Question for Atheists...

[F1fan]

That is true. What do you think Christians are doing,

Christians are a huge set of categories, from liberals who tend to dismiss many of the supernatural bits, to moderates and conservatives who will accept most of the concepts as true, to extremists who reject science and the equality of races. The KKK is a Christian organization, and quite nasty to my moral judgment. So Christians are largely following whatever they were influenced to believe, and some might have the thinking skill to reject it.

and why should we discard what we have determined,

Christians don't come to sound conclusoons about the religious sects they are exposed to. They learn from an early age that irrational religious concepts are true and they integrate them into the overall thinking as they mature. They are conditionaed to believe, and if they are emotionally committed they will struggle to examine these ideas objectively. Most in my family don't know that I am an atheiost because atheists in our society are highly prejudiced against. they don't understand why they prejudice against atheists, they just do. Most theists are like little robots who can't think for themselves. Look at @Sgt. Pepper as an example of a former Christian who broke out of the learned framework and learned to think for herself. She is free now.

for what you have determined, which is basically based on your personal opinion?

False. My conclusions about the Christianity I was exposed to came from observation and being honest with myself. I rejected the influence and thought for myself. So I was free to examine the claims in Christianity while the others in my family just bought in to it all. All my nine Catholic cousins accepted Catholicism and all the obligations, what a coincidence, eh? Why didn't some become Muslim if it is all thought out?

I watched my Christian family (Baptists and Catholics) claim great things about Christianity and belief in Jesus, but they acted like cruel and shallow people, and they did not get along. I could see something was wrong with this belief. Only my grandmother showed me a truth about Christianity, and that was her and the women in her church serving food to the local hungry families. I helped in their food kitchen, and the women NEVER mentioned religion to the people they served. They fed people twice a week, which is all they could afford. They'd have about 200 people. I was stunned that our society had hungry people since our family was well off. The thing was I understood the duty to others without reading Bible stories. And if this was the duty of Christians, where are all the other Christians? Why aren't they out doing service to the needy at a higher level? I know there are many such Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists who commit to helping otehrs, but Christians have this service as a duty AS Christian.

If you don't think it's your personal opinion, the can you please show me what method you used to determine that God is factually impossible.

You are calling it opinion as a tactic to attack my conclusions, which are sound and follow the rules of logic. You as a religious person can't show any of us how your religious beliefs re true, or even plausible. There is no way for a critical thinker to come to a sound conclusion that any of your religious are true, or even likely true. One of the rules in logic, as a process, is to NOT assume conclusions are true. You begin by being neutral, and that means not assuming any idea is true or false. The thing is if an idea can't be shown to be true, or at least likely true, it is rejected. I'll bet you reject Hindu claims about their gods. Yes? That is you following the same rule. I just follow the rule in regards to your version of God, or a Muslim's version of God, or anyone elses version of God.

 

[nPeace]

Theists can be experts in science, as long as they get their science right. My uncle was a phd chemist who worked in pharma, and at some point his creationist beliefs got in the way of his ability to do work and be promoted. He eventually moved from research to management because he couldn't accept certain conclusions in science. Science advanced way beyond his creationism, and he refused to accept it. That is the toxicity of Christian extremism, which includes creationism.

Everything has its place.
If one is doing science, then they cannot expect to be promoting God as a science.
Since Methodological naturalism is the claim that there is no need to invoke the supernatural, including God or gods, in giving scientific explanations. Metaphysical naturalism is the claim that there is no supernatural, including God or gods, then the scientists needs to remember what his work involves.

Methodological naturalism​

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

However, the "methodology" of religious research includes the subject of God, and thus science has no business in determining those methods or conclusions.
What science may do, is determine if the results are indeed in keeping with the variety of conclusions.

Not, "does God answer prayers", which they have no means of determining, but does the religious beliefs produce a better community in the variety of religious practices.

I think that is an area of useful consideration.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. You are mistaken.
A vision is a defined as a sight or scene presented to a person’s mind by day or by night, usually through other than ordinary means, and sometimes while the recipient was in a trance or was dreaming.
One definition of Webster's says something seen in a dream, trance, or ecstasy.

Hence, person were given images of representation, not reality itself.
For example. Ezekiel, in that same vision, saw a hand with a scroll written on, and he ate the scroll.

