Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,318 members, 7,780,782 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 10:06 PM

4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism (2019 Views)

Answers To Common Objections To The Existence Of God And Of Christianity / From Atheism To Jesus: My Testimony / Why There Is No God: Quick Responses To 10 Common Theist Argument's (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply) (Go Down)

4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by winner01(m): 6:38pm On Jun 18, 2016
Lack of scientific knowledge can leave Christians feeling vulnerable when talking to unbelieving friends about why faith is superior to skepticism. Many college students discover atheism through science classes; students who enter university as Christians have their faith fiercely tested by their studies, and too many give up the fight merely because they assume a biology professor must be correct about whether God exists. When a little bit of childlike faith meets a lot of studied atheism, fear can take control.

That’s unnecessary. You don’t need a degree in science to have something to say to those with scientific objections to faith. Here are four simple responses to those who claim science has either disproved God or has made belief in God unnecessary.




1. We cannot know from science if science itself is the best source of knowledge.

There are two possibilities when it comes to human knowledge through science.

The first is that everything real is actually reducible to scientific principles. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion, to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research.

The other option is simple: Not all existence can be explained through science.

Here’s why this question matters. If the first option is true, then logically science is the supreme mode of knowledge, and everything we believe about anything must be in submission to it. The problem, though, is that whether all of reality is ultimately explainable through scientific concepts is not itself a scientifically provable theory. It’s a philosophical premise, not a scientific conclusion. The only way to definitively prove that science explains everything would be to have exhaustive knowledge of all reality, and then be able to explain (using only scientific data) what all reality is and what it means. Such a feat is impossible. Therefore, the belief that science is the best source of knowledge must be accepted on faith, since it cannot be verified through testing.




2. Scientific consensus can and frequently does change. This limits its epistemological authority.

The progressive nature of scientific inquiry is essential to its value. Done rightly, science can correct its own errors. But this presupposes science can make errors in the first place. And if that’s true, we must ask: How do we know what could be a current error in scientific consensus, and what do we know is absolutely true?

This is an important question to ask religious skeptics who appeal to science. A likely response is that science may be wrong on almost everything it says, but it almost certainly isn’t wrong about what it doesn’t say (i.e., if science hasn’t revealed God by now, it’s not rational to think it will). But this objection misses the point. One doesn’t wait on science to exhaustively explain something before believing it. If that were so, then 99 percent of human beings on the planet wouldn’t believe in the most basic realities of existence, or would be irrational in believing without having exhaustive scientific knowledge. If current scientific consensus points away from the existence of God (a highly disputable point), then who’s to say that consensus cannot change? If it can, then science’s intellectual authority is limited, and the expectation it will continue to oppose religious belief is more a matter of faith.

I remember giving cloudgoddess a similar point (quoted below) on one of her posts sometime ago.
winner01:
You would find out that the highly acclaimed institutions you side with aren't as close minded as you are, they are open to changes in scientific findings if give compelling contrary evidence.

Havard, NASA, Oxford and other scientific communities all supported Nicholas copernicus and the infinite universe theory. In other words they not only funded and supported lies but also spread it and changed it later due to a more substantial contrary evidence.

Giordano Bruno, also a heavyweight in the infinite universe theory was and is still supported till date with a 22km impact crater on the far side of the Moon named in his honor, as are the main belt asteroids 5148 Giordano and 13223 Cenaceneri; the latter is named for one of his works. All these for a theory which turned out to be a lie.

Its why Sir Ambrose Flemming made the famous quote;
“We must not build on the sands of an uncertain and everchanging science…but upon the rock of inspired Scriptures.”

I didnt need to say this and sound like im against science, but really I still dont understand why you people are trying desperately to create a non existent gulf between God and science. "Lie" is a strong word, if not because of you ill rather substitute it with dis-proven theory.

I strongly believe Sir William Herschel who said that;
"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more & more strongly the truth contained in the Sacred Scriptures".

We all know this was the case when the CMB was reported. wink




3. Only supernatural theism provides a rational justification for scientific work.

The wording of this point is important. If the word “rational” is left out, then the statement would actually be false and quite easy to shoot down. You don’t need supernatural theism to be curious, or to explore the natural world. But you do need supernatural theism to have a rational justification for science. What does rational mean here? It means that scientific inquiry done on the assumption there’s no higher intelligence than evolved human intelligence is making a value judgment it has no right to make.

Why is knowledge better than ignorance? The atheist would respond that ignorance has less survival value than truth; after all, if you believe wrong things or don’t know enough about your environment, you’re less likely to survive and flourish. But this explanation only applies to a small amount of scientific knowledge. There is little survival value in knowing, for example, the complicated workings of time-space theory, or the genus of certain insects, or the distance from Jupiter to Mars. All of these facts are pursued by scientists as being intrinsically valuable, yet they offer little information that can help guarantee a species’ continued existence.

