The De-Christianization of America

[PK1]

There are conclusions or theories based on evidence/data derived from rational methods (science), then there are "faith" conclusions based on ignorance and emotional weakness.

I choose rational methods, and I don't have a need to conclude beyond the evidence.
.

You're quite a shining hero in your own mind. lol Some rational individuals conclude there is a God. Astonishing that they dare to disagree with you! Some atheists and agnostics base their conclusions on ignorance and emotional weakness.

Check out these articles:

Blinded by Scientism

Five Things Science Cannot Prove (but are necessary for science to work) | internetmonk.com

---
Ed Feser either does not understand scientific research & agnosticism, or does not want to, since he's become biased as a RCC apologist. Either way, he's an embarrassment to modern philosophy of science, physics, cultural anthropology, developmental psychology, etc.
Without fully understanding those disciplines, he puts up straw men (atheist scientists) and criticizes some of their opinions, e.g., pretending they don't believe in the mind rather than, in actuality, they may prefer not to study the unobservable.
Feser misses the agnosticism of science completely, whereby scientists don't make claims without evidence. Otherwise, they don't know!
However, Feser claims to "know" with his ancient "proof" of God as the "hierarchical Unactualized Actualizer".
Gimme a break!!


At least your 2nd reference made more sense and admitted:
"science is a wonderful tool for granting knowledge about this universe we find ourselves in. It in no way is to be despised or denigrated. But enough of the foolish talk that it alone traffics in certainty and what is beyond doubt."

However, it also misses the agnosticism of real science.
If you make a claim, it's up to you to support it rationally.
Philosophy provides the rational framework and science provides the evidence based on observable data interpreted with objective methods, including probabilistic assessments.
If a real scientist does not have sufficient evidence, they will not pretend to "know".
That is the basis of agnosticism.
.

 

[PK1]

Explain why any real scientist should have faith in any religion.....
.

Any real scientist worth his/her salt realizes that what we know will always be less than what we do not. You probably can't wrap your little brain around what that means in relation to faith.

A rational person not blinded by bigotry and insecurity can see that religion provides comfort, community, and guidance to billions of people. Only an arrogant, ignorant buffoon thinks that his own prejudice is universal.

---
"Any real scientist worth his/her salt realizes that what we know will always be less than what we do not."

Of course I agree with that statement; I'm agnostic.


"religion provides comfort, community, and guidance to billions of people."

I don't disagree with that either. However, pretending to "know" about a supernatural "God", esp their version, and being atheist about other versions, is indeed arrogant and stupid ...
.

 

[Unkotare]

[


being atheist about other versions,
.

Makes no sense.

 

[Thunderbird]

Feser misses the agnosticism of science completely, whereby scientists don't make claims without evidence.

You are just restating your pet idea again and again.

However, Feser claims to "know" with his ancient "proof" of God as the "hierarchical Unactualized Actualizer".
Gimme a break!!

Your childish outburst is not much of a substitute for an intelligent argument.

science provides the evidence based on observable data interpreted with objective methods,

How do you know observable data interpreted with objective methods is real?

If a real scientist does not have sufficient evidence, they will not pretend to "know".

Okay then what is your scientific evidence that scientism is true?

Here's a quote from Feser: For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

 

[Thunderbird]

and being atheist about other versions,

Different religions have different (partial?) understandings of God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Many religious traditions have come to similar ideas about God.

 

[sealybobo]

As Martha Steward used to say: It's a good thing


Christianity has declined nearly twenty points since 1960 to 74 percent. And will further be marginalized in the coming decades

Gallup Politics, documenting the evolution of that consensus for over a decade, found that the majority of Americans age 35 to 55 years now consider the following behaviors a non issue: gay/lesbian relationships (54 percent), non-marital sex (63 percent), and embryo and stem cello research (59 percent) among others.

On the abortion issue, only about one-fourth believe that abortion is morally wrong and that government should pass restrictions on a women's choice

This is very interesting. BUT, none of what you mentions when it comes to believing in God. Not that gays go to hell or that abortion is murder. Religion will just evolve and one day Catholics will say, "we were never anti birth control, that's silly, that was just some christian misinterpreting the bible", totally ignoring that their hospitals didn't want to pay for birth control because of their religious convictions. So either Catholics are liars or stupid and don't see their church changing right before their eyes. The Catholic Church lost so many members they had to elect a liberal pope and out the sitting pope because membership is all that matters. Not truth, but the collection plate. Religion is just another major industry.

Anyways, none of that stuff matters. What I find interesting is that today, people aren't buying into the born agains stories like we did back in the day. Even if your parents weren't religious kids in their 20's have always been the favorite pray of the churches. That is the age we start asking a lot of questions and we are seeking religion. What I'm impressed with is today, 20somethings aren't buying the religious stories. They are too smart.

I think the internet has a lot do do with it. If I was deciding if god was real or not I think the internet would have helped save me 20 years in my decision making process. I never had the world at my fingertips back when I was 20.

