Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?

[Dan From Smithville]

I see very few Christians and no Muslims at all Answering my questions is there mostly atheists here ?

I have been thinking about this. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps not. I don't know the beliefs or lack of belief of everyone on this forum that chooses to answer your posts. Certainly, there are differences in threads that attract some groups more than others. But atheists are a pretty varied group from my observation. They seem to favor more intellectual questions or threads and views based on evidence. Maybe your threads are just more interesting to them or maybe you write in a way that is perceived as more congenial to candid responses.

It is an interesting observation that may tell us more about the responses and responders you don't think you are getting.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You make it sound like doing it that way is bizarre and don't make sense

I’m American. We measure in bananas and football fields here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I’m American. We measure in bananas and football fields here.

And Hiroshimas, Empire State buildings, and Olympic-sized swimming pools

***************

****************

 

[McBell]

I’m American. We measure in bananas and football fields here.

So long as it is NOT the metric system.

 

[ChristineM]

So long as it is NOT the metric system.

Of course bananananananas (easy to start, hard to stop) is metric, 10 bananananananas to the bunch, 10 bunches make a tree and 100 trees make a football field, all very metric, as it should be in this modern scientific world

 

[sun rise]

To anyone who thinks Dr Stevenson's pseudoscience is "heavily evidenced" I refer them to Ian Stevenson - Wikipedia

For example, '
'Psychologist and neurologist Terence Hines has written:



ETA Not to mention that reincarnation is not evidence for a God in my view since the mechanism for reincarnation even if hypothetically true (which it appears not to be to me) could be entirely natural without requirement of a God

Storytelling? That's utterly dismissive because it ignores the followup evidence. It's like some people did not even read the research but instead defend their biases.

Also, I did not say that reincarnation was proof of God but you ignored what I wrote. There's no sense in trying to engage in a discussion when someone ignores the point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Einstein's theories of relativity had no proof when he first proposed it. So it was "imaginary, fantasy" in your mind based on what you wrote.

Not true! Einstein's theory contained within the means by which it could be tested. While a work of genuinely imaginative thinking, it contained within it much evidence for its contents, unlike an imaginary, fantasy work such as Harry Potter. And all that was necessary was to wait for the next total solar eclipse to provide one test of the theory, which in fact happened within very few years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So long as it is NOT the metric system.

I just saw Pulp Fiction again this month. Do you know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in Paris and why? If you haven't seen the movie or don't recall the scene, look at this video stating at about 0:58 (the f-word appears here):

And all that was necessary was to wait for the next total solar eclipse to provide one test of the theory, which in fact happened within very few years.

Correct, and a good answer.

I'm on a trivia roll. Do you know why it took a few years (five)? Total solar eclipses are visible somewhere in the world about every six to twelve months, yet there was a five-year delay in making that observation.

"In 1914 three eclipse expeditions, from Argentina, Germany, and the US, were committed to testing Einstein's theory by observing for light deflection. The three directors were Erwin Finlay-Freundlich, from the Berlin Observatory, the US astronomer William Wallace Campbell, director of the Lick Observatory, and Charles D. Perrine, director of the Argentine National Observatory at Cordoba. The three expeditions travelled to the Crimea in the Russian Empire to observe the eclipse of 21 August. However, the First World War started in July of that year, and Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August. The German astronomers were either forced to return home or were taken prisoner by the Russians. Although the US and Argentine astronomers were not detained, clouds prevented clear observations being made during the eclipse. Perrine's photographs, although not clear enough to prove Einstein's prediction, were the first obtained in an attempt to test Einstein's prediction of light deflection."

The famous eclipse was May 29, 1919.

List of solar eclipses in the 20th century - Wikipedia
List of solar eclipses in the 21st century - Wikipedia

 

[danieldemol]

Storytelling? That's utterly dismissive because it ignores the followup evidence.

if the "followup evidence" is as unreliable as the initital allegedly "heavily evidenced" work dont expect me to be impressed.

It's like some people did not even read the research but instead defend their biases.

Psychologist and neurologist Terence Hines was familiar enough with the research to know the children claiming to be reincarnated knew friends and relatives of the dead individual in the most impressive of cases in my view.

Perhaps certain people just need to read the peer review without jumping to defend their biases in favour of the illogical notion of reincarnation in my view.