The real explanation is that scientists pursue these facts because there’s intrinsic value in knowing what’s true about the world, regardless of how much help it gives us. Human beings believe knowing is better than ignorance because they believe truth is better than falsity, and light is better than darkness. But where does such a conclusion come from? Not from scientific principles. Science itself offers no self-evident account for why it should be pursued. You cannot study science hard enough to understand why you should study science at all.
To study science presupposes a valuing of truth that must be experienced outside of scientific study. It’s only rational to pursue scientific knowledge that doesn’t offer immediate survival value if there is some external, transcendent value in knowing truth. Theism offers an explanation for why knowing truth is valuable. Scientific atheism does not.




4. Only supernatural theism gives us assurance that real scientific knowledge is possible.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is famous for articulating what he calls the “evolutionary argument against naturalism.” The argument is complicated in detail but simple in premise. Plantinga begins by putting two facts alongside each other that nearly all atheists agree on.

-First, the theory of evolution is true, and humans have descended from lower life forms over time.
-Second, humans are rational beings in a higher degree and superior way to lesser-evolved creatures.

Plantinga then directs our attention to a tension between these two facts. If humans are a more evolved species of primate, then our cognitive faculties (i.e., the parts of our body and mind that allow us to be rational creatures) have evolved out of lesser cognitive faculties.

But, Plantinga says, if God does not exist, then the only factors that affected human evolution are time and chance. Based on time and chance alone, why should we be confident our rational minds—which are merely the sum of lesser evolved minds plus time and chance—are actually rational at all? What basis do we have to believe our own conclusions? How do we know we’re actually capable of knowing truth more than a primate? If the only players in our existence are lesser creatures, time, and chance, how do we know we’re even highly evolved at all?

This astute observation was echoed by Thomas Nagel in his recent book Mind and Cosmos. Nagel, an agnostic philosopher from New York University, argues that human comprehension of the universe cannot be explained merely by atheistic evolutionary processes. It makes no sense to assume humans can make sense of their world on a conceptual level if human consciousness arose out of the very world it responds to. Nagel agrees with Plantinga that atheistic naturalism cannot explain why human beings can be rational creatures and do rational things that should be trusted.

Scientific knowledge is only possible if things unprovable by science are actually true. If Carl Sagan is correct and the material universe is all there was, is, and ever will be, then science itself is nothing more than a shot in the dark. If, however, human beings are the products of an infinitely greater mind, then we have justification for believing that true and false are realities and not just the shadow puppets of our ancestors.


This article is an excerpt from the work of Samuel James who works in the Office of the President at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

God bless you for reading.

cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, Scholar8200

5 Likes 5 Shares

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by winner01(m): 6:39pm On Jun 18, 2016
.
Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by KingEbukaNaija: 8:45pm On Jun 18, 2016
Fantastic read . One misconception has always been that scientific knowledge subdues your faith in God - this makes you more skeptical about the supernatural . In fact , science has drawn me closer to God - this induced my "emulation of nature" argument .

Like I told donnffd , there are only a modicum of scientists who are atheists and refuted GeneralShepherd 's claims that modern scientists embrace atheism . Plaetton has always insisted that science has exposed the unveracity of religion but fails to explain how it precludes the existence of God . Johnnydon22 's argument that God is a placeholder for exiguous knowledge of certain natural phenomena has been proven to be meretricious .

What about HardMirror 's harangue in numerous threads whose terminus ad quem is to besmirch Christianity . He claims science refutes God and denies blatantly the existence of the supernatural . SonOfLucifer has floundered in numerous attempts to grasp the likelihood of scientific researches to be congruous with the reality of biblical events .

And I want Weah96 and dalaman , to understand that science can never refute God . Only God must have intelligently designed conditions which are sine qua non to the development and continuation of life as seen in functional Nature .

Please Hahn , JackBizzle , valentinemary , captainnigeria , brigance , realmindz , sweetcocoa , lepasharon should all dispel should all such misconceptions and take note of the points winner01 has made .

1 Like 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 9:15pm On Jun 18, 2016
winner01:


1. We cannot know from science if science itself is the best source of knowledge.

Well we know that religion is definitely a poor source of knowledge. What we know from science is that it works when applied to its areas of specialty.

winner01:

There are two possibilities when it comes to human knowledge through science.

The first is that everything real is actually reducible to scientific principles. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion, to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research.

False. This is a philosophical position.

winner01:

The other option is simple: Not all existence can be explained through science.

Still doesn't mean religion has anythign useful to contribute.


winner01:

2. Scientific consensus can and frequently does change. This limits its epistemological authority.

This is not a bad thing at all. I change my mind when better information is available. What do you do? Ignore better information? Pretend it doesn't exist? Remain ignorant of it? What?


winner01:

3. Only supernatural theism provides a rational justification for scientific work.

False. What is the rational justification for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that all the animals on earth could fit in a wooden boat a few thousand years ago?


winner01:

4. Only supernatural theism gives us assurance that real scientific knowledge is possible.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is famous for articulating what he calls the “evolutionary argument against naturalism.” The argument is complicated in detail but simple in premise. Plantinga begins by putting two facts alongside each other that nearly all atheists agree on.

