Atheists are not deem trustworthy by religious people

[Retro Rob]

I don't think you have the right thought process here. Kids believe the boogeyman lives in their closet and comes out when they are asleep. That's a belief. The fact is that when you look in the closet, there's no boogeyman. That if you were to record everything it would become apparent your kid just has an overactive imagination...like most every kid does. But believing in something is not evidence itself that it exists.

I see.

To continue my post....

Moreover, Atheism has probably grown in popularity simply because as you look at the world, you'll see science advancing. At one point, we said things were propelled by impetus. Now we know about energy, momentum, friction and gravity. At one point we attributed weight to magnetic draw, and we now have defined gravity. We know we're not the center of the universe. We know how to prevent gangrine and don't just amputate limbs. We know mountains were formed by plate movements, not some omnipotent being just playing in a sandbox.



My point is simply: much that before could only explained by magic or god...can now be explained in ways that are in no way attributed to some higher power.

How has religion advanced? How can it answer our questions? Better our lives? Has religion made humans live longer? Advanced the treatment of cancer, largely wiped out polio, wiped out small pox? Did religion stop people like Pol Pot, Hitler...err, Mr Hilter, Stalin and so forth?

Quite simply: you cannot simply say something exists and have it be believed, you have to prove it and last I looked no one ever proved that any god(s) existed. We have the ability to question most anything these days. In past questioning god meant you were tortured to death. Now we're free in the western world to question the existence of god with no fear of the repercussions.

tl;dr: you do no get to say god should be taken for granted because people in centuries past just took it for granted.

.... you say that as if God and science are mutually exclusive. I don't think they are.

Mind you, not all scientists subscribe to godless theories. Most probably do, doesn't make them right or wrong.

I am just saying there is no evidence to factually go either way, according to modern theory and disbelief in creation.

So the burden of proof should lie with both parties.. to prove either way. We weren't here to see God create us, neither were we here to see evolution let alone the "Big Bang".

and how many times were human philosophers wrong? The earth being flat? The earth not moving and being the center of the universe? I'd be careful.....

 

[RampantAndroid]

I see.

To continue my post....

.... you say that as if God and science are mutually exclusive. I don't think they are.

Mind you, not all scientists subscribe to godless theories. Most probably do, doesn't make them right or wrong.

I am just saying there is no evidence to factually go either way, according to modern theory and disbelief in creation.

So the burden of proof should lie with both parties.. to prove either way. We weren't here to see God create us, neither were we here to see evolution let alone the "Big Bang".

and how many times were human philosophers wrong? The earth being flat? The earth not moving and being the center of the universe? I'd be careful.....

By your logic, the higgs boson MUST exist because it is predicted by our current understanding.

Except that isn't how this works. You can say "I think this is the answer" but that is a hypothesis. When you can start to prove it, it becomes a theory. It takes more to become a law. What you are suggesting is that when you propose something the lack of a better answer makes it true. But that doesn't hold up in any way.

How many of the incorrect assumptions were made without proper evidence? Also, check your statement - in the 6th century BCE it becomes accepted by some that the earth is a sphere. And in fact, you're on thin ice here by bringing this up:

2,000 years ago we knew jack all about evolution, about the big bang, about how stars are formed...about medicine. Over time we learn to observe things in new ways. Those ways allow new observations and the creation of new hypothesis, theories and laws. 4,000 years ago how else could you explain your existence other than someone else made you. Welcome to the present day.

A good TV show for you to watch is the Day the Universe Changed. It's incredibly enlightening, and is James Burke's best work, very closely followed by his book Connections.

 

[sandorski]

For what it's worth about them, I don't mistrust them nearly as much as I don't understand them.

Unlike what you said, some go the complete opposite and say there is no God period.

How can they make an assertion like that that goes against the fabric of which Billions of people (past and present) based their whole system of belief, and arrogantly say they don't have the burden of proof to substantiate that, but believers do?

Honestly, I don't know how old Atheism is, but I read that it doesn't predate the the belief in God. It just seem illogical and unfair to walk in with a different "disbelief" and say believers have the burden of proof.

I really wonder about their "no absolutes of right and wrong". Based on that, people could theoretically get away with murder and child abuse and it be a "grey area". Our legal system indeed have right and wrong absolutes as far as morality is concerned (i,e theft, murder, child molestation, domestic violence).

I would like to ask one of them is it wrong to have moral absolutes? Or are they just saying that because the Bible says there are moral absolutes.. and they are so blind by their hatred of religion and the Bible that they are willing to make them absent from society?