(Ezekiel 2:9-3:3) 9 When I looked, I saw a hand stretched out to me, and in it I saw a written scroll. 10 When he spread it out before me, it had writing on both front and back. Dirges and mourning and wailing were written on it. 3 Then he said to me: “Son of man, eat what is before you. Eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” 2 So I opened my mouth, and he made me eat this scroll. 3 He went on to say to me: “Son of man, eat this scroll that I am giving you, and fill your stomach with it.” So I began to eat it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.

It's a vision, not reality.

What in Exodus suggests to you that Exodus passage describes a vision and not God's literal body?

 

[nPeace]

"Being rational" is demonstrated by showing reasoning skill, and that means following the rules of logic to sound conclusions. This also means avoid making assumptions that are not necessary. Theists adopt belief in God from their social experience and then results in many of them unable to NOT assume their version of God exists.

So, you point out what rational is, then you demonstrate yourself irrational, by making assumptions that are not necessary.
Starting with Theist blah blah blah, is to assume that all theist do the same thing, and you are aware of what they do, and how they determine what is true.
You asked @1213 earlier, "Do you think some sort of God exists? If so, why? Who told you a God exists, and why did you believe them?"
Did you assume you knew the answer before asking? Did you assume someone told him God exists? Why are your questions geared that way?

To make an assumption that "Theists adopt belief in God from their social experience" is a clear demonstration of irrational.
It suggests that atheist who become Theists, adopt belief in God from their social experience.
That's also a biased and closed minded worldview... as though the brain doesn't fire, but the mouth just runs.

An example theists who assume the universe is caused by God are closed minded to the universe arrising as a natural process. In science, logic and reason we avoid assumptions, and this means we avoid assuming religious tradition is factual or true. Why? Because these traditions have no basis in fact.

Now who told you that theist assume the universe is caused by God? Did they tell you that, or did you make it up?
Are you also assuming that the theist does not use science, logic and reason?
Using reason, logic and science, is what actually caused atheists to be theist today... and many theists as well.
Actually, many scientists are theists because of science, logic and reason.
So, on a second count, you demonstrate, irrational thinking... as well as closed minded bias.

You trapved yourself here because you assume a God exists, and you tried to trap critical thinkers into a "closed minded". If you were better skilled at reasoning you would have realized you trapped yourself. That illustrates how assuming a God exists isn't justified, and ruins thinking.

That does not wash, because you are the one making all the assumptions - assuming that people assume something they have evidence for.
Why not apply that biased thinking to your worldview, and say that scientists assume half the things they cannot even demonstrate... like the millions of years needed to see evolution on a grand scale - dogs evolving to whales and such.
They aren't assuming, right?

There are no Gods known to exist, so they are not valid assumptions or founding facts about reality, so they are thrown out by science and those who use reason.

Sorry, but science does not throw out God, any more than they throw out ETs. That's what atheist do.
Science cannot deal with things that cannot be falsified... such as type 3 advanced civilization.
Science deals with what it can investigate... that is, until scientists throw in the theoretical and philosophical stuff.

Is this an attempt to create a "gap" to squeeze in a God (God of the gaps)? I've seen desperate theists say things like "we can't be sure of everything, so we can't know God isn't part of it or a cause". We base reasoning and science on what we DO know, on factys and data. We don't use guesses, maybes, rumors, traditions, etc. Facts and data!!!

God of the gaps? I hear that term misused so much... not by scientists doing science, but by atheists only.
There are no 'God of the gaps'. They exist only in the mind of atheists.

As regards, basing reasoning and science on facts and data. rather than guesses, maybes etc., you need to talk to scientists.
It would take a book to post what is actually the truth regarding this, and since I am in the bad habit of not saving notes for future reference, that would require extra effort, which would only be a waste here. So, you can chew on this for now.

 

[nPeace]

Mental states, and they might not represent reality.

Or, they might.

Get back to us when you have verifiable observations by mentally stable people.

After you provide verifiable observations for your beliefs... starting with my favorite - the best example of evolution - whale evolution.
Oh. You don't know much about that. Oh well.

 

[nPeace]

No i didn't, i said "I grew up" i cannot speak for anyone else.


Sorry you misunderstood or misinterpreted but please notice the "I" at the beginning of my post.

Still a snide stab at believers in the supernatural. So, I addressed it. It got my attention, and I understood what it meant - what its intent and purpose was.

 

[nPeace]

Oh and by the way Einstein should not have been included on that article

In his own words..

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.​

​

... I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.​

​

Einstein said people can call him an agnostic rather than an atheist

But of course religion always tries to make him put to be a liar.


