The Trouble with Atheism.....

[gnostic]

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

I rather talk about people’s comments, discuss or debate about their views, so I don’t spent much time watching YouTube videos of the threads’ OP...let alone one that’s going to last over 40 minutes.

Your subject-line is about atheism - “The Trouble with atheism” and yet you bring up “science” and “scientists”.

Science and atheism have nothing to do with each other, because they atheism only relate to the question of the existence of deity or deities...and people who are atheists simply don’t believe in any god, so there are science involved in disbelieving any deity’s existence.

There are no hypothesis needed in atheism, no Scientific Method and no testing of god’s existence in atheism, and atheism don’t require to submit their disbelief or lack of belief before Peer Review

So the question, deeje, is why you would would equate atheism with science?

It is a false equivalence to equate atheism with science, since atheism is more culture and humanities question than a scientific one.

Can you really not tell the differences between atheism and science?

Surely you are smart to tell the differences between the two.

 

[Yazata]

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Like the others, I wasn't particularly motivated to watch a 45 min video. But after reading the predictable boilerplate atheist responses in this thread, I decided that I would. And I'm glad I did.

It's actually very good, absolutely filled with interesting ideas.

Perhaps one of the best short philosophy of religion videos that I've ever seen.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....

At least some scientists. These were scientists (Dawkins et. al.) chosen for their outspoken atheism. A very Oxfordy crew, very genteel and faculty-clubish. And very smug, self-assured and even a little arrogant when they ventured out past their areas of unquestioned scientific expertise into religion and broader metaphysics. (Where people like them often end up making fools of themselves.)

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

It's too packed with ideas to reply to in one post. So here's comments on a few things said in the first little 'chapter' that struck me and I remembered --

Atheist interviewed on the street (paraphrased) - 'Religion causes a lot of warfare.' (Why?) 'Because you have one person believing in one thing and another in something else'.

Me: That's a little scary in its implications. If differences in belief are supposedly the cause of warfare, then what's the cure? Somehow making everyone believe the same thing so that there's no diversity of belief? Isn't that a definition of totalitarianism? And how is religion unique in this regard? Aren't differences in political and moral beliefs at least equally likely to lead to social divisions and perhaps to violence?

Dawkins -- A great deal of warfare can be attributed to religion, but none can be directly attributed to atheism.

Me: Well sure. Political figures have always been the ones who raise armies and command warfare. And they justify what they are doing in terms of whatever their culture believes is highest and best. Atheists will simply justify their own violence in ways other than religion. The avowedly atheist Marxists with their calls for worldwide Revolution and their elimination of those perceived of as class enemies would seem to provide abundant evidence of that. 1930's Fascism wasn't avowedly religious either. A secular world will simply justify its inhumanity in secular ways.

Peter Atkins (Oxford chemist) -- 'We will be able to explain everything through science!'

Me: Even the nature and origin of the so-called "laws of physics"? What mathematics and logic are, how we know about them and why the physical world seems to operate in conformity with them? Or why there is such a thing as reality in the first place? I sense more than a little intellectual hubris in our Mr. Atkins.

Question the narrator asks at the end of this section: "If we all became atheists tomorrow, would the world suddenly become a better place?"

 

[McBell]

I cited the anti-discrimination context for
atheism as a religion. I don't know of others.

So then, the only difference is the number of contexts?

 

[Revoltingest]

So then, the only difference is the number of contexts?

Atheism & corporations are different for other reasons too.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

My summary....

He points out that some atheists are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as some theists. I agree. I refer to those sorts of atheists as "evangelical atheists", in that it's not good enough for them to be atheists, they want everyone else to be one too.

Then it takes a weird turn. He says atheism is a "religion" because it has it's own "gurus" and "sacred texts", and he shows Darwin and The Origin of Species as examples, which quite frankly is just a stupid argument. First of all, the mere existence of "gurus", i.e. respected experts, doesn't make something a religion. There are golf instructors who are widely respected and considered golf "gurus" but that doesn't make golf a religion. The same can be said for just about anything....cooking, painting, home repair.

As for the Origin of Species being a "sacred text", that's about as dumb as can be. I can't think of anyone who has referred to the book as "sacred", but I can show you multiple scientists pointing out all the things that Darwin got wrong in that book. I mean, if a book being historically important and highly regarded in a field makes it "sacred", does that mean Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking is a "sacred text" in cooking? Ridiculous.