There would be no reason for Atheism to exist before Theism existed. However, one can make the argument that everyone before Theism was an Atheist for the simple fact that they were not Theists. They just were unaware of it.

Yes, if an Atheist makes a claim of there being no god they have the burden of proof. However, it's humorous that you would get all worked up about them doing the same as you would regarding making claims about god(s).

 

[Eli]

Religion has no place in an advanced, modern society. They are doing nothing but holding us back. The thought of treading water for the next possibly hundreds of years on things like birth control and abortion is just plain upsetting. What an unfathomable waste of time. And that's just petty domestic stuff, never mind the people killed in the name of God.

The fact that religion is a business should be the first clue that it's simply a man-made control mechanism. It's actually disturbing the way it operates in some cases. What does God need with your money?

Basically, it boils down to this: Of all the thousands of religions that have existed over the last say, 75,000 years... how do you know you've picked the right one? 🙂 How can someone look at this world, at the universe and believe that we're special in any way, shape or form? Believing in a God is like believing we're the center of the universe, it revolves around us. Really?

Let's hope that in a few thousand years they talk about Christianity, Islam and other such religions like they talk about Greek Mythology today.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Yes, if an Atheist makes a claim of there being no god they have the burden of proof.

I disagree. You cannot just posit something exists and then have it taken at face value. You cannot simply say "you must prove this thing, for which I have no proof of it's existence, does not exist." All atheists must do is simply ask for proof. In past, that "proof" might have been "that we're alive. That lightening that just happened. That rain happened when I prayed for it." (forgetting of course that it wasn't repeatable. That it was never proof.) But these days, we have rational ways to explain those things.

 

[sandorski]

I disagree. You cannot just posit something exists and then have it taken at face value. You cannot simply say "you must prove this thing, for which I have no proof of it's existence, does not exist." All atheists must do is simply ask for proof. In past, that "proof" might have been "that we're alive. That lightening that just happened. That rain happened when I prayed for it." (forgetting of course that it wasn't repeatable. That it was never proof.) But these days, we have rational ways to explain those things.

I hear what you are saying, in fact I have even made the "There is no god" comment at times. However, from a purely logical view it requires Proof. It feels good to throw back the nonsense Theists use into their face, but it does not make a good reasoned argument.

 

[sandorski]

Religion has no place in an advanced, modern society. They are doing nothing but holding us back. The thought of treading water for the next possibly hundreds of years on things like birth control and abortion is just plain upsetting. What an unfathomable waste of time. And that's just petty domestic stuff, never mind the people killed in the name of God.

The fact that religion is a business should be the first clue that it's simply a man-made control mechanism. It's actually disturbing the way it operates in some cases. What does God need with your money?

Basically, it boils down to this: Of all the thousands of religions that have existed over the last say, 75,000 years... how do you know you've picked the right one? 🙂 How can someone look at this world, at the universe and believe that we're special in any way, shape or form? Believing in a God is like believing we're the center of the universe, it revolves around us. Really?

Let's hope that in a few thousand years they talk about Christianity, Islam and other such religions like they talk about Greek Mythology today.

Indeed. :thumbsup:

 

[RampantAndroid]

I hear what you are saying, in fact I have even made the "There is no god" comment at times. However, from a purely logical view it requires Proof. It feels good to throw back the nonsense Theists use into their face, but it does not make a good reasoned argument.

Again, I disagree. Religion was never proven...it was just a "there's no other explanation....so....GOD!" As time has gone on, many of the questions were explained, more opened and understanding grown. If you want to say something exists that is not easily observable, you must prove it. It's one thing to look at a cloud and say "there's a cloud" - it's observable. Religion is based on the idea of faith - belief without proof. Stating that there is no god is quite simply based on the observation that god cannot be seen, has never shown himself in ways that can be proven (that is to say, there's zero evidence jesus rose from the dead, or that mana fell from the heavens.)

 

[Retro Rob]

By your logic, the higgs boson MUST exist because it is predicted by our current understanding.

Except that isn't how this works. You can say "I think this is the answer" but that is a hypothesis. When you can start to prove it, it becomes a theory. It takes more to become a law. What you are suggesting is that when you propose something the lack of a better answer makes it true. But that doesn't hold up in any way.

How many of the incorrect assumptions were made without proper evidence? Also, check your statement - in the 6th century BCE it becomes accepted by some that the earth is a sphere. And in fact, you're on thin ice here by bringing this up:

2,000 years ago we knew jack all about evolution, about the big bang, about how stars are formed...about medicine. Over time we learn to observe things in new ways. Those ways allow new observations and the creation of new hypothesis, theories and laws. 4,000 years ago how else could you explain your existence other than someone else made you. Welcome to the present day.