And Schrödinger was atheist

​

When I saw him at the head of the list, I was surprised, but I figured no one would pick at one, as if it invalidates 24. I guess I was wrong.

 

[nPeace]

What in Exodus suggests to you that Exodus passage describes a vision and not God's literal body?

Ezekiel. Ezekiel. Read the book.
(Ezekiel 1:1) . . .In the 30th year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar, the heavens were opened and I began to see visions of God. ----------------->

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ezekiel. Ezekiel. Read the book.
(Ezekiel 1:1) . . .In the 30th year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar, the heavens were opened and I began to see visions of God. ----------------->

My post touched on Ezekiel and Exodus.

So no objection to the idea that God has a literal face, hand and back?

 

[F1fan]

Or, they might.

Well find some evidence then get back to us.

After you provide verifiable observations for your beliefs... starting with my favorite - the best example of evolution - whale evolution.

I'm not an exvert in whale evolution. All I can do is cite exverts who are, but that reporting is available to you as much as me. the real question is why you are confused about this area of evolution. Is there something about whales that is a problem for the theory of evolution? Cite experts that acknowledge this porblem (not creationists).

Oh. You don't know much about that. Oh well.

Why would I? you are the one bringing it up. And you even mention what the deal is. It's not as if you are an exvert. Your posts reveal you have little knowlegde of evolution in general, so why would we care about any of your confusion? Your confusion is your problem, not ours, and not for science.

 

[F1fan]

So, you point out what rational is, then you demonstrate yourself irrational, by making assumptions that are not necessary.
Starting with Theist blah blah blah, is to assume that all theist do the same thing, and you are aware of what they do, and how they determine what is true.
You asked @1213 earlier, "Do you think some sort of God exists? If so, why? Who told you a God exists, and why did you believe them?"
Did you assume you knew the answer before asking?

I was asking an overconfident @1213 for a definitive answer. He refused to answer. Not so much confidence afterall.

Did you assume someone told him God exists? Why are your questions geared that way?

I ask questions for others to answer. Is this a problem for you? Should believers not be asked questions that they realize they can't answer?

To make an assumption that "Theists adopt belief in God from their social experience" is a clear demonstration of irrational.
It suggests that atheist who become Theists, adopt belief in God from their social experience.
That's also a biased and closed minded worldview... as though the brain doesn't fire, but the mouth just runs.

You don't explain how my observation is irrational. You refer to some non-factual idea which isn't relevant.

Now who told you that theist assume the universe is caused by God?

Believers DO assume it when they refer to the universe being created by a God. No Gods are known to exist, and there is no evidence of any creation event from a supernatural cause.

Did they tell you that, or did you make it up?

It is reasoned, as I explain above. Believers don;t use reason, they assume and justify belief by faith. Faith is unreliable and flawed.

Are you also assuming that the theist does not use science, logic and reason?

No, some theists can separate their religious belief from science and be well educated.

Using reason, logic and science, is what actually caused atheists to be theist today... and many theists as well.

Just show us the facts. I don't believe you, so prove atheists convert to theists. I'll give you a helping hand, read up on Lee Stroebel, the nutcase who wrote Evidence Demands a Verdict. He wasn't a believer, but his fiance, who was a hard core Christian, threatened to not go through with the wedding unless he became a Christian, and he did. Tru Luv. There's nothing like coersion to build a lasting marriage.

Actually, many scientists are theists because of science, logic and reason.

Really? I'm not convinced. Lets see your evidence, and get back to us. I doubt you will.

So, on a second count, you demonstrate, irrational thinking... as well as closed minded bias.

You are doing fine by yourself.

That does not wash, because you are the one making all the assumptions - assuming that people assume something they have evidence for.

They don't have evidence, that is the problem with religious claims.

Why not apply that biased thinking to your worldview, and say that scientists assume half the things they cannot even demonstrate... like the millions of years needed to see evolution on a grand scale - dogs evolving to whales and such.
They aren't assuming, right?

No they aren't. You show contempt for science, and that is your problem. You reject evolution for religious reasons, and that is bias.

Sorry, but science does not throw out God, any more than they throw out ETs. That's what atheist do.

Really? Show us examples of science referring to God and ET in any work. I doubt you will.

Science cannot deal with things that cannot be falsified... such as type 3 advanced civilization.
Science deals with what it can investigate... that is, until scientists throw in the theoretical and philosophical stuff.

That's why evolution is a valid theory, and some Christians are upset since it casts doubt on a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Why are Christians interpreting Genesis literally when even the Jews don't? Bad religion.

