Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism? I missed that news. I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.
Psst .. Aesopo ... trust me .. it is very likely you will get no where trying to be rational while the “New Atheist” crusade is in progress. There is an Atheistic apologia that has developed that makes “them” impervious to rationality.
1.) Religion must be destroyed or it will destroy all of humanity.
2.) Use theistic arguments as straw men. (i.e. - always mention Hitler when you discuss Stalin and never mention anti-religion)
3.) Science works only for your means, no science can be used that counters Atheism. (i.e. - science not only argues against “proofs of Gods” existence, but proves Atheism)
4.) Always, I mean Always be vague enough so that later you can claim to be misunderstood.
5.) The more forceful the language, the more you mean it.
6.) Do not, under any circumstances listen to scientist that study belief systems.(especially if they’re Atheist)
7.) Use words such as “apologist”, “appeaser”, “faith heads”, and “belief in belief” whenever possible when criticized.
8.) Only accept criticism when it conforms to the Atheistic ideals.
9.) Play victim, always say that you can’t criticize Religion in society, even as you buy your next book, read the paper, listen to the radio, podcast, and remember that no one was criticizing religion without putting their life in their hands prior to 9/11.(in the U.S.A.)
10.) 9/11 must make you think, it must motivate you, it must prove without doubt that Religion will kill us all.
11.) Exaggerate as much as possible, don’t hold back.
12.) Whore science.
13.) Worth mentioning again - play victim by acting exactly like the Religionists whose beliefs you are trying to destroy.
14.) Open dialogue with Religionists is a form of “belief in belief”
15.) Define words as you wish, including phrases.
Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism? I missed that news. I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.
If so, the flat earth/round earth analogy doesn’t fit. Science can show the world isn’t flat. It isn’t round because secular humanists say it is. It is round because science has shown it is. Not quite the same situation with atheism.
The reason that I think it is a good analogy is that a too-large percentage of the US population believes in the literal truth of the Bible. There is a great deal of material there that either contradicts itself (asking for something to be self-consistent is not “Popperian") or is contradicted by science or historial inquiry. I think rather than focusing on philosophical arguments (which maybe was your concern anyway) one should focus on these concrete points.
I think you probably agree with this. I also agree that “atheism” cannot completely prove the non-existence of “God”, or “heaven/hell”.
To get back to the Popperian thing, I’m not sure why the burden would be on atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist.
I am still waiting for paperback copies of the God Delusion to appear. However, in listening to the audio version I also thought Dawkins got sort of stuck on weaker philosophical points rather than focusing on concrete points which can be addressed.
I think that if religion is reduced to cover only that portion of discussion which does not overlap with science (as Gould suggests, or perhaps ‘defines’ religion), then perhaps we are at the stable Popperian point.
Psst .. Aesopo ... trust me .. it is very likely you will get no where trying to be rational while the “New Atheist” crusade is in progress. There is an Atheistic apologia that has developed that makes “them” impervious to rationality...I’ll add more later.
Wow. This is some list already. Can’t wait to see the rest. Can’t make up my mind if this it sounds like, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”? Or, as the lyric goes, “Become everything that you had hated”.
To get back to the Popperian thing, I’m not sure why the burden would be on atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Well, if I want to argue about it with religious folks, I’m obliged to give them a turn in the conversation to rebut (ie convert) me. Fair’s fair. And isn’t that jolly fun to listen to missionary arguments? No. The burden, in my mind, is being forced to entertain these same creaky, two hundred year old “arguments” a trillion more times.
Science will remain resilient against religious folk moving in and rearranging the furniture only so long as it enforces and adheres to the boundary lines science itself has long argued necessarily exists. I believe.
From Mriana..."the more we as a society get a way from Biblical law the more humane we become”
I guess you’re referring to Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc. Hmmmm…
No, I was referring to what Tabash said in the podcast. Apparently you didn’t listen yet or listen very well. If you did listen, I’m not sure where you got the idea of Hitler, Stalin, etc. BTW, Hitler was Catholic.
My post was written with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Hitler was an atheist and a great proponent of Nietzsche, so much so that he presented a complete collection of his works to Mussolini as a gift. He was also a great proponent of Darwin. Hitler’s philosophy was a logical outworking of these 2 philosophies...Nietzsche’s “Superman” and Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”...and to hedge against the onslaught of posts following this...OF COURSE atheists are not all mass murderers or evil, etc. I just feel it’s important to accurately portray the historical facts concerning Hitler, et al.
And your point is? Several of us appreciate Darwin here, so what you said makes no sense in response to the thread. And no, Hitler was NOT an atheist. That is a fallicy that has been perpetuated for years now. Also what does that have to do with my comment. It would help if you would tie things together so they make more sense.
Well, you stated that the “farther we get away from Biblical law the more humane we become”. I merely pointed out that man’s inhumanity to man has certainly not decreased in the absence of “Bilblical Law” in the regimes I mentioned (we’re talking millions and millions murdered). As to Hitler, his gift to Mussolini of Niezsche’s works is a historical fact. Why would he specifically present the complete works of arguably the most well-known atheist at the time to Mussolini unless he found them to be of great worth? Have you read Mein Kampf? If you did you would see the philosophical parrallels. Lots of people grow up or are raised Catholic. Does that mean they subscribe to the views of the Catholic church or even Christ for that matter? I think not. If you have evidence refuting my position regarding Hitler’s philosophy and worldview I would be interested to see it. Thank you for responding to my post.
BTW, I appreciate Darwin as well, but Darwin himself had concerns that his theory would lead to “survival of the fittest” among mankind that we saw in the leaders I mentioned. I can look up the reference if you like…
Well, as I said, I was referring to Tabash’s podcast. He said something to that affect. In reference to Hitler, 6 million Jews supposedly, not to mention Christians, like Corrie TenBoom’s family, who died or were killed for “Political Crimes”. Their crime was protecting Jews. Of course, this also doesn’t include those with disabilities he had killed too, as well as countless others.
So many people try to refute that Hitler was not Catholic, but the truth of the matter is that he was. Whether or not he was a practicing Catholic as an adult is another question. However, I’m sure there are people here who can debate that one with you far better than I can. I just know that he was not a professed atheist.
BTW, I appreciate Darwin as well, but Darwin himself had concerns that his theory would lead to “survival of the fittest” among mankind that we saw in the leaders I mentioned. I can look up the reference if you like…
No, I’ve seen it, but little did he know, science would find his ideas of evolution accurrate.
As I read more posts on this forum it appears that anyone with a contrary view no matter how polite they are is immediately pounced on...hence my reference to “cheerleader” forums. The “Christian” forums are the same way. It’s pretty hard for a seeker of truth to find any solice amongst the zealots of either side. I will not bother you with my posts any longer...thank you.
Oh I’m not pouncing you. I’m just wondering why, that’s all. Because I don’t appear to be a zealot? Anyway, I don’t intend to be a zealot or be perceived as one. I just find this situation a curiousity. You are welcome though. I thought since you did address me personally and no one else, I should at least give you the courtesy of addressing you and finding out your intentions. I find it curious that you did not reply to anyone until I addressed you, then you replied to Brennen and myself, but only after I addressed you finally. Very interesting.
