This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists
Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)
If there were no concepts of god, then there would be no need for atheism. We would all, in effect be atheists, but we just wouldn’t know it, and would thus not identify as atheists.
But as long as there are silly and conflicting religions and concepts of god, there will probably be atheists, also.
LL. I can’t imagine there ever not being silly and conflicting religions and concepts of god. The need or desire for it is just too much a part of human nature for that drive to be obliterated completely. I don’t like to say never but this comes closest.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 November 2012 07:33 PM
This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists
Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)
Dude - the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant? I’m a sceptical believer not a theist
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 November 2012 07:33 PM
This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists
Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)
Dude - the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant? I’m a sceptical believer not a theist
A skeptical believer is still a theist.
Whether you like it or not, scientists can prove that an intelligent prime mover is not necessary for our existence. Science is too effective to be dismissed as some postmodern mind****.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 November 2012 07:33 PM
This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists
Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)
Dude - the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant? I’m a sceptical believer not a theist
That is a contradiction in terms. A believer is by definition not sceptical. OTOH to say “I am a sceptical non-believer” is correct.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 02 November 2012 07:33 PM
This isn’t necessarily bad - it will just change the way we look at science and maybe take some of the arrogance out of some atheists
Funny how this one gets trotted out when the most breathtaking arrogance I see is NOT among scientists (Who are not afraid to say ” I don’t know, so let’s find out!) but among theists. (Who say We have The One Right Answer given by direct revelation from God, that’s all the answer anybody needs, and oh by the way, we are The Elect.)
Dude - the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant? I’m a sceptical believer not a theist
That is a contradiction in terms. A believer is by definition not sceptical. OTOH to say “I am a sceptical non-believer” is correct.
Interesting how things are defined. A person arrives at a conclusion by being sceptical of the evidence and forms an opinion on that. Whether that evidence leads to belief or non-belief. I am sceptical of both science and religion. For me the greater evidence continues to support a creator. I don’t deny science - unless the answers are crazy and the evidence is questionable - just as I would deny religious craziness. I deny both stories of creation - the science one of a billion times all the matter within in the universe condensed into an electron sized particle and then anti-matter destroying 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second by nothing for no reason- and a higher being having the ability to go beyond our cerebral limitations and manipulate our reality are both crazy. Sceptism tells me the higher being one is more plausable - primarily do to the fact that we can do the same to lower beings (plus I see the universe as being very complex and specific). How is that not a sceptical believer?
Interesting how things are defined. A person arrives at a conclusion by being sceptical of the evidence and forms an opinion on that. Whether that evidence leads to belief or non-belief. I am sceptical of both science and religion. For me the greater evidence continues to support a creator. I don’t deny science - unless the answers are crazy and the evidence is questionable - just as I would deny religious craziness. I deny both stories of creation - the science one of a billion times all the matter within in the universe condensed into an electron sized particle and then anti-matter destroying 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second by nothing for no reason- and a higher being having the ability to go beyond our cerebral limitations and manipulate our reality are both crazy. Sceptism tells me the higher being one is more plausable - primarily do to the fact that we can do the same to lower beings (plus I see the universe as being very complex and specific). How is that not a sceptical believer?
First, how is being an atheist arrogant? You said that earlier, but did not explain it.
Regarding the above, you obviously do not understand the science you call crazy. There was neither matter nor anti-matter in the very early universe. Those came later after the universe cooled sufficiently. If skepticism tells you a creator is more plausible than no creator then provide the evidence for a creator. Science has done a marvelous job explaining reality without need of a creator, so you will need some compelling evidence showing there is a creator.
the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant?
I’m fascinated by your lack of understanding, but certainty in your error, S-P. Most atheists are intelligent enough to avoid the logical trap of the theists; rather than saying “I know there is no god”, just as a theist would say, “I know there is a god”, they are most likely to say, “I see no evidence of a god, so until that time when its existence is proved, I’ll ignore the concept and make my life decisions without the concept of a god influencing them.”
Please try to avoid the strawman and polarization critical thinking fallacies in your arguments.
“I see no evidence of a god, so until that time when its existence is proved, I’ll ignore the concept and make my life decisions without the concept of a god influencing them.”
Occam
Is this different from what an agnostic might say?
Interesting how things are defined. A person arrives at a conclusion by being sceptical of the evidence and forms an opinion on that. Whether that evidence leads to belief or non-belief. I am sceptical of both science and religion. For me the greater evidence continues to support a creator. I don’t deny science - unless the answers are crazy and the evidence is questionable - just as I would deny religious craziness. I deny both stories of creation - the science one of a billion times all the matter within in the universe condensed into an electron sized particle and then anti-matter destroying 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second by nothing for no reason- and a higher being having the ability to go beyond our cerebral limitations and manipulate our reality are both crazy. Sceptism tells me the higher being one is more plausable - primarily do to the fact that we can do the same to lower beings (plus I see the universe as being very complex and specific). How is that not a sceptical believer?
First, how is being an atheist arrogant? You said that earlier, but did not explain it.
Regarding the above, you obviously do not understand the science you call crazy. There was neither matter nor anti-matter in the very early universe. Those came later after the universe cooled sufficiently. If skepticism tells you a creator is more plausible than no creator then provide the evidence for a creator. Science has done a marvelous job explaining reality without need of a creator, so you will need some compelling evidence showing there is a creator.
Atheism not arrogant? Are you serious? - every page in every forum looks down at believers - the assumption that atheist know better is almost in every line. You’re kidding right?
I’m not saying I understand the science I call crazy - I’m saying the specialists I sight understand it - and anyone can understand a time-line provided by them. I’m sure I can sight the cosmologist it you like
the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant?
I’m fascinated by your lack of understanding, but certainty in your error, S-P. Most atheists are intelligent enough to avoid the logical trap of the theists; rather than saying “I know there is no god”, just as a theist would say, “I know there is a god”, they are most likely to say, “I see no evidence of a god, so until that time when its existence is proved, I’ll ignore the concept and make my life decisions without the concept of a god influencing them.”
Please try to avoid the strawman and polarization critical thinking fallacies in your arguments.
Occam
Fair enough - I would think every atheist would have their own belief - which to me sounds kinda strange that they would have a belief at all - some argue they don’t
Atheism not arrogant? Are you serious? - every page in every forum looks down at believers - the assumption that atheist know better is almost in every line. You’re kidding right?
I’m not saying I understand the science I call crazy - I’m saying the specialists I sight understand it - and anyone can understand a time-line provided by them. I’m sure I can sight the cosmologist it you like
Every page in every forum? Please look at this page and show me where an atheist is being arrogant.
the view of atheism is - I know there is no God - what could be more arrogant?
I’m fascinated by your lack of understanding, but certainty in your error, S-P. Most atheists are intelligent enough to avoid the logical trap of the theists; rather than saying “I know there is no god”, just as a theist would say, “I know there is a god”, they are most likely to say, “I see no evidence of a god, so until that time when its existence is proved, I’ll ignore the concept and make my life decisions without the concept of a god influencing them.”
Please try to avoid the strawman and polarization critical thinking fallacies in your arguments.
Occam
Fair enough - I would think every atheist would have their own belief - which to me sounds kinda strange that they would have a belief at all - some argue they don’t
Perhaps you should start taking atheists at their word. In this society, anyone who is fool enough to declare themselves atheist, must be honest.