Then he merely asserts that science buildings (I assume they are either universities or research centers) are "temples", which again is just plain stupid. He offers no supporting argument for this assertion at all.

Then he spends some time with a street-preaching evangelical atheist, but at least he acknowledges that he's not representative of all atheists.

Then he spends time with American Atheists (a civil rights org for atheists) and argues that because one of their spokespeople vilifies religion and because she's confident in her non-belief, that makes atheism a religion. Again, that's a rather stupid argument. I know people who take the same approach to soccer (they vilify other clubs and are confident in theirs).

Then he argues that because some atheists see science as the way we solve problems and answer questions (which is true), that's equivalent to religion thinking it has the "light and the truth". He then argues that the FERMI Lab is a "temple of science". But again, it's nothing more than a mere assertion. Shrug.

He then focuses on "what happened before the big bang" and says that since there's nothing in science that proves or disproves the existence of gods, it's just a personal choice. While that's true, I wonder if he recognizes what he's just done. He first looks to science to inform him about the existence/non-existence of gods, and when scientists say they don't know he uses that to justify the choice to believe in gods. But that's what he previously complained about....relying on science to answer questions, especially big metaphysical questions!

He then states that relying on science while also believing in gods is the proper way for humans to live. But again, he offers no justification or support for that.

Then he talks with an ID creationist and promotes the creationist fine-tuning belief. He also says the multiverse hypothesis is an "atheistic explanation", which is absurd. It's a scientific hypothesis, not an "atheistic" one. Duh.

Then it gets really stupid. He actually says The Origin of Species is a "New Testament of atheism" and keeps asserting that it's "atheism's sacred text", but doesn't offer anything to support those assertions. Of course he ignores the fact that in the 2nd edition of the book, Darwin wrote "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". So "atheism's New Testament" and its "sacred text" expresses belief in a creator?

Then he says that because Richard Dawkins believes religion is a "meme", that shows the atheists' commitment to Darwin. That makes zero sense. Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists. Then he talks with a theologian who says evolutionary concepts shouldn't be applied outside their original intended purpose (biology), which is just ridiculous. Evolutionary concepts have been applied in things like engineering for decades to great success. I guess these dullards would stop that sort of thing if they could?

Then he says atheists hold to "Darwinism" (I guess that means evolution) with "religious fervor". You know what else atheists hold too? That the earth is round and orbits the sun, that matter is made up of atoms. You know why? Because all those things are true! So basically he's saying that because atheists "believe" in things that are true, that makes atheism a religion.

Then he talks with a scientist who has a different hypothesis about how evolution occurs (i.e., not via Darwinian gradualism), which if the host had done any amount of homework he'd have known isn't anything new (see Eldredge and Gould). He even says "I"m pretty sure Darwin's theory will soon be superseded". Clearly this guy knows very little about evolutionary biology (i.e. he hasn't heard of Neo-Darwinism).

Then he goes into pretty standard creationist talking points....science always changes; misusing the word "theory"; no absolute truth; science doesn't know everything; some scientific advancements have been harmful; some people have misused science.

Then he goes into standard apologetics about morality only coming from religion and atheism can't come up with absolute morality and can only offer a moral code that changes over time. IMO this has been done to death and is a ridiculous argument (history has shown that morals always change across time and cultures).

Then he gives examples of atheistic societies being violent. Not sure how that relates to atheism being a religion.

He finishes by saying that a society built solely on science and reason won't necessarily be "a utopian vision which atheists dream of". Um...okay.....and? I've never heard any atheists (or anyone else for that matter) say that if we did away with all religion everything would therefore be perfect forever.

His final speech tries to paint evangelical atheists like Dawkins as representative of all atheists (all atheists want to do away with religion and think all religious people are terrible and stupid), which of course simply isn't true.

So in all, this video isn't very good, makes some rather stupid arguments, invokes a number of straw men, and is little more than one man's personal rant against evangelical atheists. That's probably why in the 3 years it's been up on Youtube, it's only gotten a little over 60,000 views.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If atheism behaves just like a religion, then it deserves the label IMO.

