I am foolishly assuming witnessed, historical accounts.
In which case, go out and date rocks, assemble your own fossil record, and walk the talk. Because the ones that exist now aren't worth the one leg they stand on.

 

[PolyHedral]

Here's a good source that not only demonstrates that geology has obscurities, but that there is in fact evidence of a great flood.

No evidence in the world can support a worldwide flood hypothesis. In order to flood the entire surface of the Earth, you would require 149 billion tons of water... for a "flood" a measly 3ft deep. The amount of water required simply does not exist. Therefore, a worldwide flood cannot possibly have happened.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's the only thing science exceeds in. Technological/medical advancement.
Take into account that, and you can see how far behind the other aspects of science are. Surely if they weren't struggling, the ideas of evolution and geology wouldn't be so lacking in comparison.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Here's a good source that not only demonstrates that geology has obscurities, but that there is in fact evidence of a great flood.

Furthermore, if one took the entire Bible as a metaphor, one just feels they must heed everything of science, no matter how far-fetched or inconclusive most of it is.

I suggest many of you look back to my earlier posts and think before laying crude insults on things you know little about and trying to throw science up like it actually means something as it currently stands.
There is nothing blind about my faith unless your saying I am foolishly assuming witnessed, historical accounts.
In which case, go out and date rocks, assemble your own fossil record, and walk the talk. Because the ones that exist now aren't worth the one leg they stand on.

Your faith is blind. It's pretty obvious by your point of view.

Might I ask. How old do you think the earth is? Answer honestly.