The funny thing, religion and science use the same evidence to prove both ways. Religion says organization requires creation, science says it doesn't.

It all boils down to how you apply that evidence. Some give it to God, some to chance.. or whatever.

We have two classes of people who choose to believe one way or the other. That's what it boils down to. What you choose to believe. And this isn't blind belief from religious folks. I recall reading in the Book of Job 26:7 as saying definitely that the earth was "hanging upon nothing" or "nothingness" depending on the translation. But I think we get the point. This isn't a science textbook, it stated about 3,500 years ago that nothing was holding the earth up. As far as Ive read, that wasn't the opinion of people that were alive then.

Just saying passages like that (and many more) give religious people a basis for believing in God. Really, no way could a man had known that well before we remotely had satellite capabilities. say what you will.

There would be no reason for Atheism to exist before Theism existed. However, one can make the argument that everyone before Theism was an Atheist for the simple fact that they were not Theists. They just were unaware of it.

Yes, if an Atheist makes a claim of there being no god they have the burden of proof. However, it's humorous that you would get all worked up about them doing the same as you would regarding making claims about god(s).

Im not worked up, just happen to think about it.

Just like anything else, an accusation needs supporting evidence. They really can't say God doesn't exist, and then run to science (which can't prove anything with certainty when it comes to our pre-evolution existence or how our universe came about).

Heck, they even found traces of DNA on an asteroid. Is that proof we evolved from dead rock from space?

 

[sandorski]

The funny thing, religion and science use the same evidence to prove both ways. Religion says organization requires creation, science says it doesn't.

It all boils down to how you apply that evidence. Some give it to God, some to chance.. or whatever.

We have two classes of people who choose to believe one way or the other. That's what it boils down to. What you choose to believe. And this isn't blind belief from religious folks. I recall reading in the Book of Job 26:7 as saying definitely that the earth was "hanging upon nothing" or "nothingness" depending on the translation. But I think we get the point. This isn't a science textbook, it stated about 3,500 years ago that nothing was holding the earth up. As far as Ive read, that wasn't the opinion of people that were alive then.

Just saying passages like that (and many more) give religious people a basis for believing in God. Really, no way could a man had known that well before we remotely had satellite capabilities. say what you will.



Im not worked up, just happen to think about it.

Just like anything else, an accusation needs supporting evidence. They really can't say God doesn't exist, and then run to science (which can't prove anything with certainty when it comes to our pre-evolution existence or how our universe came about).

Heck, they even found traces of DNA on an asteroid. Is that proof we evolved from dead rock from space?

It doesn't just say it, it explains how it is done.

 

[Retro Rob]

It doesn't just say it, it explains how it is done.

What explains how what's done?

EDIT: My misread.

It does? Ok... does it use the word "theory" in that explanation(s)?

 

[sandorski]

What explains how what's done?

EDIT: My misread.

It does? Ok... does it use the word "theory" in that explanation(s)?

Before you continue, read up on what a Scientific Theory is.

 

[Lemon law]

What I love is that religious argument, that if you don' believe in God you therefore believe in and follow Satan.

When in fact, if you don't believe in God you don't believe in the fiction of Satin either.

As we can ask spiritual questions about the so called God of Spinoza who may have created the Heavens and Earth some 4.6 billion years ago? And for that matter, God was also responsible for creating the larger original Universe from nothing 13.6 billion years ago. As here we are, on Earth, some 4.6 billion later, as our human science first gets to watch the birth of many new stars and planetary systems continuing even to the present day.

In short, if God created the Universe, ole God has been a very busy fellow ever since.
( Does God have a sex? ) And it appears, at this point in time, that God is even busier than he has ever been before because he keeps creating more star systems than he has at any time in the past.

As the Spinoza argument then becomes, its a maybe or maybe not in terms of God creating the single solar system of planet earth, but it then becomes somewhat absurd to assume God hung around to Govern the earth, when God is too busy creating other solar systems else where.

In short Spinoza suggested a clockmaker God. As God creates and winds the clock called planet earth, and then leaves the clock behind, to go else where and create ever more solar systems and planets. As we now live in our own solar system with inner workings ordered by God, and now our destiny is in our own hands, because God has been busily engaged elsewhere for 4.6 billion years.

So why do the religious pretend God works in mysterious ways when its more likely God is more likely missing in action.