You want to put my lack of belief in God on par with your religious adherence and observance - go right ahead - maybe I can become a tax-exempt entity. Still doesn't mean I'm going to believe your stories. Not enough good evidence for that. Same as there isn't good evidence for UFO abductions, the existence of Bigfoot or Flat Earth. I don't believe you, and based on your posting here and the things you bring to the table, I am 99.9% confident you have nothing overtly compelling to bring to the table. Same as with those peddling stories of UFO abductions, the existence of Bigfoot or Flat Earth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

by using Christian means. I will.....pray to Jesus.

Ah, that’s where most everyone goes wrong, right there.
But that’s what you’ve been taught....

We should pray to Whom Jesus prayed, his Father.

(Its called the “Our Father” prayer, not the “Our Jesus” prayer.)..

More evidence that Revelation 12:9b is spot on!

 

[osgart]

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Some atheists make a religious crusade of their atheism. But not all atheists are religious, nor see morality as subjective preference.

Atheism asserts that there is no God and sees no evidence for one. I claim that there is no God but I don't worship science, and philosophy about it.

I don't practice anti theism. I'm merely an atheist who would rather there was a God but see no evidence for one.

I do recognize an atheist, anti theistic religious movement exists in our world. But that's not everyone who is atheist.

Science can only speak about physical things. Everything else is inferred philosophically.

I think real scientists do not make a crusade out of atheism. There are scientists who are theists, and atheists.

Science doesn't demand any inferences about God. Science is only concerned with natural occurrences and what can be deduced from those occurrences, nothing more then that.

Science is a career, not a religious crusade.

Anyone trying to officiate their truth over me better have the absolute truth, otherwise I'll object to it's authority; atheist or otherwise.

 

[Justanatheist]

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

No every scientist interviewed and the presenter acknowledge science does not deal in certitudes. He could not even get Dawkins to admit that there was 100% no god. Neither the presenter or any of the scientist suggested it assumed anything.

Is atheism really just another religion,

No and neither does the presenter suggest it is, he does suggest that some atheists have made a religion out of other things.

Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

No he switches to secular ideologies to show fundamentalists and hate speech. Watch the video again if your confused.

The biggest mistake he makes is suggesting Hitler and the Nazis were atheist's they were not and most Nazis were Christians.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

You and I must have vastly different understandings of what a "mirage" is...

you are quite correct

as usual

 

[Deeje]

That indicates passion, not religion. Conflating the two makes religion a functionally useless term.

Isn’t it the passion that drives fanaticism?......often seen as much in sport, or in adoration of entertainment celebrities, as it is in many religious practices.......and it is observed in any other pursuit that drives people to behave in a certain predictable way.

If something requires “preaching”....it is a religion. Scientists “preach” as much as religious advocates.....the likes of Dawkins and Coyne have made it a lucrative career out of persuading people over to science by deriding religion and making religious people feel like uneducated fools. If you have to keep persuading people to adopt your message by guilt tripping and shaming, what does that mean?

I know what preaching means from the Christian perspective because it gives people an option that may lead them to a better future that is outlined in the Bible....it gives people a hope for something better to come....but it should never include shaming or guilt tripping....it has to be willing.

But why does science have to ‘preach’ in order to gain its ‘converts’? What can it give people as a hope for a better future?

Humanity has been brought to the brink of extinction, largely by advances in the various branches of science. For every good thing that science has achieved, they are responsible for a hundred detrimental things that are killing us....some slowly over decades, but others threaten immediate annihilation, such as if a nuclear war was ever declared. Science split the atom......MAD is not a dead thread from the 60’s. The Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight today, than it was back then.

No God?....no hope for a better future!....that is how I see it. Belief in science is a poor substitute for belief in a powerful Creator who can fix this mess, IMO........and since neither has proof for its assertions, people really do have to choose between two “belief” systems (regardless of the protests)......I think the video makes that clear....Science is not the answer......it is a big part of the problem.

 

[Deeje]

I have a direct question for you.

What is your definition of atheism?

My definition? It’s not my definition......A-theism is like A-sexulality....it indicates an absence......in this case, absence of belief in god(s)......i.e. no Creator responsible for the existence of the universe and life on planet Earth.

The word is only important in religious conversations about it. I'd assume most atheists can don't even think about deities nontheless the theology and opinions religious people have of them.

The questions tackled in the video are left for the audience to evaluate from both sides....so unless you watch the video, you will not really know what is being discussed or the issues covered.

One’s own position will determine their reaction to what is discussed......rather predictably apparently, (judging by the responses). Nothing unexpected so far.

 

[Deeje]

I don't know when I'll next have a spare 45 minutes to watch the vid, but science is not a religion because science goes by evidence.

