'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[AV1611VET]

What is truth?

Didn't someone in the Bible ask that?

 

[Astrophile]

Didn't someone in the Bible ask that?

Yes, Pontius Pilate, John 19:38. Pilate also asked the Jews, 'What accusation bring ye against this man?' (John 19:29). That is the question that I am asking, and so far I haven't received an answer.

Pilate also said to the Jews, 'Take ye him and judge him according to your law' (John 19:31). Jesus was Jewish and should have been tried according to Jewish law, but all the people you listed in the jury were Gentiles.

Finally, Pilate said, 'I find in him no fault at all' (John 19:38); in other words he acquitted Jesus of any crime.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To become an atheist, one must:

1. Ignore all evidence that demonstrates the existence of God.

2. Ignore Biblical warnings.

3. Ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

That, to me, takes a lot of effort.

Atheists and Christians should all give each other a congratulatory pat on the back for a lot of hard work - there are at least 2,500 deities supposedly knocking about (and maybe 28,000,000 or more). Christians simply disbelieve in one less god than atheists.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Christians simply disbelieve in one less god than atheists.

I think you may have gotten that backwards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheists and Christians should all give each other a congratulatory pat on the back for a lot of hard work - there are at least 2,500 deities supposedly knocking about.

That's because we can spot our God in a crowd.

 

[lesliedellow]

Christians simply disbelieve in one less god than atheists.

Nobody could accuse atheists of originality when it comes to their comments, could they? This must be only the 200,000th time I have heard that one this year.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nobody could accuse atheists of originality when it comes to their comments, could they? This must be only the 200,000th time I have heard that one this year.

It has the advantage of being true. Unlike the stereotyped comments of the average YEC.

 

[bhsmte]

Nobody could accuse atheists of originality when it comes to their comments, could they? This must be only the 200,000th time I have heard that one this year.

A comment doesn't need to be original, to be accurate.

 

[lesliedellow]

A comment doesn't need to be original, to be accurate.

You forgot, "and pointless".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can take it that way if you like, easy to see how you would , but fact is, until you can do something to support your case, I don't see the point. I doubt even all my posts are worth replying to so don't take it too badly.

That's the thing.... I'm not the one bringing a case here.
Blatant shift of the burden of proof. Again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So IN GOD WE TRUST is evidence of belief in Allah?

ONE NATION UNDER GOD is one nation under Ahura Mazda?

GOD IS MY PILOT means Darwin is at the helm?

BC/AD is pertaining to Quetzacoatl?

It seems that you have a hard time grasping the difference between the activity of following a religion on the one hand, and the actual claims of the religion on the other.

 

[Ophiolite]

A comment doesn't need to be original, to be accurate.

Nor does it need to be accurate to be original, but enough about AV1611VET.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually, my understanding of science is what made it easy to be an atheist.

True for me, and it helped that my father was a Ph.D. research scientist. I got a clear understanding of science from him.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Michael]

Actually, my understanding of science is what made it easy to be an atheist.

Oddly enough, a real understanding of "science" had the opposite effect on me personally. I don't think most atheists understand the concept of "evidence" as it's used in "science".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I don't think most atheists understand the concept of "evidence" as it's used in "science".

What do you suppose they think it means?

 

[Michael]

What do you suppose they think it means?

Science does not impose an empirical "cause/effect" requirement in terms of claims about "evidence", whereas atheists tend to apply a purely empirical standard as it relates to the topic of "God", but not "science" as a whole.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science does not impose an empirical "cause/effect" requirement in terms of claims about "evidence"

Not sure what you mean by this - evidence is always an effect of some cause... can you give an example to illustrate what you mean?

...whereas atheists tend to apply a purely empirical standard as it relates to the topic of "God", but not "science" as a whole.

Similarly, it's not clear to me what you mean. It seems to me that science does have an empirical standard, acquiring knowledge by observation and experimentation. Can you give an example to demonstrate what you mean?

 

[Michael]

Not sure what you mean by this - evidence is always an effect of some cause... can you give an example to illustrate what you mean?

Similarly, it's not clear to me what you mean. It seems to me that science does have an empirical standard, acquiring knowledge by observation and experimentation. Can you give an example to demonstrate what you mean?

I observe that countless human beings have written about something they call God since the dawn of recorded civilization. How is that not "evidence" of God?

Compare and contrast that to say any of the four supernatural components of LCDM theory. Can you empirically demonstrate that "space expansion", "inflation", "dark energy" or "dark matter" have any tangible effect on a photon in a lab?

Can you demonstrate the existence of any exotic forms of matter?

You might try QM concepts of "gravity". Can you demonstrate the existence of gravitons, or is that something that simply remains an "act of faith" on the part of the believer?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I observe that countless human beings have written about something they call God since the dawn of recorded civilization. How is that not "evidence" of God?

It's evidence of ideas, stories and beliefs in God. Countless people have written about dog-men, fairies, elves, spirits, superhuman heroes, animism, etc. For god beliefs, polytheism was the the norm until relatively recently (late Bronze Age).

Even as an appeal to tradition/antiquity and/or an appeal to the masses (both fallacious) it's poor.

Compare and contrast that to say any of the four supernatural components of LCDM theory. Can you empirically demonstrate that "space expansion", "inflation", "dark energy" or "dark matter" have any tangible effect on a photon in a lab?

Can you demonstrate the existence of any exotic forms of matter?

You might try QM concepts of "gravity". Can you demonstrate the existence of gravitons, or is that something that simply remains an "act of faith" on the part of the believer?

Ah, OK; you're just using this to crowbar in your obsession with LCDM. Not interested.

Never mind.

 

[Cute Tink]

I observe that countless human beings have written about something they call God since the dawn of recorded civilization. How is that not "evidence" of God?

I'm going to guess you believe in zombies, vampires, werewolves and such then too?

Or do you just believe in the entire multitude of deities written about since the beginning of recorded civilization?