Are non-believers fools?

[DCJazz]

A lot of people confuse "wisdom" with "knowledge". I could be the dumbest man on earth, but I would still have the ability to be wise.

 

[he-man]

Read the context:

They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds

Clearly, fool here doesn't mean lack of intelligence, but lack of morality.

1COR 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[Hog Red]

But if somebody is really outstanding in any scientific field, that person is almost always an atheist, agnostic, or deist.

Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge leader in case you didn't know) just to name a few now what was your point?

 

[he-man]

Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge leader in case you didn't know) just to name a few now what was your point?

They did not believe in the God of Israel!

 

[super animator]

They did not believe in the God of Israel!

He wasn't talking to you.
Edit: That wasn't his point.

 

[TheParticlePerson]

Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge leader in case you didn't know) just to name a few now what was your point?

My point (that reputable scientists are almost always atheists, agnostics, or deists) was unrelated to the point you're trying to make (there are atheists that are bad people).

Although you may not agree with his political ideology, Marx wasn't a bad man; but the others were indeed terrible. I'm not sure why you would point this out, as "there are bad atheists" is not the same as "atheists are bad" (we also can't know if these men acted the way they did simply because they were atheists). Would you like me to tally off some of the monarchs and warlords that did horrible things in the name of Christianity? I won't, because it's a silly form of debate.

 

[he-man]

My point (that reputable scientists are almost always atheists, agnostics, or deists) was unrelated to the point you're trying to make (there are atheists that are bad people).

Although you may not agree with his political ideology, Marx wasn't a bad man; but the others were indeed terrible. I'm not sure why you would point this out, as "there are bad atheists" is not the same as "atheists are bad" (we also can't know if these men acted the way they did simply because they were atheists). Would you like me to tally off some of the monarchs and warlords that did horrible things in the name of Christianity? I won't, because it's a silly form of debate.

Why is it not the same as "atheists are bad", they do not believe in the God of Israel?

 

[TheParticlePerson]

Why is it not the same as "atheists are bad", they do not believe in the God of Israel?

I mean to say that a few bad atheists do not make all of atheism 'bad', just as a few bad Christians do not make Christianity 'bad'.

You're right, atheists don't believe in the God of Israel or any other God; and that's perfectly fine.

 

[lesliedellow]

This verse seems very clear to me, and yet I know there are many non-believers who seem to be very intelligent and morally righteous. How can these two conflicting ideas be reconciled?

If atheists are wrong, and there is a God, they are certainly going to end up looking pretty foolish (at best).

 

[Hog Red]

My point (that reputable scientists are almost always atheists, agnostics, or deists) was unrelated to the point you're trying to make (there are atheists that are bad people).

Although you may not agree with his political ideology, Marx wasn't a bad man; but the others were indeed terrible. I'm not sure why you would point this out, as "there are bad atheists" is not the same as "atheists are bad" (we also can't know if these men acted the way they did simply because they were atheists). Would you like me to tally off some of the monarchs and warlords that did horrible things in the name of Christianity? I won't, because it's a silly form of debate.

let me see if i understand this......atheists have a full head but an empty soul. I got it. score is love-40, it's still your serve.

 

[TheParticlePerson]

By "empty soul" do you mean prone to immoral behavior? Because I'm telling you that simply isn't true.

 

[he-man]

I mean to say that a few bad atheists do not make all of atheism 'bad', just as a few bad Christians do not make Christianity 'bad'.

You're right, atheists don't believe in the God of Israel or any other God; and that's perfectly fine.

Right, atheists are atheists and someone who denies the existence of God.

Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif] not tested[/FONT][/FONT] .

 

[lesliedellow]

But if somebody is really outstanding in any scientific field, that person is almost always an atheist, agnostic, or deist.

I am sure I could name you quite a few who are neither atheist, nor agnostic, nor deist. For example:

George Coyne
Owen Gingrich
Robert Winston
Sam Berry
Sir John Houghton
Sir John Polkinghorne
Ken Miller
Francis Collins
Francisco Ayala
Joan Roughgarden
Christopher Isham
Freeman Dyson
Sir John Houghton
Sir Antony Hewish

That's without stopping to think.

 

[he-man]

I am sure I could name you quite a few who are neither atheist, nor agnostic, nor deist. For example:

George Coyne
Owen Gingrich
Robert Winston
Sam Berry
Sir John Houghton
Sir John Polkinghorne
Ken Miller
Francis Collins
Francisco Ayala
Joan Roughgarden
Christopher Isham
Freeman Dyson
Sir John Houghton
Sir Antony Hewish

That's without stopping to think.