-First, the theory of evolution is true, and humans have descended from lower life forms over time.
-Second, humans are rational beings in a higher degree and superior way to lesser-evolved creatures.

Plantinga then directs our attention to a tension between these two facts. If humans are a more evolved species of primate, then our cognitive faculties (i.e., the parts of our body and mind that allow us to be rational creatures) have evolved out of lesser cognitive faculties.

But, Plantinga says, if God does not exist, then the only factors that affected human evolution are time and chance. Based on time and chance alone, why should we be confident our rational minds—which are merely the sum of lesser evolved minds plus time and chance—are actually rational at all? What basis do we have to believe our own conclusions? How do we know we’re actually capable of knowing truth more than a primate? If the only players in our existence are lesser creatures, time, and chance, how do we know we’re even highly evolved at all?

I really don't see what the problem here is and experiments bear these facts out. Why should I believe that I'm using a computer? Or that I can communicate in English? The fact that I'm doing them is reason for believing that I can do them. We are primates whether you like it or not.

winner01:

This astute observation was echoed by Thomas Nagel in his recent book Mind and Cosmos. Nagel, an agnostic philosopher from New York University, argues that human comprehension of the universe cannot be explained merely by atheistic evolutionary processes. It makes no sense to assume humans can make sense of their world on a conceptual level if human consciousness arose out of the very world it responds to. Nagel agrees with Plantinga that atheistic naturalism cannot explain why human beings can be rational creatures and do rational things that should be trusted.

Scientific knowledge is only possible if things unprovable by science are actually true. If Carl Sagan is correct and the material universe is all there was, is, and ever will be, then science itself is nothing more than a shot in the dark. If, however, human beings are the products of an infinitely greater mind, then we have justification for believing that true and false are realities and not just the shadow puppets of our ancestors.

Science is our best shot in the dark when dealing with matter in the universe. Whether you like it or not.

winner01:

This article is an excerpt from the work of Samuel James who works in the Office of the President at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

God bless you for reading.

Yes. Accept my blessings mortal.

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by KingEbukaNaija: 9:43pm On Jun 18, 2016
thehomer:


Well we know that religion is definitely a poor source of knowledge. What we know from science is that it works when applied to its areas of specialty.



False. This is a philosophical position.



Still doesn't mean religion has anythign useful to contribute.




This is not a bad thing at all. I change my mind when better information is available. What do you do? Ignore better information? Pretend it doesn't exist? Remain ignorant of it? What?




False. What is the rational justification for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that all the animals on earth could fit in a wooden boat a few thousand years ago?




I really don't see what the problem here is and experiments bear these facts out. Why should I believe that I'm using a computer? Or that I can communicate in English? The fact that I'm doing them is reason for believing that I can do them. We are primates whether you like it or not.



Science is our best shot in the dark when dealing with matter in the universe. Whether you like it or not.



Yes. Accept my blessings mortal.

This is not even worthy to be called a rebuttal , nondescript if you ask me . You kept reiterating the same idea in different ways hoping to prove a point - its a logical fallacy , argumentum ad nauseam . The fact is that you dont understand the purpose of religion or its omnia circa

1 Like 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by winner01(m): 9:54pm On Jun 18, 2016
thehomer:


Well we know that religion is definitely a poor source of knowledge. What we know from science is that it works when applied to its areas of specialty.
You are missing the point here my friend. My position is that God is the source of all Knowledge. God is why we should even engage in science to know more about the world we live in. I'm laying emphasis on the pointlessness of everything if God does not exist.

I agree with Sir Francis Bacon, who is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method when he said; "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."

Religion is different from science just as philosophy is different from science. But all function like the hand to grasp the reality of God's power and might. Religion tries to help us know more about God, Science tries to help us know more about our world. Both are extremely useful in their own rights. Many great scientists have alluded to this.




thehomer:


False. This is a philosophical position.
Absolutely not. That was a logical premise which most atheists argue in favour of. Atheists like to believe that everything real is reducible to scientific principles alone. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion, to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research. That is why you propose scientific scrutiny when theists give their spiritual experiences. I'm at loss on why you dont agree with this premise.


thehomer:


Still doesn't mean religion has anythign useful to contribute.
Religion helps people to find meaning to their lives, it helps people to know more about God, it encourages us to find out more about our world as these great men proved (HERE).
Religion compels us to pursue truth which is exactly why great scientific communities and universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others were founded by Christians.



thehomer:

This is not a bad thing at all. I change my mind when better information is available. What do you do? Ignore better information? Pretend it doesn't exist? Remain ignorant of it? What?.
You missed my point. My point is this. How are you sure that what you believe right now is the truth and will not change later in the future. You seem so cocksure of your stand even though the scientific priesthood might change its stand tomorrow. If this is not an exhibition of faith, then i wonder what is.

