Common Sense Deactivated?

[lewisnotmiller]

And yet you just confirmed that it is atheistic. In regards to a god atheism has no belief. When if comes to the sciences and god the "sciences" have no belief

Yes, science is atheistic in exactly the same way dog poo is. This argument has amazing utility, and even better, can lead to the mistaken conflation that science requires atheists.
I can't prevent you describing science this way, obviously.

Then it still fits. Atheism is not a claim that god does not exist. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. Atheism, like science, is subject to change. Show the evidence for a god and most atheists will believe if the evidence is reliable enough. Anecdote, which is about all that I have ever seen, is not very reliable when it comes to evidence.

Modern day atheism too often disappears up it's own backside, philosophically. The sooner we stop trying to define things in terms of atheism where there is no utility, the better.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

/\ /\ /\ THIS /\ /\ /\

Deactivated or eradicated?

Well, evolution is still working on it, apparently.

 

[Polymath257]

It has never been a problem for me because I believe that there is another realm where intelligent beings reside and who have constant contact and interaction with earth's inhabitants and will continue to do so until the Creator's purpose in connection with the beings on this planet is accomplished.

Good. So not knowing is fine for both of us.

Something caused matter to come into existence.

That is an unproven assumption.

Science knows that the universe had a beginning.

No, it know that the current expansion phase had a beginning. Whether that is the same as thebeginning of the universe is not known.

It just isn't good at guessing how it began and if there was a "who" responsible for it. It tends to run off on other tangents to mask the fact that it hasn't got any real scientific clues.

No, actually, it doesn't. it follows the evidence we *do* have, which shows the universe has been expanding for the last 13.7 billion years. We speculate based on things we *have* verified, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity. That hardly makes a tangent.

The Bible's definition of the Creator has never changed. He cannot change, which is why he is described a a rock...solid, unchanging. It is humans who are inclined to modify "God" or other supernatural beings to suit what they wish to believe. I have changed to accommodate the Bible's definition of God, not the other way around.

Well, the words haven't changed (except when they did--remember it was the Catholics that chose which books went into the Bible), but humans have interpreted it in a wide variety of ways over the past 2000 years. So you are in the same boat: following shifting interpretations of evidence you don't really understand. The difference is that science can go out and test new ideas and get answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, science is atheistic in exactly the same way dog poo is. This argument has amazing utility, and even better, can lead to the mistaken conflation that science requires atheists.
I can't prevent you describing science this way, obviously.



Modern day atheism too often disappears up it's own backside, philosophically. The sooner we stop trying to define things in terms of atheism where there is no utility, the better.

Nothing that I said requires scientists to be atheists. They can even try to include god in their science. I do not know of any, do you? Until you find some my argument stands.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I doubt every concept of God created by man was put there by God.

You got that right! Only the original one was the correct one.

What better way of hiding the correct one, than by making thousands of counterfeits?! But, ultimately, it wasn't humans behind the idea.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nothing that I said requires scientists to be atheists. They can even try to include god in their science. I do not know of any, do you? Until you find some my argument stands.

Know of any what?
IN any case, like I said, define atheism however you like. Your current method lacks utility, and this whole concept of semantic correctness flies in the face of how language develops, but whatevs. If you're comfortable being 'right', then fine.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Life did develop in slow, steady increments, certainly not sudden distinct stages.

That's not what the evidence from the Cambrian reveals.....fully-developed, functional life forms "appear suddenly.....with no ancestral fossils", i.e., precursors.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/more_problems_w/

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Using your logic here, that there was not a single thing before the Big Bang precludes there being a beginning before the Big Bang.

It should more appropriately be stated, "there was no matter".

There was definitely energy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Know of any what?
IN any case, like I said, define atheism however you like. Your current method lacks utility, and this whole concept of semantic correctness flies in the face of how language develops, but whatevs. If you're comfortable being 'right', then fine.

Why do you think that it "lacks utility"? You merely do not like applying that term to science in general. Your personal preferences does not make the use of a term right or wrong. It is simply a fact. It does not say that is how science has to be done, it is simply an observation of how science has been done to date.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Know of any what?
IN any case, like I said, define atheism however you like. Your current method lacks utility, and this whole concept of semantic correctness flies in the face of how language develops, but whatevs. If you're comfortable being 'right', then fine.

Why do you think that it "lacks utility"? You merely do not like applying that term to science in general. Your personal preferences does not make the use of a term right or wrong. It is simply a fact. It does not say that is how science has to be done, it is simply an observation of how science has been done to date.

 

[Deeje]

Show us the Atheists that can provide the answers that he's asking.