What “evidence” is that? You mean the interpretation given to said ‘evidence” by those who already have a pre-conceived idea of what their findings will reveal? Do you really think that any of those scientists will ever step outside of their evolutionary bubble? They would be laughed out of academia....

The correct reply to religious claims is 'Show me'.

The correct reply to scientific claims is 'Show me'.

Look around you.....is the universe a fluke of some kind? If science cannot tell us anything about what happened in the minutes prior to the “Big Bang”, then how can a Creator of unimaginable power be eliminated? What actually existed prior to that moment? They know that the Universe had a beginning.....if science can’t give us any indication of what existed before then......how can a Creator be missing? Atheism...that’s how.

“Show me”? God “shows” us his work every time we take a walk in nature, unspoiled by human intervention. We have physical eyes that see superficially, but eyes of faith see things quite differently. There is a certain kind of “blindness” that the Bible speaks of, that is quite apparent in those who complain that there is no “proof” for God. The proof is all around us, but is attributed to blind forces of “nature”.....but what is “nature”? Is that a scientific term?

The complaint seems to be that only one of these can indeed show you.

But what does it “show” you really? Since science cannot prove a thing it “believes” about macro-evolution, and most of what it “believes” comes from extremely biased interpretation of whatever “evidence” they are considering.....what you accept as fact today, could all come undone tomorrow.....so we’re you really given “facts” or just “beliefs” as far as they exist today? Is that a good enough reason to abandon belief in God? Apparently people have been talked into that very thing.......perception management at its finest. How is it not possible to separate the belief from the reality, when that reality is pure speculation to begin with? Just because it sounds plausible and it looks authentic....doesn’t make it true, unless it’s what people want to believe.

Meanwhile there isn't even a definition of "God" such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not.

The Bible itself give us an excellent “definition of God”. Why would you imagine that it doesn’t?
The Creator has nothing more to prove to anyone......those to whom he will grant citizenship in his incoming Kingdom, do not need more proof of his this existence than what he has already provided. We already know that they will be “few". (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[blü 2]

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Okay, I've now watched the program.

It's from the first decade this century, I'd say ─ Fermilab is said to be the biggest collider in the world, whereas after teething problems, CERN becomes functional in 2010 ─ and Dawkins and Co are in full spate. Lest we forget, Dawkins and Co got their impetus and importance in the US and elsewhere from the unlawful attempts of certain fundamentalists to have Creationism taught in state schools at state expense.

I'm not a Dawkins fan ─ his arguments are correct but he seems to have no functional sense of humor ─ and that wave has passed. Did it resemble a religion? It certainly represented a movement that generated a lot of emotion and there were indeed occasional "vomits of contempt", as Mr Little points out, but that's largely history. Calling such movements 'a religion' is tempting against that background ─ a peculiar insult for believers to hurl, "you're as bad as us" ─ but if it was ever the case, I don't think there are significant examples of it now.

The attack on Darwin is also very much of that era. It takes up more time in the program than any other angle and it's all very misleading. The theory of evolution starts with Charles Darwin, but our understanding of evolution has grown at an accelerating rate since the middle of the last century and it would have been far more honest to have criticized the theory as it stood at the time of the program rather than in 1859.

The talk about the Big Bang and what happened beforehand was equally specious, since it implied that religion like science brought reasoned enquiry to bear on the question.

But what annoys the heck out of me is the total failure to identify what real thing is intended to be denoted by "God". It would have been far more intelligible for both sides (in rational discussion, at least) to say the choice was science or Haven't the Faintest Idea,

If people want to believe things that help them to act decently, respectfully and inclusively towards their fellow-humans, I don't really care whether they're supernaturalists ─ friends and relatives of mine are in that category.

But here on the debate boards of RF, all topics relating to belief are fair game.

 

[blü 2]

You mean the interpretation given to said ‘evidence” by those who already have a pre-conceived idea of what their findings will reveal?

You misunderstand scientific method. You have a mystery, you think about it, you form an hypothesis, and you test your hypothesis. Then you write up your methodology and your results. Preconceptions are irrelevant. Demonstration is everything.

Do you really think that any of those scientists will ever step outside of their evolutionary bubble? They would be laughed out of academia....