Why there is no god

No easy way to find this information before the internet.

 

[sealybobo]

Feser misses the agnosticism of science completely, whereby scientists don't make claims without evidence.

You are just restating your pet idea again and again.

However, Feser claims to "know" with his ancient "proof" of God as the "hierarchical Unactualized Actualizer".
Gimme a break!!

Your childish outburst is not much of a substitute for an intelligent argument.

science provides the evidence based on observable data interpreted with objective methods,

How do you know observable data interpreted with objective methods is real?

If a real scientist does not have sufficient evidence, they will not pretend to "know".

Okay then what is your scientific evidence that scientism is true?

Here's a quote from Feser: For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

Maybe you are just a dream in the mind of a maggot living in feces on the African desert? Or maybe we are just living in a giant childs marble.

 

[Thunderbird]

Maybe you are just a dream in the mind of a maggot living in feces on the African desert?

Maybe you are a just a turd stuck in Barnie Frank's asshole who is only dreaming he is a sub-literate poster on USMB. lol

 

[Thunderbird]

abortion is murder. Religion will just evolve and one day Catholics will say

that's silly, that was just some christian misinterpreting the bible",

Of course everybody in the future will agree with you. lol

The Catholic Church lost so many members they had to elect a liberal pope and out the sitting pope because membership is all that matters.

Actually liberal denominations often lose the most members.

I never had the world at my fingertips back when I was 20.

Lots of information on the internet. Some of it is actually true I understand. I once was naïve about the internet like you, but then I saw how massive corporations/institutions had taken over.

The 10 Companies That Own the Internet

Why there is no god

Your amateurish anti-religion hate site doesn't have much to offer. For example in #10 the claim is made that our brains are unreliable. If this is so how can we trust our reasoning powers? Regarding #8, check out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...n-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html #14 is also very weak: 1) The universe doesn't have to be crammed with life at any given point in time to be fine-tuned. Perhaps God meant to provide us with challenge - to expand into space. 2) From biologos: Not surprisingly, fine-tuning arguments unsettle those who embrace the philosophy of naturalism, since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. Some of the naturalist responses are common and are worth mentioning here. The first amounts to a nonchalant shrugging of the shoulders. Many adherents to philosophical naturalism give a response along the following lines: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.11 Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!” A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity, whereas this kind of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution.

Also check out: Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Thunderbird]

 

[Thunderbird]

Communist atheists in only 80 years killed about 94 million! And the number of deaths caused by atheism is much higher. An atheist, Stalin, along with his fellow Christian-hater Hitler started the worst war in human history. And don't forget all the deaths caused by right wing atheists like Mussolini, who was in part inspired by another blood-thirsty atheist Nietzsche. And don't forget the Armenian genocide, committed by secular fanatics: the Young Turks.

Please also remember that the austere atheist philosophy has never attracted a large number of believers. Under 3% of the world population is atheist. So a small number of atheists are responsible for a tremendous amount of carnage. On a per capita basis atheists are by far the worst murderers in human history.

 

[sealybobo]

abortion is murder. Religion will just evolve and one day Catholics will say

that's silly, that was just some christian misinterpreting the bible",

Of course everybody in the future will agree with you. lol

The Catholic Church lost so many members they had to elect a liberal pope and out the sitting pope because membership is all that matters.

Actually liberal denominations often lose the most members.

I never had the world at my fingertips back when I was 20.

Lots of information on the internet. Some of it is actually true I understand. I once was naïve about the internet like you, but then I saw how massive corporations/institutions had taken over.

The 10 Companies That Own the Internet

Why there is no god

Your amateurish anti-religion hate site doesn't have much to offer. For example in #10 the claim is made that our brains are unreliable. If this is so how can we trust our reasoning powers? Regarding #8, check out: PROFESSOR JOHN LENNOX: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God #14 is also very weak: 1) The universe doesn't have to be crammed with life at any given point in time to be fine-tuned. Perhaps God meant to provide us with challenge - to expand into space. 2) From biologos: Not surprisingly, fine-tuning arguments unsettle those who embrace the philosophy of naturalism, since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. Some of the naturalist responses are common and are worth mentioning here. The first amounts to a nonchalant shrugging of the shoulders. Many adherents to philosophical naturalism give a response along the following lines: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.11 Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!” A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity, whereas this kind of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution.

Also check out: Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

And science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It's religion that does that.

In the beginning God made.... No need to ask any more questions. How did we get here? God? Really? So the bible is a science book of facts?

 

[sealybobo]

Communist atheists in only 80 years killed about 94 million! And the number of deaths caused by atheism is much higher. An atheist, Stalin, along with his fellow Christian-hater Hitler started the worst war in human history. And don't forget all the deaths caused by right wing atheists like Mussolini, who was in part inspired by another blood-thirsty atheist Nietzsche. And don't forget the Armenian genocide, committed by secular fanatics: the Young Turks.