And what do you mean by better information? Evolution? undecided



thehomer:

False. What is the rational justification for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that all the animals on earth could fit in a wooden boat a few thousand years ago?.
You dont need to reply just because you want to sound intelligent. I suggest you re-read the post and see tha point i was trying to make.


thehomer:

I really don't see what the problem here is and experiments bear these facts out. Why should I believe that I'm using a computer? Or that I can communicate in English? The fact that I'm doing them is reason for believing that I can do them. We are primates whether you like it or not..
If science was this close-minded to possibilities, you would not own a cell phone today.


thehomer:

Science is our best shot in the dark when dealing with matter in the universe. Whether you like it or not.
Whether i like it or not, your stand must be true and mine must be false. Thats just typical.

What if we aren't dealing with matter? undecided, what if we are dealing with real emotions, real feelings, spiritual experiences and related occurrences? undecided

Never mind, I'm wrong and you're right, yeah? grin

thehomer:

Yes. Accept my blessings mortal.
May God open your close mind.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 10:42pm On Jun 18, 2016
winner01:
You are missing the point here my friend. My position is that God is the source of all Knowledge. God is why we should even engage in science to know more about the world we live in. I'm laying emphasis on the pointlessness of everything if God does not exist.

Well God doesn't exist and I don't find things pointless.

winner01:

I agree with Sir Francis Bacon, who is credited with formulating and establishing the scientific method when he said; "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind."

Whether it was Francis Bacon who said that or the mechanic in Mushin, beliefs don't work that way.

winner01:

Religion is different from science just as philosophy is different from science. But all function like the hand to grasp the reality of God's power and might. Religion tries to help us know more about God, Science tries to help us know more about our world. Both are extremely useful in their own rights. Many great scientists have alluded to this.

Actually, philosophy has been very helpful it kicking God out of the picture. Many other scientists and philosophers have given very good arguments against your God.

winner01:

Absolutely not. That was a logical premise which most atheists argue in favour of. Atheists like to believe that everything real is reducible to scientific principles alone. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion, to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research. That is why you propose scientific scrutiny when theists give their spiritual experiences. I'm at loss on why you dont agree with this premise.

Because you're wrong. There are lots of atheists who don't believe what you're ascribing to them. Rather than trying to force them to fit your preconceived notion, try to find out what they actually believe.

winner01:

Religion helps people to find meaning to their lives, it helps people to know more about God, it encourages us to find out more about our world as these great men proved (HERE).
Religion compels us to pursue truth which is exactly why great scientific communities and universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and many others were founded by Christians.

Literature also helps people find "meaning". So does having the goal of seeking out knowledge for its own sake. Religion actually closes the mind to the world. Most of the prominent scientists today are not Christians so giving me a list of people in days gone by isn't useful to me. Many torture chambers were built by Christians and many slave holders were Christians too. If religion compels you to pursue truth, then you would learn when to change your mind about certain issues "decided" in religion.

winner01:

You missed my point. My point is this. How are you sure that what you believe right now is the truth and will not change later in the future. You seem so cocksure of your stand even though the scientific priesthood might change its stand tomorrow. If this is not an exhibition of faith, then i wonder what is.

I know that what we know today is more accurate than what we knew 100 years ago. You're talking about a "scientific priesthood" as an attempt to bring scientific endeavours down to the level of religion but it just won't work.

An exhibition of faith would be believing that zombies roamed the earth on the death of a person.

winner01:

And what do you mean by better information? Evolution? undecided

Among other things, yes.

winner01:

You dont need to reply just because you want to sound intelligent. I suggest you re-read the post and see tha point i was trying to make.

I already know I sound intelligent. I wonder if you understand the implications of what you've said.

winner01:

If science was this close-minded to possibilities, you would not own a cell phone today.

That's just it. Science and scientists generally aren't closed minded but religions and the devoutly religious are.

winner01:

Whether i like it or not, your stand must be true and mine must be false. Thats just typical.

Well it is true.

winner01:

What if we aren't dealing with matter? undecided, what if we are dealing with real emotions, real feelings, spiritual experiences and related occurrences? undecided

Then evaluate them with some other tools. And certain fields of science like the social sciences play important roles there.

winner01:

Never mind, I'm wrong and you're right, yeah? grin

Of course.

winner01:

May God open your close mind.

Well God has failed to answer so many prayers that one more failure won't matter to him.

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 10:47pm On Jun 18, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


This is not even worthy to be called a rebuttal , nondescript if you ask me . You kept reiterating the same idea in different ways hoping to prove a point - its a logical fallacy , argumentum ad nauseam . The fact is that you dont understand the purpose of religion or its omnia circa

Looks like the usual religious encounter. When you have no arguments or rebuttals, throw mud and make false accusations. When you have an argument, let me know. Otherwise, be silent and let those who are better qualified speak on your behalf.