Not if they did it for good reason. They'd get a Nobel Prize instead. But fundamentalism got its modern impetus from Whitcomb and Morris's The Genesis Flood (1961) and in the intervening sixty years fundamentalism hasn't put even one teensy weensy scientific scratch on the (modern) theory of evolution.

Why is that the case, do you think?

Look around you.....is the universe a fluke of some kind?

If that line of reasoning is valid, it leads you straight to the question, What real thing does the word "God" intend to denote, and how did that thing come into being?

And then we can add, We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, but reasoned enquiry is the only procedure whose participants are actually trying to find out.

“Show me”? God “shows” us his work every time we take a walk in nature, unspoiled by human intervention.

So evolution is God? That would explain the biology but the physics would have quite a few questions left over,

what is “nature”?

Nature is reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses.

The Bible itself give us an excellent “definition of God”. Why would you imagine that it doesn’t?

Really? Then please tell me the objective test that can determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not.

 

[Deeje]

Some atheists make a religious crusade of their atheism. But not all atheists are religious, nor see morality as subjective preference.

That is true and one can only admire their dedication to their accepted belief system and the basis for their supporting it. If they have no agenda to convert the world to their superior thinking, but can humbly go about their business without having to constantly defend their position by denigrating those who don't believe, then what criticism can be made? They have made their choice and believe accordingly. They have the courage of their convictions.....but some apparently do not, and must make a song and dance about it.....and get well paid for the performance.

Atheism asserts that there is no God and sees no evidence for one. I claim that there is no God but I don't worship science, and philosophy about it.

Yes, and that is the difference between a "crusader" and a true scientist. A true believer in science has no need to stomp on the opposition as if there is merit in what they say that could sway people away from their beloved "science". Some scientists can happily co-exist with belief in an Intelligent Designer.....not really seeing an incompatibility. But the 'crusaders' are the ones who, when you scratch their mild surface, you see their vindictiveness come up pretty quickly...as if you just insulted their mother.

I don't practice anti theism. I'm merely an atheist who would rather there was a God but see no evidence for one.

If God surrounds us with his works, how can anyone stand there and see no "evidence" for his existence?

If you came across a house in the woods....well constructed, fully furnished, with lighting, plumbing, heating, carpeting, a beautiful garden and a well stocked pantry....would you assume that no one designed or built it? Why would you stand there scratching your head wondering where it came from? Its existence proves that it had a designer and builder......so why assume that he doesn't exist, just because you have never met the guy? Wouldn't you instead be admiring his handiwork? There is also a "Welcome" sign on the door and an invitation to enjoy your stay, free of charge....wouldn't that be a sign of his generosity. His only request is that you leave the house as you found it for the next guest....
I could really admire someone like that...what about you? What kind of guests have we been in this "house"?
Someone the builder would want to invite back?

Science can only speak about physical things. Everything else is inferred philosophically.

I think real scientists do not make a crusade out of atheism. There are scientists who are theists, and atheists.

Yes, the crusaders have a definite agenda....to make sure that they eliminate all mention of an Intelligent Creator.....if there was a devil intent on turning people away from God...who better could he hire as his minions?...especially those who use ridicule and derision in their blatant pomposity....

Science doesn't demand any inferences about God. Science is only concerned with natural occurrences and what can be deduced from those occurrences, nothing more then that.

What are "natural occurrences"....how can science even tackle the problem of what is "natural" when it is not even definable? There are laws governing nature.....immutable laws that will never alter along with the science....there will just be new ways to explain them. Where did those laws come from?

The DNA responsible for the genetics of all living things is a code.....a set information source that is passed on to the next generation of all creatures, with little to no effort or conscious selection on the part of the reproducers.
Information does not come out of thin air....just like that simple cell that has supposedly spawned all life since.

What we believe is simply a reflection of who we are.....

When does one swap one fairy tale for another when neither one has proof? Science is just more convincing.....to some people.

Science is a career, not a religious crusade.

But you would never know that listening to the likes of Dawkins.....who has made a very good living out of denying God.

Anyone trying to officiate their truth over me better have the absolute truth, otherwise I'll object to it's authority; atheist or otherwise.

If you had absolute proof for God's existence, (more than what we already have) there would be no need of faith or a deliberate decision on our part to search for God, and the meaning of life....or check out the reality of what science truly knows (rather than believes) as compared with what Christendom teaches......I see them as both completely flawed and at a stalemate that will never be won by either side. Why? Because both are starting with a wrong premise IMO.