STOP and think...If they are not agnostic, nor deist who believes the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion then they are atheist!

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif] not tested[/FONT][/FONT] .

 

[lesliedellow]

STOP and think...If they are not agnostic, nor deist who believes the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion then they are atheist!

First of all I explicitly said that they are not atheists. Secondly, all but one of them are Christians, and the other is a practising Jew. Thirdly, two of them are priests (in addition to being physicists).

Make that three of them who are priests. The other one (Francisco Ayala) is a biologist (and priest).

 

[TheParticlePerson]

Also he-man, that's a very questionable definition of atheist...

 

[he-man]

n

First of all I explicitly said that they are not atheists. Secondly, all but one of them are Christians, and the other is a practising Jew. Thirdly, two of them are priests (in addition to being physicists).

Make that three of them who are priests. The other one (Francisco Ayala) is a biologist (and priest).

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See's endorsement of "intelligent design" theory, which essentially backs the "Adam and Eve" theory of creation

Read more: Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate | Mail Online​

 

[lesliedellow]

n

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See's endorsement of "intelligent design" theory, which essentially backs the "Adam and Eve" theory of creation

Read more: Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate | Mail Online​

So what has that got to do with anything? Somebody doesn't stop being a priest because he falls out of favour with the Vatican. Still less does he stop being an eminent scientist because he falls out of favour with the Vatican.

 

[Night_Owl]

I'm re-posting the OP's stated verse, so I could give my personal viewpoints. The bible I have is the New International Version. So please feel free to share any alternate translation.

The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
There is no one who does good.

Now from the bible I'm reading it seems to me as if it is stating atheists (I once was one, and in reflection, yes I was quite a fool at times, still foolish at times today too.) I don't believe foolish means the same as stupid however, and the OP is right to state that some of the smartest people in history were atheists, some were agnostic, Christian, and of other faiths as well.

Atheists can be, and many are moral law abiding citizens, the sterotype of the evil atheist is upsetting to me, as are many christian sterotypes I see thrown around these days.

As for the the atheist being corrupt, I have to say some are, then again many who claimed to have been Christian have become corrupt as well. People are people, we make mistakes despite what we believe in.

The Lord looks down from heaven
On the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Any who seek God.

This verse tells me that although one who does not belive in a higher power can gain much material knowledge lacks spiritual knowledge. Yes an atheist can know much about religious practices and beliefs, but the actual essence of spirituality is closed to them, as it was to me, but only because they deny it.

All have turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is no one who does good
Not even one.

Finaly this verse tells me that everyone, and I mean everyone regardless of what they believe in can turn away, athiest or not.

Anyway, those are my personal views, I'm sure some may disagree and your free to do so.

I also saw an example someone posted about science leading to evil, I think the atomic bomb was used in this example. Anyway technology and science are not evil, it's how we use it that leads to immoral or moral actions. Nuclear energy for example can power a city, or power a warhead. It's how we use the knowledge we obtain that matters.

 

[he-man]

So what has that got to do with anything? Somebody doesn't stop being a priest because he falls out of favour with the Vatican. Still less does he stop being an eminent scientist because he falls out of favour with the Vatican.

Since he is a theist as well as a historian of science and a cosmologist, Gingerich has been asked several times to comment on matters concerning the interplay between science and faith.

One of these, Intelligent design, he calls an issue with “immense incomprehension from both the friends and foes.” On the one hand, he says that it is unfortunate that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction among its critics that ID is simply Young Earth creationism in disguise. On the other hand, he says that, while ID supporters make a good case for a coherent understanding of the nature of the cosmos,

they fall short in providing any mechanisms for the efficient causes that primarily engage scientists in our age. ID does not explain the temporal or geographical distribution of species, or the intricate relationships of the DNA coding. ID is interesting as a philosophical idea, but it does not replace the scientific explanations that evolution offers.

Gingerich believes “there is a God as a designer, who happens to be using the evolutionary process to achieve larger goals — which are, as far as we human beings can see, [the development of] self-consciousness and conscience.” He has written that “I ... believe in intelligent design, lowercase ‘i’ and ‘d.’

But I have trouble with Intelligent Design — uppercase ‘I’ and ‘D’ — a movement widely seen as anti-evolutionist.” He indicated that teleological arguments, such as the apparent fine tuning of the universe, can count as evidence, but not proof, for the existence of God. He said that “a common-sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.”

Accepting the common descent of species, Gingerich is a theistic evolutionist. Therefore, he does not accept metaphysical naturalism.

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.

Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.