 

[Audie]

Storytelling? That's utterly dismissive because it ignores the followup evidence. It's like some people did not even read the research but instead defend their biases.

Also, I did not say that reincarnation was proof of God but you ignored what I wrote. There's no sense in trying to engage in a discussion when someone ignores the point.

" follow up evidence"

 

[Heyo]

Not true! Einstein's theory contained within the means by which it could be tested. While a work of genuinely imaginative thinking, it contained within it much evidence for its contents, unlike an imaginary, fantasy work such as Harry Potter. And all that was necessary was to wait for the next total solar eclipse to provide one test of the theory, which in fact happened within very few years.

Correct, and a good answer.

And you are both wrong.

Evidence for a hypothesis can only ever be gathered after the claim has been made and a prediction made by the hypothesis can be tested. So, Einstein's hypothesis of relativity had no evidence to it when it was made.
It did explain all the known phenomena and was mathematically sound. I.e. it was as good as Newton's theory. But that's not good enough to replace an existing theory (especially if the new hypothesis is unnecessarily complicated as the ToR was).
Only after the 1919 eclipse was it clear that Einstein's hypothesis was better than Newton's as it predicted and explained a phenomenon that Newton's theory couldn't.
But you are in good company as many renowned physicists seemingly don't understand that part of the philosophy of science and call their hypothesis' "theories" which they aren't. E.g. String "theory" isn't.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And you are both wrong.

Evidence for a hypothesis can only ever be gathered after the claim has been made and a prediction made by the hypothesis can be tested. So, Einstein's hypothesis of relativity had no evidence to it when it was made.
It did explain all the known phenomena and was mathematically sound. I.e. it was as good as Newton's theory. But that's not good enough to replace an existing theory (especially if the new hypothesis is unnecessarily complicated as the ToR was).
Only after the 1919 eclipse was it clear that Einstein's hypothesis was better than Newton's as it predicted and explained a phenomenon that Newton's theory couldn't.
But you are in good company as many renowned physicists seemingly don't understand that part of the philosophy of science and call their hypothesis' "theories" which they aren't. E.g. String "theory" isn't.

I disagree in some quite fundamental ways. I think that Einstein's use of thought experiment (Gedankenexperimente) constitutes quite a powerful bit of evidence. Taking the time to consider, for example, the trajectory of a ball being tossed into the air inside a moving train, both from the point of view of the person tossing it on the train, and from that of the stationary observer on the outside, is very revealing. Or considering the experience of one on an elevator moving upward at a constant acceleration of 1G. Galileo did the same thing considering whether heavy objects moved faster than lighter ones naturally, asking what would happen if you tied them together in Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche (1638) (from Italian: 'Mathematical Discourses and Demonstrations') thus:

Salviati. If then we take two bodies whose natural speeds are different, it is clear that on uniting the two, the more rapid one will be partly retarded by the slower, and the slower will be somewhat hastened by the swifter. Do you not agree with me in this opinion?​

​

Simplicio. You are unquestionably right.​

​

Salviati. But if this is true, and if a large stone moves with a speed of, say, eight while a smaller moves with a speed of four, then when they are united, the system will move with a speed less than eight; but the two stones when tied together make a stone larger than that which before moved with a speed of eight. Hence the heavier body moves with less speed than the lighter; an effect which is contrary to your supposition. Thus you see how, from your assumption that the heavier body moves more rapidly than the lighter one, I infer that the heavier body moves more slowly.​

 

[Heyo]

I disagree in some quite fundamental ways. I think that Einstein's use of thought experiment (Gedankenexperimente) constitutes quite a powerful bit of evidence.

That's not how (modern) science works. Science is based on observations. Only measurable data counts as evidence.
Gedankenexperimente are a great way to explain a theory or even to formulate hypothesis. But without a real experiment you don't have a theory.

 

[joelr]

It’s interesting, is it not @Massimo2002?

I have nothing against atheists, but I’m not too sure why so many choose to gather on a religious forum.

For instance, I am not a flat-earther. I think it’s humbug (sorry, I do not mean to offend anyone and don’t at all often express this opinion). I would never seek out a flat-earth forum; let alone, join in on conversations there. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.
And when I was atheist, I did not discuss faith - religion, maybe but faith, never.
That’s just me though.