Yes please...that would be nice.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

↑
"It has never been a problem for me because I believe that there is another realm where intelligent beings reside and who have constant contact and interaction with earth's inhabitants and will continue to do so until the Creator's purpose in connection with the beings on this planet is accomplished."


**Good. So not knowing is fine for both of us.**

@Polymath257 , I guess you deny that paranormal activity occurs at all, right?

Can I ask you this? ....What do you think happens at our death?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why do you think that it "lacks utility"? You merely do not like applying that term to science in general. Your personal preferences does not make the use of a term right or wrong. It is simply a fact. It does not say that is how science has to be done, it is simply an observation of how science has been done to date.

Simply a fact? How exactly do you think word definitions develop? Why characterise your view as 'fact'? What is a 'fact' in your opinion?

It lacks utility because it blurs the broad meaning of atheism out to incoherence. I'm an atheist, as is the Pope's underpants, Mount Fuji, Ray Comfort's left testicle and the dwarf planet Pluto.

Methodological naturalism fits. You can use atheism as a catch everything term if you like. I'm not, and in my opinion (please note - my opinion) it's a poor use of the word commonly driven by misguided philosophical notions about proving atheism is the default position of everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply a fact? How exactly do you think word definitions develop? Why characterise your view as 'fact'? What is a 'fact' in your opinion?

It lacks utility because it blurs the broad meaning of atheism out to incoherence. I'm an atheist, as is the Pope's underpants, Mount Fuji, Ray Comfort's left testicle and the dwarf planet Pluto.

Methodological naturalism fits. You can use atheism as a catch everything term if you like. I'm not, and in my opinion (please note - my opinion) it'

The problem is that you lost the original context of using that phrase. JB said:

"It's not common sense, but about science. Atheist science thinks so, but they've been wrong before.

For creation science, it's about using science to study Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood."

My response was to that idea of "Atheist science". He has coined the phrase "creation science" and "creation scientist", when the few "creation scientists" that I know of actually swear not to use the scientific method in their work. That is why I stated that all science is "atheistic". As a response to JB's claims it was a valid use of the phrase, at least in my opinion. I do not use that phrase unless a creationist makes an abuse like JB did first. It is used to point out that God is not invoked in any real work in the sciences.

 

[Sapiens]

Ray Comfort is a joke. Really he is. His biggest argument is that God created the banana to fit the human hand and so forth.

Poor Ray ... he didn't realize that Bananas, as we know them, are a human invention, created by selective breeding.

 

[james bond]

Atheist science?
What is that???

Atheist science is evolutionary science and comprised of people who do not recognize that creation science is also a science. They do not accept the Bible, the supernatural or God hypothesis in their science. An example of an atheist scientist is Francis Crick, deceased. An example of a creation scientist is Linus Pauling, RIP, who believed in God. Their world views affected their work and science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheist science is evolutionary science and comprised of people who do not recognize that creation science is also a science. They do not accept the Bible, the supernatural or God hypothesis in their science. An example of an atheist scientist is Francis Crick, deceased. An example of a creation scientist is Linus Pauling, RIP, who believed in God. Their world views affected their work and science.

You do not appear to understand what science is. Science is just a method of answering questions. If one assumes that the Bible is true regardless of what the evidence says then that is not science. And that is exactly what one must swear to if one works at various creationist businesses. They do not do science there.

 

[dfnj]

Define 'nothing'.

That which makes something seem real.

 

[Deeje]

You said that God created humans to be caretakers and had provided remedies, quoting you directly, "for all manner of things affecting the inhabitants of the animals kingdom as well as themselves." - "themselves" presumably meaning the human caretakers of the paradise...why would they need remedies if they were never to get sick? I'm not just being picky here - your argument is that all these things - animals, eyes, wings, brains, colour spots and the phytochemicals that serve as herbal remedies for all sorts of ills - were deliberately and intelligently designed by a God who intended that humans should live forever - why would they need remedies? Why would God design natural cures for human sickness when there was never intended to be any?

The herbal remedies that exist in nature have largely been lost due to medical science introducing their artificial chemically based drugs. These herbs are completely compatible with our bodies. The ancients knew about herbalism. Cannabis for example has receptors in every part of the human body and has been shown to be a great healer and pain reliever. Since pain is the body's warning system, it stands to reason that not all pain is bad, so I don't believe that it will disappear altogether in the new world. I don't have that kind of view of physical perfection. The results of Adamic imperfection will be removed so that there will not be any "natural" causes of death, but we will still be mortal. Jesus lived a perfect life in the flesh, but he was not so different from his siblings that they immediately accepted him as Messiah. He was just their older brother. They did not become believers until after his death and resurrection.

 

[Deeje]

Science cannot help you nor anyone, and does not prove things.

Yeah...I noticed that.