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by winner01(m): 1:19am On Jun 19, 2016
thehomer:


Well God doesn't exist and I don't find things pointless..
You'd have to be everywhere (omnipresent) and know absolutely everything (omniscience) to make such a claim.

thehomer:

Whether it was Francis Bacon who said that or the mechanic in Mushin, beliefs don't work that way.
Beliefs dont work that way. But if it was a dawkin or hawking that explained a theory on something that happened millions of years ago. You would believe it. But since the father of science was a christian, then he must have said nonsense. Great inni't?


thehomer:

Actually, philosophy has been very helpful it kicking God out of the picture. Many other scientists and philosophers have given very good arguments against your God.
The same way far greater scientists and philosophers have argued in favour of a Creator.


thehomer:

Because you're wrong. There are lots of atheists who don't believe what you're ascribing to them. Rather than trying to force them to fit your preconceived notion, try to find out what they actually believe.
Like the way you take time out to find out what christians actually believe? undecided What do you believe? Maybe we should start from there.

thehomer:

Literature also helps people find "meaning". So does having the goal of seeking out knowledge for its own sake. Religion actually closes the mind to the world. Most of the prominent scientists today are not Christians so giving me a list of people in days gone by isn't useful to me. Many torture chambers were built by Christians and many slave holders were Christians too. If religion compels you to pursue truth, then you would learn when to change your mind about certain issues "decided" in religion..
You have made two serious claims without any evidence whatsoever;

1. We seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
2. Religion closes the mind

Who are these prominent scientists and what have been their significant contribution to science. Maybe you should mention 10 and I will also mention 10 christian scientists and their contributions. You can increase the number if you want. I can also give you a list of scientists that founded what you are busy merrying about today. Its strange you choose to doubt the writings of people who where actually there and choose to believe the writings of scientists who were not there but opted to build on a theory of a man who had doubts about his claims.

Many prisons were built by the Nigerian government, you can as well conclude from that that the president does not exist. We will keep pursuing truth irregardless of how you badly want to separate christianity from science. If matters were already decided in religion, You still wont own a phone today,

thehomer:

I know that what we know today is more accurate than what we knew 100 years ago. You're talking about a "scientific priesthood" as an attempt to bring scientific endeavours down to the level of religion but it just won't work.
Somehow, just somehow, you already have a notion that religion is at a lower level, and this same same mind of yours is open.? undecided

Ever heard of a scientific consensus? okay. There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums. This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered. But have you ever questioned the consistency of the fossil gaps if you've even heard anything about that? Why do the fossils go missing in all the important places? Answer that and you'll see how science has been hijacked by pseudo-scientists and reduced to any other method that draws conclusions without observation or evidence.
In that you will understand what i meant by scientific priesthood or authority.

thehomer:

An exhibition of faith would be believing that zombies roamed the earth on the death of a person.
Naah, A better exhibition of faith is the fact you believe that a samsung 15 mpxl camera was created and a 574mpxl human eye came by accident.
Whatever you meant by zombies is yours and yours alone.

thehomer:

Among other things, yes.
Among nothing my friend. Absolutely nothing. No specie has been observed to change into another distinct specie. Dont attempt to remove the word observation from the definition of science.

thehomer:

I already know I sound intelligent.
Yeah omniknowest. Its just strange that your intelligence leads you to believe that your intelligence was created by mindless matter rather than a creator.

thehomer:

That's just it. Science and scientists generally aren't closed minded but religions and the devoutly religious are.
They are close-minded, but somehow they attained scientific feats that scientists of today are yet to equal. And the ones of today are still up in their quest of finding out more about the universe. You know i just laugh when atheist try to cling to science to validate their stand. It shows how insecure they are. Atheism is not science. Find something else you can cling to, maybe bestiality or something nasty.

thehomer:

Then evaluate them with some other tools. And certain fields of science like the social sciences play important roles there.
Other fields of science is science. You sure did not read the Op. Maybe i should ask again: How can you know from science if science is the best and only form of knowledge?
Science was founded in a bid to know more about ourselves and the universe. If the christians that founded science were like you, there would be no science today.

thehomer:

Well God has failed to answer so many prayers that one more failure won't matter to him.
God has always answered my prayers and the prayers of many others, its just a matter of time. Your bid to desperately cling to science wont stop anything. It will only keep showing that atheism is baseless and that you need a place to find solace when asked to justify your atheistic claims.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by KingEbukaNaija: 5:39am On Jun 19, 2016
thehomer:


Looks like the usual religious encounter. When you have no arguments or rebuttals, throw mud and make false accusations. When you have an argument, let me know. Otherwise, be silent and let those who are better qualified speak on your behalf.