 

[Retro Rob]

Before you continue, read up on what a Scientific Theory is.

I wasn't about to call it a guess, like you think.

Funny thing is, it's based on facts that are repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. I looked it up to confirm the definition to be sure I wrote it right.

Observation? We didn't observe even evolution.. and since we really can't (meaning that it takes lifetimes for it to complete it's stage, so you and I won't ever see it) that's total speculation.

 

[sandorski]

I wasn't about to call it a guess, like you think.

Funny thing is, it's based on facts that are repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. I looked it up to confirm the definition to be sure I wrote it right.

Observation? We didn't observe even evolution.. and since we really can't (meaning that it takes lifetimes for it to complete it's stage, so you and I won't ever see it) that's total speculation.

It involves more than just Observation, but even if it was, you are incorrect. It has been Observed and is Observed on a regular basis.

 

[Retro Rob]

It involves more than just Observation, but even if it was, you are incorrect. It has been Observed and is Observed on a regular basis.

Can you be more specific?

 

[sandorski]

Can you be more specific?

Many Bacteria have evolved resistance to Antibiotics. Viruses evolve into different strains very frequently.

 

[Jeff7]

Many Bacteria have evolved resistance to Antibiotics. Viruses evolve into different strains very frequently.

And if anyone goes into "microevolution" versus "macroevolution," I'll just throw in this from a thread awhile ago:

The distinction [between microevolution and macroevolution] is saying that 1+1=2 is perfectly valid, but that 1+1+1+1=4 is pure craziness.

It's more like saying that 10 - 9 = 1, 20 - 19 = 1, 30 - 29 = 1, 40 - 39 = 1, 50 - 49 = 1, 60 - 59 = 1, 70 - 69 = 1, 80 - 79 = 1, 90 - 89 = 1, but 100 - 99 has never been observed and can not therefore also be 1.

Also, see the section "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation".

What I love is that religious argument, that if you don' believe in God you therefore believe in and follow Satan.

When in fact, if you don't believe in God you don't believe in the fiction of Satin either.
...

Too many have been trained for many years that anyone who's dared to "turn away from God" has done so out of pure hate, and because of the lure of evil: Specifically, because of Satan himself. OoooooOOOOOOooooooo. Yeah, the boogeyman's out and about.

No God, no Satan, no....Jean-Luc Picard. 🙁

 

[RampantAndroid]

I recall reading in the Book of Job 26:7 as saying definitely that the earth was "hanging upon nothing" or "nothingness" depending on the translation. But I think we get the point. This isn't a science textbook, it stated about 3,500 years ago that nothing was holding the earth up.

Oh crap, not this again.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Yes. The earth does not move.

That feint slapping noise you just heard? My palm colliding with my forehead.

 

[Pulsar]

I wasn't about to call it a guess, like you think.

Funny thing is, it's based on facts that are repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. I looked it up to confirm the definition to be sure I wrote it right.

Observation? We didn't observe even evolution.. and since we really can't (meaning that it takes lifetimes for it to complete it's stage, so you and I won't ever see it) that's total speculation.

You grasp at so many straws to try to prove your religious ideals, it leaves me feeling a bit sad for you.

We can't prove evolution? Really?

I strongly suggest that you educate yourself on cross-breeding of flowers and how it pertains to evolution.

Or read about how scientists were able to evolve fruit flies with a faster maturation cycle.

Bot are prime examples of how evolution can occur in nature. Essentially, proof for the hypothesis that pressures can cause changes due to selective breeding.

We can observe evolution, and have. You just choose to ignore it, much like you ignore the inconvenient portions of holy books that are absolutely unquestionably untrue.

Science is about experimentation and the search for truth.

Religion is about creating a 'truth' then looking for things that might support it.

Go pray to the FSM or the milk jug. Both have an equal likelihood of being our creator as your 'God' does. Although I must admit that the FMS and the milk jug are both too specific: being overly general "we don't know what he is" makes it easier to attribute anything we want to him.

 

[SSSnail]

I don't know if this picture has been posted here before, but

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Fucking religion threads, how do they work?

 

[dawp]

considering the source is 'the blaze', glenn becks site, what would you expect other than this?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Fucking religion threads, how do they work?

Religion: Something that want to have a cake and eat it too.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Religion: Something that want to have a cake and eat it too.

Life without faith is like sex with a condom and sex with a condom is like a little cesar's over an authentic new-york pizza

Therefor without faith you are essentially saying you want to rape your face with bad pizza.