Our search for God then begins with creation and a genuine appreciation for what it is and how flawlessly it operates unguided....only humans are capable of messing that up.
That search ends when we finally see that "nothing comes from nothing".....and that the "something" that caused the "physical" world to exist, did so with the greatest skill and care.
We then find God inside ourselves, where no man can remove him.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Isn’t it the passion that drives fanaticism?......often seen as much in sport, or in adoration of entertainment celebrities, as it is in many religious practices.......and it is observed in any other pursuit that drives people to behave in a certain predictable wa

Things having similarities doesn't make them the same. We don't allow sports tax write offs because passion itself doesn't make a religion.

something requires “preaching”....it is a religion. Scientists “preach” as much as religious advocates.....the likes of Dawkins and Coyne have made it a lucrative career out of persuading people over to science by deriding religion and making religious people feel like uneducated fools. If you have to keep persuading people to adopt your message by guilt tripping and shaming, what does that mean?

Again, any hobby by that loose a definition is preaching. Arguing over whether Brave New World or 1984 is the better dystopia fiction, even if done passionately, doesn't make it a religion.
And believe me, I think Dawkins is a git but I'd take him over the shaming and shunning religions do every day.

why does science have to ‘preach’ in order to gain its ‘converts’? What can it give people as a hope for a better future?

Humanity has been brought to the brink of extinction, largely by advances in the various branches of science. For every good thing that science has achieved, they are responsible for a hundred detrimental things that are killing us....some slowly over decades, but others threaten immediate annihilation, such as if a nuclear war was ever declared. Science split the atom......MAD is not a dead thread from the 60’s. The Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight today, than it was back then.

I'd be dead if we were in a pre-modern medicine world so you'll forgive me if I yawn the luddite appeal to pre-history.

No God?....no hope for a better future!.

A pretty lie is still a lie. It doesn't matter if it seems wonderful or terrible of it isn't true. And I've felt no particularly good reason to believe it's true.

 

[Nimos]

That argument is getting old.....like that other old chestnut...."you don't understand evolution"....implying that if we just "knew" about evolution or atheism, we would all be instantly converted.....its actually what I do know about evolution and atheism that keeps me where I chose to go over 50 years ago. You are free to keep your belief system and I will keep mine.

That was not what I meant by it, simply that he is trying to turn atheism into a religion. It has nothing to do with understanding evolution. But rather you take something which is rather simple, "A lack of believe in something" and try to argue that it is a religion.

Lots of religious people accept evolution as well, and just as atheists also doesn't believe in the existence of God(s) of other religions. Atheists just do this with all gods. But its not like evolution is limited or a doctrine that you as an atheist has to believe in, and if you don't then you are not an atheist.

So a flawed scientific method is better than belief in God? How?
In evolution, there is no "set truth"....the scientists will tell you that.....there is no proof for any of it......and if something comes up tomorrow to show that they were in error, a paradigm shift may be necessary and all that stuff they said was fact, disappears into thin air, where it came from.

Im not sure, what you mean in it being better or not to believe in? Its a method we have for figuring out and testing things about the world we live in. It, again is not connected to atheism. Lots of scientist are religious and make use of the method as well.

What atheists do, is simply to say that if we have no good evidence for believing in a God, and we have no way of testing for such being, then to us it seem most likely that such being doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that we look at the scientific method as that of a God, its nothing but a process for testing and verifying things. And we all know that it have issues, but ultimately as errors are discovered we improve our knowledge, because that is how the method works.

There is no absolute truth in science as such, it simply describes what we know to the best of our knowledge, so I don't disagree with him, that our understanding of evolution might change and later we figure out how to better describe it. But currently it is the most accurate description that we have.

Darwin had an idea, but he later expressed some doubts about the things that strongly indicated intelligent design. All creation is evidence for the Creator because blind chance could never be responsible for such perfection....and the systems that drive all the various process, like how everything on earth is recycled....this cannot be accidental. Earth is a closed system of regeneration and recycling, otherwise we would be drowning in our own waste, without food oxygen or water.It all works perfectly because it was designed to.

Well clearly it is possible, because we can see and explain how this recycling system works. I don't understand what you mean, that we would drown in our own waste? without food and oxygen etc.?