Are you all for real? Religious folks constantly tell atheists to "look into it", learn more, study the religion.
Well? The best way to hone an argument and find flaws in a position is too present it to people who don't agree and may know more about a subject. So here we are asking people why they believe what, presenting ideas, scholarship and so on......

And you best comparison is to a flat earther?
Before you take something to be true it should be able to stand up to all criticisms and arguments. What made you switch from atheist? Why were you an atheist? Why arguments changed your mind? How do you know they are reliable? And do you care about what is actually true?

Atheists are one place to learn from but religious people tend to be familiar with arguments for a religion. Oddly they are extremely unfamiliar with historical scholarship, but anyways, this shouldn't be a mystery? How is learning become so demonized?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It’s interesting, is it not @Massimo2002?

I have nothing against atheists, but I’m not too sure why so many choose to gather on a religious forum.

For instance, I am not a flat-earther. I think it’s humbug (sorry, I do not mean to offend anyone and don’t at all often express this opinion). I would never seek out a flat-earth forum; let alone, join in on conversations there. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.
And when I was atheist, I did not discuss faith - religion, maybe but faith, never.
That’s just me though.

I am an atheist. I'm also a humanist. I am very interested in humans, and the human condition. A large part of the human condition throughout our history has been religion -- I don't think anyone, even atheists, can deny that.

Now, if someone were interested in geology, do you think the best way to learn about it would be NOT to study the rocks, stones, strata, syn and anticline? Or might one learn more by actually spending time studying those things closely?

And you must also not forget that in much of the world -- and even in the United States -- everyone, including atheists, must live with the threat of religion trying its hardest to make rules for everybody. Since not everybody is religious, and even the religious aren't all of the same religion, is it not sensible to pay attention to what they're trying to do?

Now do you know why we're here?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It’s interesting, is it not @Massimo2002?

I have nothing against atheists, but I’m not too sure why so many choose to gather on a religious forum.

For instance, I am not a flat-earther. I think it’s humbug (sorry, I do not mean to offend anyone and don’t at all often express this opinion). I would never seek out a flat-earth forum; let alone, join in on conversations there. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.
And when I was atheist, I did not discuss faith - religion, maybe but faith, never.
That’s just me though.

I wanted to add this, as its one of my favourite things. I'll post a link to the actual song on Youtube, but the lyrics are below. I have highlighted the single best line in the song:

The Word of God​ Lyrics and melody © 1994 by Catherine Faber From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design, Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . . We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known, And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone. Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found; Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground. The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks. There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night, Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light. Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will, Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still. High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars, The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars. We may watch and study or may shudder and deny, Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky. By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur, How the living things that are descend from things that were. The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies, These tiny, humble, wordless things---how shall they tell us lies? We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring. The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing. Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife, Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life. And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade, Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is a lack of a particular position a particular position itself?
Is no position a position?

If it’s consciously adopted, then yes. An atheist is, by definition, a person who defines himself in relation to that which he claims to reject.

 

[ChristineM]

An atheist is, by definition, a person who defines himself in relation to that which he claims to reject.

An atheist, by definition is..

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Rejection implies that a god or gods exist to be rejected.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If it’s consciously adopted, then yes. An atheist is, by definition, a person who defines himself in relation to that which he claims to reject.

Total rubbish! My name is Allen. I was an orphan, a battered child. I'm a tall man. I'm interested in science, music, opera, theatre, especially Shakespeare (my hobby is memorizing the plays, sonnets and poems, and I'm at many thousands of lines now). I'm an old man -- well, 75, but thats pretty old. Remember the orphan part? At 70 I found members of my family, and now I've discovered I have 16 half-brothers and sisters, and uncounted nieces, nephews and great and great-great nieces and nephews. This is all a new and barely explored part of my life.

I am all those things and many, many more. Oh, and I'm also an atheist, which plays a part in my life ONLY when I'm visiting RF.

No, I do not "define" myself in relation to gods! Get over your hubris.

 

[PureX]

An atheist, by definition is..

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

The simple fact that you are forced to use these silly double negatives in this "definition" of yours only serves to illuninate the innate and deliberate dishonesty of it. And anyway, this is not the definition of an atheist. It's the definition of an atheist's corpse. The definition of an atheist is someone that has rejected the philosophical proposisiton made by theism as being invalid. That IS a consciously chosen position, presumably based on some course of reasoning.