You don't get it young man , you are the one that have no argument or rebuttal . It's them same old since God does not exist , then what ever is being said is not true . You have absolutely nothing worth rebutting , don't flatter yourself claiming that I'm falsely accusing you .

These people sef
Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 12:10pm On Jun 19, 2016
winner01:
You'd have to be everywhere (omnipresent) and know absolutely everything (omniscience) to make such a claim.

No I don't. I've examined the claims made about your God and found them illogical. Unless illogical beings can exist, I see no reason to believe your God exists.

winner01:

Beliefs dont work that way. But if it was a dawkin or hawking that explained a theory on something that happened millions of years ago. You would believe it. But since the father of science was a christian, then he must have said nonsense. Great inni't?

You seem to have a preoccupation with names or some sort of ranking in your mind that makes you think others have to therefore accept whatever claims you make when you drop some names with the claims. As I said, beliefs don't work that way. Now you're appointing some people as fathers of science. You clearly have failed to understand how science works and how scientific claims work.

winner01:

The same way far greater scientists and philosophers have argued in favour of a Creator.

In that case, why don't we examine the actual claims made rather than you simply naming people and saying they're great people and therefore must be right.

winner01:

Like the way you take time out to find out what christians actually believe? undecided What do you believe? Maybe we should start from there.

Yes. I actually know what Christians believe. I've read their Bible. Do you want a list of things I believe?

winner01:

You have made two serious claims without any evidence whatsoever;

1. We seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
2. Religion closes the mind

You've failed to even grasp what I've said so far. Take the time to re-read what I wrote. I gave you examples of what gives some people meaning. That religion closes the mind is a fact that you're displaying right now.

winner01:

Who are these prominent scientists and what have been their significant contribution to science. Maybe you should mention 10 and I will also mention 10 christian scientists and their contributions. You can increase the number if you want. I can also give you a list of scientists that founded what you are busy merrying about today. Its strange you choose to doubt the writings of people who where actually there and choose to believe the writings of scientists who were not there but opted to build on a theory of a man who had doubts about his claims.

You've come once again with a desire to see lists and lists of names. This is why I say you've failed to understand what is under contention. What we're considering are the ideas themselves not the people. The fact that some Christians could sometimes use their brains to sensibly come up with useful things isn't what is under contention. What is under contention are the religious ideas that make little sense in view of what we have come to learn.

winner01:

Many prisons were built by the Nigerian government, you can as well conclude from that that the president does not exist. We will keep pursuing truth irregardless of how you badly want to separate christianity from science. If matters were already decided in religion, You still wont own a phone today,

Christians separate themselves from science when they rely on faith. Science doesn't rely on faith. Or is there a scientific basis for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that virgins give birth to humans?

winner01:

Somehow, just somehow, you already have a notion that religion is at a lower level, and this same same mind of yours is open.? undecided

You have this notion yourself. You've just hidden it from yourself. I've exposed it by pointing out your use of "scientific priesthood".

winner01:

Ever heard of a scientific consensus? okay. There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums. This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered. But have you ever questioned the consistency of the fossil gaps if you've even heard anything about that? Why do the fossils go missing in all the important places? Answer that and you'll see how science has been hijacked by pseudo-scientists and reduced to any other method that draws conclusions without observation or evidence.
In that you will understand what i meant by scientific priesthood or authority.

This again shows your ignorance. You need to first educate yourself on the process of fossilization to even start to see where you're missing things. Fossils are rare because of the nature of the fossilization process. First read up on what that process entails.

winner01:

Naah, A better exhibition of faith is the fact you believe that a samsung 15 mpxl camera was created and a 574mpxl human eye came by accident.
Whatever you meant by zombies is yours and yours alone.

The theory of evolution is one example of the rigidity of religion and its failure to learn.
Read your Bible to discover these zombies. It looks like you don't even know what Christians believe or are supposed to believe.

winner01:

Among nothing my friend. Absolutely nothing. No specie has been observed to change into another distinct specie. Dont attempt to remove the word observation from the definition of science.

Actually, this observation has been made. See here. Again, don't just believe what your fellow ignorant religious people say, check these things out for yourself. Besides, your conception of science seems deeply flawed. You need to look that up too.

winner01:

Yeah omniknowest. Its just strange that your intelligence leads you to believe that your intelligence was created by mindless matter rather than a creator.

I don't find it strange.

winner01:

They are close-minded, but somehow they attained scientific feats that scientists of today are yet to equal. And the ones of today are still up in their quest of finding out more about the universe. You know i just laugh when atheist try to cling to science to validate their stand. It shows how insecure they are. Atheism is not science. Find something else you can cling to, maybe bestiality or something nasty.