Please also remember that the austere atheist philosophy has never attracted a large number of believers. Under 3% of the world population is atheist. So a small number of atheists are responsible for a tremendous amount of carnage. On a per capita basis atheists are by far the worst murderers in human history.

Hitler wasn't an atheist and even if he was the Germans were all Catholic hating Jews. God fearing. So that backs up my view "they" use religion to control us. Just like Obama might be an atheist or Muslim, what are the citizens?

 

[sealybobo]

Bush lies us to war, Alberto Gonzales can't recall and bush tortures and only scooter Libby goes to jail?

 

[Unkotare]

abortion is murder. Religion will just evolve and one day Catholics will say

that's silly, that was just some christian misinterpreting the bible",

Of course everybody in the future will agree with you. lol

The Catholic Church lost so many members they had to elect a liberal pope and out the sitting pope because membership is all that matters.

Actually liberal denominations often lose the most members.

I never had the world at my fingertips back when I was 20.

Lots of information on the internet. Some of it is actually true I understand. I once was naïve about the internet like you, but then I saw how massive corporations/institutions had taken over.

The 10 Companies That Own the Internet

Why there is no god

Your amateurish anti-religion hate site doesn't have much to offer. For example in #10 the claim is made that our brains are unreliable. If this is so how can we trust our reasoning powers? Regarding #8, check out: PROFESSOR JOHN LENNOX: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God #14 is also very weak: 1) The universe doesn't have to be crammed with life at any given point in time to be fine-tuned. Perhaps God meant to provide us with challenge - to expand into space. 2) From biologos: Not surprisingly, fine-tuning arguments unsettle those who embrace the philosophy of naturalism, since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. Some of the naturalist responses are common and are worth mentioning here. The first amounts to a nonchalant shrugging of the shoulders. Many adherents to philosophical naturalism give a response along the following lines: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.11 Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!” A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity, whereas this kind of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution.

Also check out: Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

And science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It's religion that does that.

Different questions, ignorant dope.

 

[Unkotare]

Bush lies us to war...

Wrong again.

 

[Thunderbird]

the Germans were all Catholic hating Jews. God fearing.

Not really.

1) Why do you believe Germans are all Catholics?

2) Catholics were some of the least likely to vote for the Nazis: Catholic Conclave: Catholics fiercest anti-nazis in pre-war Germany

3) Catholics (and Protestants) saved many Jews: ‘Hitler’s Pope saved 200,000 Jews’

4) Take a look at this quote: Christianity had declined severely in Germany at the time the Nazis came to power, which is why the Nazis were able to come to power. In his book, The Dictators, Richard Overy states that in the decades preceding the First World War Germany was becoming increasingly secular, and that after that war, from 1918 to 1931, 2.4 million Evangelical Christians formally renounced their faith as well as almost half a million Catholics. In Prussia, only 21% of the population took communion and in Hamburg only five percent of the population took communion. Before Hitler, German religious leaders were publicly condemning the rise of moral relativism and decline of traditional religious values.

Weimar Germany largely had abandoned Christianity and increasingly was embracing hedonism, Marxism and paganism. There, decline of Christianity in Germany led directly to the rise of Nazism. Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his 1937 book, The Third Reich, describes the religious life of the Weimar Republic as a place in which the large cities were "spiritual cemeteries" with almost no believers at all, except for those who were members of the clergy. The middle class went through the motions, but lacked all living faith. The workers, influenced by socialism, were suspicious of the church. Even in the countryside, preachers had little influence on the people. In the 1938 book, The War Against God, by Sidney Dark and R.S. Essex, describes pre-Nazi antipathy toward Christianity by noting that churches had lost all their vitality and that their services were lifeless. Mower, in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, wrote that by 1920, God and Christianity had been in steady decline, a process that had begun in 1860.

Link: Articles: The Nazis and Christianity

 

[Thunderbird]

And science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It's religion that does that.

Silly caricature. You'll find arrogant and humble people in both camps. And you'll find many scientists who are religious.

 

[PK1]

Feser misses the agnosticism of science completely, whereby scientists don't make claims without evidence.

You are just restating your pet idea again and again.

However, Feser claims to "know" with his ancient "proof" of God as the "hierarchical Unactualized Actualizer".
Gimme a break!!

Your childish outburst is not much of a substitute for an intelligent argument.

science provides the evidence based on observable data interpreted with objective methods,

How do you know observable data interpreted with objective methods is real?

If a real scientist does not have sufficient evidence, they will not pretend to "know".

Here's a quote from Feser: For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

---

You ask how I know the scientific data are real? Feser says science cannot justify its "presuppositions"?

You guys gotta be kidding!
Do you doubt the effects of an atomic bomb? Do you believe the moon landings were hoaxes? Antibiotics are ineffective? DNA profiling & genetic engineering are myths?

I can't believe your immaturity. You need to get your heads out of ancient holes and open your eyes to the 21st century.
.