Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

And some things science will never be able to explain.

And your evidence of this is? I'm sure there was a time when people thought it would be impossible to find a rational, scientific reason for the sun rising, or for "demon possession". Yet, eventually, it did - orbits, and epilepsy. Observation, and experience demonstrates that science has always found rational explanations for everything that was once thought "supernatural".

 

[sealybobo]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

All life crawled out of the water. Our original ancestors didn't need mommy's and daddy's. They multiplied on their own then eventually started mating.

Or do you believe God waved his hand and fully grown giraffe, porcupines, goats, dogs, tigers, snake, bird magically appeared.

Which theory do you believe?

First before you answer, only 1 is an actual theory

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Oh I see, he said science"can" explain everything eventually. That's a nearly great distinction in his statement of faith.

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

 

[sealybobo]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

And some things science will never be able to explain.

And your evidence of this is? I'm sure there was a time when people thought it would be impossible to find a rational, scientific reason for the sun rising, or for "demon possession". Yet, eventually, it did - orbits, and epilepsy. Observation, and experience demonstrates that science has always found rational explanations for everything that was once thought "supernatural".

I think God is impossible to disprove. They'll never prove he exists either because he doesnt

 

[Czernobog]

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

 

[sealybobo]

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Exactly! Theists believe time and space didn't exist before the big bang. Of course it did.

And time and space lies beyond our one little universe.

 

[sealybobo]

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

 

[Czernobog]

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your que that thestions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

 

[ding]

And yet we still believe.

And you will believe whatever you want regardless of anything anyone else says , whether there is evidence or not and that's your choice

I have made a different choice

I really do not see any evidence that you have made any choices, other than to engage in verbosity.

I would rather suspect that you were simply born an idiot.

And you believe everything you are told without question

You are a mindless sheep

I test everything.

Except your preconceived notion of the existence of God.

How do you know what I have done?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

Science proves many things. For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation? It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another. Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?

 

[ding]

Me? I would say less so, as atheists behave so much like religious fundamentalists.

Painting a group of people with such a broad brush is a mistake. I guess theists do not think.

Sure, there's a distribution. So what? Humans have an innate need to worship something. Even atheists.

Not true. I worship nothing.

Alcoholics worship alcohol. Drug addicts worship drugs. Sex addicts worship sex. Control freaks worship dominance. I have yet to meet anyone who does not have some level of compulsion. We all worship something. It seems the only choice we have in the matter is in choosing what we worship.

Nonsense. No one gives gifts or offerings or prays to any of those things expecting an eternal reward.

I didn't say they did. You can tell what someone worships by what they do. Not by what they say. Most people worship themselves to some extent or another.

 

[ding]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

And some things science will never be able to explain.

And your evidence of this is? I'm sure there was a time when people thought it would be impossible to find a rational, scientific reason for the sun rising, or for "demon possession". Yet, eventually, it did - orbits, and epilepsy. Observation, and experience demonstrates that science has always found rational explanations for everything that was once thought "supernatural".

I think God is impossible to disprove. They'll never prove he exists either because he doesnt

That was hilarious. Do you understand what you just wrote? Your statement should be the poster child for confirmation bias.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your que that thestions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

 

[ding]

I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God. They are like religious fanatics in this regard.

 

[Czernobog]

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

 

[ding]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.

 

[Czernobog]

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your que that thestions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong. Your patience was rewarded.

My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?

When you ask the wtrong question? Yes. You want to know what happened before an event that never took place. Nothing happened, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place. What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang? Nothing. Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God. They are like religious fanatics in this regard.

Pop culture atheists don't actually think about what they think.

 

[Czernobog]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

Based on that simple logic: You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.

No. Based on that logic I have observed that science answers every unresolved question, eventually. I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih". We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.

The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?

That's just it; I don't have to prove non-existence. In science non-existence is the standard. It's called the null hypothosis. The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. God is presumed to not exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.

And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.

That's called confirmation bias. You do not go looking for evidence to fit a preconcieved belief. You allow the evidence that exists to lead you to a conclussion. Intellectual death is abandonning reason, and trying to force evidence to support a belief that it does not support.

 

[Czernobog]

I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God. They are like religious fanatics in this regard.

The point is wrong. Intellectual exploration requires objective evidence. Present objective evidence to the existence of God, and all atheists will universally abandon atheism. No one has yet to provide that objective evidence.