Just one element that makes up a huge part of this earth is the miracle called water......without which not a single thing could survive here. But it is a finite commodity....there is a set amount of water on earth, that is constantly recycled through precipitation so that clean fresh drinking water falls from the sky to keep land dwellers alive. Its source is the vast oceans where evaporation picks up moisture and stores it in the clouds, which in turn take it over land to deposit it as fresh drinking water and to irrigate all the plants life. Is that just a fluke of nature? You can think so if you wish....

I don't believe it is a miracle and again its fairly well explained. Other planets in our solar system have clouds as well, obviously more deadly than ours, but I don't see why it would require a creator to work like that?

But that is the crux of the whole matter.....science doesn't need to provide "proof"....so why does God need to provide "proof"? All the proof we need is right under our noses.....some just choose not to see it.

No one said, that science doesn't need to provide proof? Of course it does, the rules are the same for them, people make up a theory of something and it is nothing but that, unless they can provide evidence for it.
The scientist at CERN that he is interviewing, also say this, that they do not know what happened before, the difference is, that they are working on trying to see if they can figure out what happened, but currently we can't. So it is an unknown. They don't claim that multiverses are true, simply that it is a theory, which could explain the fine tuning. But its not like all atheists agree with this, I for one, is not a huge fan of it.

Its all about our own choice to believe whatever appeals to our heart. The spiritually minded ones among us will tend to clearly see God's hand in creation.....but those who think all mention of God is unscientific nonsense will choose to believe in a flawed theory, over appearing to be uneducated and gullible to others.

And to me, as an atheist, and I think this is shared by most atheists, is that we don't see a reason to believe in something unless there is a good reason for it. Religious people do this as well, they just don't see it as being the same when the talk about their God. If I asked you why don't you believe in unicorns or fairies? You would probably also answer, that you see no evidence for them and therefore you don't believe that they exist.

Its not something that only applies to a God, most atheists do not believe in the supernatural, because we see no evidence for it. And you could probably argue that it is the doctrine by which atheists live by. We want a reason for why we ought to believe in something. Again its not a lot different from what religious people do, except that they do not do it with the God they believe in.

I think the world's dictatorships (past and present) based on atheism are demonstration enough that morality finds its origins in the Bible and in a God-given conscience...that is why godless atheistic behavior, becomes animalistic, predatory and lacks compassion....when there is no morality and an abuse of free will, it is a horrible mix. When something contravenes God's laws is always wrong.....and at times leads to very harmful outcomes. God's laws lead to no lasting harm for anyone.

You are demonstrating exactly what I pointed out as being the issue with what you write here. You simply assume that God exists and that morality comes from such being as if it is a fact.
I don't buy it, I can work with the idea of pretending that God exist and we can talk about morality from such perspective. But I would never allow such assumption to be seen as a fact, because God has not been demonstrated to exist and therefore the author of morality.
And besides that, I think a natural explanation of how morality could evolve is far more likely and makes perfect sense, compared to it coming from a God.

Its hard to imagine any despot claiming to be a Christian whilst taking millions of innocent lives.

Hitler was in bed with the Catholic church....was he a Christian? His actions proved that he wasn't.
Its one thing to claim a label, but another thing entirely to live up to what you claim to believe.

We know that millions of people have been killed in the name of religion all over the world and in great numbers.

Hitler's action doesn't prove anything and most likely it was a mixture of many things, for why he thought that Jews and people which didn't fit into his idea of the perfect human, had to be killed. Even if Hitler had been a devoted Christian, which I don't know if he were, it doesn't mean that this were his motive for doing what he did. We know that he didn't like the Jews, in fact a lot of people around the world didn't like them at the time, it was not just a German thing, Hitler just took it quite a lot of steps further.

That is your opinion....but it isn't mine....might it be that the evolutionists will only find fault with this video? Is that somehow unexpected?

A lot of the things he say is true, but those I pointed out, I think is wrong and fallacious, he is drawing or suggesting conclusions, which are not true, because they are easily explained and disproven as I see it.

 

[viole]

Ah, that’s where most everyone goes wrong, right there.
But that’s what you’ve been taught....

We should pray to Whom Jesus prayed, his Father.

(Its called the “Our Father” prayer, not the “Our Jesus” prayer.)..

More evidence that Revelation 12:9b is spot on!

I see, that is why it did not work, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

If atheism behaves just like a religion, then it deserves the label IMO.

Cool. So you've drug atheism down to the level of your beliefs. Now lets compare - who has more evidence for their religion?