God of the gaps? I hear that term misused so much... not by scientists doing science, but by atheists only.
There are no 'God of the gaps'. They exist only in the mind of atheists.

Right, there is no God in any gaps. There are no Gods known to exist outside of human imagination. Some believer try desperately to find some place for their God to be relevant in science, but there's no room.

As regards, basing reasoning and science on facts and data. rather than guesses, maybes etc., you need to talk to scientists.
It would take a book to post what is actually the truth regarding this, and since I am in the bad habit of not saving notes for future reference, that would require extra effort, which would only be a waste here. So, you can chew on this for now.

Why are you confused? You don't seem to have a grasp of what science is and how it works.

 

[ChristineM]

Still a snide stab at believers in the supernatural. So, I addressed it. It got my attention, and I understood what it meant - what its intent and purpose was.

How come snide snubs to atheists are ok.

Actually no you didn't understand what its intention was supposed to be, you just wanted a snide snub at atheists. Yes i remember your personality well

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ignorance isn't the reason people say that God is not real.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. To not know God, is to be ignorant of God.

 

[1213]

But since a lot of it is falsehood
and nonsense... ?

No one has proven it false yet.

 

[1213]

So it's just a coincidence that you happen to believe in the most prevalent religion where you live? You didn't hear anyone around you talk about the Bible and Christian concepts, and this didn't sway your thinking? Did you also study the Quran, the Mormon Bible, the Urantia book, and the Gita before you settled on the Bible being true? Did you look into Buddhism and understand it's approach to managing our mind's temptation to give in to emotions? Tell us all about your process.

That is the Bible true doesn't depend on any other book on the market. All books can be examined individually and checked have they anything good. And Quran has one good thing, it tells we should believe Jesus:

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, Surat An-Nisa' [4:171] - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم

I think atheism and evolutionism is the most prevalent religion on earth. If I would go by the mainstream, I would be evolution believer. In all my life time Bible has been commonly presented as untrue fairy tale. And now that I have studied matters more, I see all the accusations are false, which makes antichristians look pathetically dishonest and not trustworthy.

But, I have believed in the Bible, because I see it to be true and correct in many things. Those things are the reason why I trust it also in those matters that I can't yet see to be true. What atheists have shown has only made my belief stronger, because they have demonstrated that Bible is wrong only by twisting the truth.

How do you know it is correct?

Things come true as told in the Bible, for example:
But know this, that in the last days grievous times will be upon us . For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, braggarts, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural feeling, unyielding, slanderers, without self-control, savage, haters of good, betrayers, reckless, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it; even turn away from these. For of these are those creeping into houses and leading silly women captive, the ones having been heaped with sins, being led away by various lusts, always learning, but never being able to come to a full knowledge of the truth.
2 Tim. 3:1-7

No doubt it has good advice, like don't eat shellfish in 300 BCE, due to lack of refrigeration. But what else did you lack in wisdom that you needed to be taught dececy. I'm curious what teachings you picked up from the Bible, tell us a few.

I like especially everything Jesus says in the Bible.

 

[1213]

Why can't you understand that
it's fiction?

Understand? Sorry, I just can't believe your claims without any intelligent reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one has proven it false yet.

"No one has proven it false yet" is some pretty unstable soil to build a person's core beliefs on.

It wouldn't be enough for me; why is it enough for you?

 

[ChristineM]

When I saw him at the head of the list, I was surprised, but I figured no one would pick at one, as if it invalidates 24. I guess I was wrong.

Did i say it invalidated the other 24 (or 23 excluding Schrödinger). Nope i didn't even commen on the other 23. But you do like to put blame where it shouldn't be so long as it suites your agenda. Not a nice tactic but one that is expected.

However now you mention it, it does cast doubt on the validity of the research, as called out several times in the comments section at the end of the page.

And of course you must consider that the majority of those scientists lived in a time when it was bad news not to follow the church. So bad in fact that it could lead to being ostracised, imprisoned or even executed

 

[Audie]

No one has proven it false yet.

"It"? The "Bible"? Every word of it?

The flood story is certainly false. Proved
false ten thousand times over.
This intelligence has not reached you yet?

 

[Audie]

"No one has proven it false yet" is some pretty unstable soil to build a person's core beliefs on.

It wouldn't be enough for me; why is it enough for you?

Particularly if something is proven false
but someone lacks the capacity to be shaken
out of their fantasy world.