And this tells me that you're not up to the task of having a coherent discussion. Your desire to rank people as great and not great is just baffling to me. You need to learn to examine the ideas themselve. The people may be of historical interest but the ideas themselves should be the focus. I know atheism is not science and Christianity is not science. Do you wish to practice bestiality? Or is it incest? That is really up to you.

winner01:

Other fields of science is science. You sure did not read the Op. Maybe i should ask again: How can you know from science if science is the best and only form of knowledge?
Science was founded in a bid to know more about ourselves and the universe. If the christians that founded science were like you, there would be no science today.

And the Hindus that gave us their numbers must be Gods. Your confusion makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation.

winner01:

God has always answered my prayers and the prayers of many others, its just a matter of time. Your bid to desperately cling to science wont stop anything. It will only keep showing that atheism is baseless and that you need a place to find solace when asked to justify your atheistic claims.

Sure he has. If things happen as you want, he answered. If they don't, he's waiting. If you die and it never happens, he said no. Why can't he simply tell you no to your face right there and then like I can? Is he afraid of you?

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 12:11pm On Jun 19, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


You don't get it young man , you are the one that have no argument or rebuttal . It's them same old since God does not exist , then what ever is being said is not true . You have absolutely nothing worth rebutting , don't flatter yourself claiming that I'm falsely accusing you .

These people sef

You dull child, go and play with sand and let someone better qualified than yourself speak on your behalf.

5 Likes 2 Shares

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by winner01(m): 1:29pm On Jun 19, 2016
thehomer:


No I don't. I've examined the claims made about your God and found them illogical. Unless illogical beings can exist, I see no reason to believe your God exists.
I can say the same about my self and billions of other people who have examined the claims and available evidence and have found them logical. You might see no reason to believe in God but millions of other people do. Does that make you in any way superior than any of them?

thehomer:

You seem to have a preoccupation with names or some sort of ranking in your mind that makes you think others have to therefore accept whatever claims you make when you drop some names with the claims. As I said, beliefs don't work that way. Now you're appointing some people as fathers of science. You clearly have failed to understand how science works and how scientific claims work.
So tell me, how do beliefs work? Did you carry out your experiment to arrive at the conclusion you so willfully defend with your life?

I did not appoint anyone as the father of science, the world did. Except you have another title for a man who founded the scientific method.

thehomer:

In that case, why don't we examine the actual claims made rather than you simply naming people and saying they're great people and therefore must be right.
You still dont get it. You have given zero room for examining the available claims and evidence with your bent preconceived notion. You first appealed to authority before i did. Here is proof:
thehomer:
Many other scientists and philosophers have given very good arguments against your God.


thehomer:

Yes. I actually know what Christians believe. I've read their Bible. Do you want a list of things I believe?
You think you know what christians believe just because you claim un-evidently that you have read the Bible. How do you explain the case of atheists who became christians by reading the Bible. I want a list of things that you believe, not about christianity but about atheism.

thehomer:

You've failed to even grasp what I've said so far. Take the time to re-read what I wrote. I gave you examples of what gives some people meaning. That religion closes the mind is a fact that you're displaying right now.
You made serious claims without any evidence, people can see that;

1. We seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
2. Religion closes the mind

You dont need ad hominems to sneak your way out of this one.

@ bolded, religion gives millions of people meaning also. Why do you earnestly seek to take that away?


thehomer:

You've come once again with a desire to see lists and lists of names. This is why I say you've failed to understand what is under contention. What we're considering are the ideas themselves not the people. The fact that some Christians could sometimes use their brains to sensibly come up with useful things isn't what is under contention. What is under contention are the religious ideas that make little sense in view of what we have come to learn.
What have you come to learn? And why are you so sure that it is christians who "sometimes" use their brains and not atheists. Maybe you should give us examples of atheist inventions and innovations that prove this baseless point you've made.

I've not come to see lists of names but to see the evidence you claim to have. The ideas you so much condemn is what brought rise to the modern science you are trying so much to hijack.

thehomer:

Christians separate themselves from science when they rely on faith. Science doesn't rely on faith. Or is there a scientific basis for believing that zombies roamed a city some 2000 years ago? Or that virgins give birth to humans?
You have really exalted yourself to a point where you feel you can judge how much christianity is incompatible with science. Faith in God is different from the faith you're talking about. Christians seek to know more about our world as commanded by God. Science does not rely on faith but pseudoscience does. And pseudoscience seems to be the official anthem of contemporary atheists. You have faith that macro evolution must have happened even though you were not there and the available evidence points away from it. Now that is pseudoscience.

thehomer:

You have this notion yourself. You've just hidden it from yourself. I've exposed it by pointing out your use of "scientific priesthood".
On the contrary, it is you who have hidden truth from yourself or better still, tried to suppress the truth. What basis do you have to claim that religion is on a lower level than science? What names would you call the worlds greatest christian scientists? Why are you trying so hard to side with science when it has absolutely nothing to offer atheism? undecided

thehomer:

This again shows your ignorance. You need to first educate yourself on the process of fossilization to even start to see where you're missing things. Fossils are rare because of the nature of the fossilization process. First read up on what that process entails.
Let me try to agree that fossils are rare. lol. Over 1.5 million species, and the fossils go missing in all the very important places? undecided I'll leave people to make their deductions from this.

thehomer:

The theory of evolution is one example of the rigidity of religion and its failure to learn.
Read your Bible to discover these zombies. It looks like you don't even know what Christians believe or are supposed to believe.
You cant give any other example because there isn't any other except the pseudoscience of macro-evolution. We have not failed to learn, it is you who has failed to learn, unlearn and re-learn. Even the major proponent of evolution admitted that he had removed the process of "Observation" from his pseudoscientific theory.
Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."


thehomer:

Actually, this observation has been made. See here. Again, don't just believe what your fellow ignorant religious people say, check these things out for yourself. Besides, your conception of science seems deeply flawed. You need to look that up too.

I looked it up reluctantly because i knew it would be the same stale stories.

1. Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963
2. Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock.
3. Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
4. Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

The species formed in all four evidences are similar to their parent stock in appearance and features. And this is absolutely not proof of macro-evolution but adaptation (otherwise known as micro-evolution) and mutation.
It is the same phenomenon at work when the average height of men and women increased by several inches in the Western world over the course of the 1900s. Of course, better health and nutrition played a large part in producing larger-sized people. In the same way, microevolution is at work when breeders produce varieties ranging from Chihuahuas to Great Danes within the one species Canis familiaris the domestic dog.

These examples show, as in the rest of nature, that all species do have a margin of change available within their genetic pool to adapt to conditions. This trait is found in man, who can adapt to freezing weather, as the Eskimos do, or to the broiling sun in the desert, as bedouins have done. But bedouins and Eskimos are still human beings, and if they changed environments again, eventually their offspring would also go through minor changes to better adapt to their new environment.

What has never been scientifically demonstrated in spite of many examples of wishful thinking is macroevolution, or the change from one distinct species to another. Species of Elephants or any other land mammal never evolved into a whale or otherwise, Dogs have never evolved into birds or human beings as evolution outrageously suggests.

The evidence available has continued to prove that; There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries that mutations and adaptations can never cross. Why then do you choose to believe that it happened by faith? undecided

Maybe you can learn more HERE


thehomer:

And this tells me that you're not up to the task of having a coherent discussion. Your desire to rank people as great and not great is just baffling to me. You need to learn to examine the ideas themselve. The people may be of historical interest but the ideas themselves should be the focus. I know atheism is not science and Christianity is not science. Do you wish to practice bestiality? Or is it incest? That is really up to you.
All you done from the start is maintain incoherent judgement. Which ideas have you examined yourself and what date was the idea reviewed by you. You people just believe that once you are atheists, you can start to preach science as if it is related to atheism.
The careful analysis of ideas, claims and evidence available is what made me find my place as a child of God.


thehomer:

And the Hindus that gave us their numbers must be Gods. Your confusion makes it difficult to have a sensible conversation.
The hindus who gave us numbers are theists. What exactly has atheism done for humanity? undecided


thehomer:

Sure he has. If things happen as you want, he answered. If they don't, he's waiting. If you die and it never happens, he said no. Why can't he simply tell you no to your face right there and then like I can? Is he afraid of you?
If millions of people, me inclusive, claim that God answers our prayers and it works for us, then what exactly is your problem?.

Why are you trying so hard to disprove the real life experiences of others and instist that yours must be accepted.

We will continue to believe in God and God will continue to reveal himself to people. The best you can do is to wail online or pick up arms to annihilate religious folks like atheist leaders have done in the past. Either way, religion will continue to grow.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by KingEbukaNaija: 2:26pm On Jun 19, 2016
Lalasticlala pls we need quality topics like this on our font page
Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 11:16pm On Jun 19, 2016
winner01:
I can say the same about my self and billions of other people who have examined the claims and available evidence and have found them logical. You might see no reason to believe in God but millions of other people do. Does that make you in any way superior than any of them?

Most of them have bad reasons or haven't thought things through but I have.

winner01:

So tell me, how do beliefs work? Did you carry out your experiment to arrive at the conclusion you so willfully defend with your life?

My life is not at stake. Beliefs regulate how one would interact with the world. Whether you would like something to be true or not doesn't make you believe one way or another.

winner01:

I did not appoint anyone as the father of science, the world did. Except you have another title for a man who founded the scientific method.

No title at all.

winner01:

You still dont get it. You have given zero room for examining the available claims and evidence with your bent preconceived notion. You first appealed to authority before i did. Here is proof:

Have you forgotten how to read your own posts? It was in response to your claim that many great scientists have alluded to the importance of religion. Do you think you don't have a preconceived notion?

winner01:

You think you know what christians believe just because you claim un-evidently that you have read the Bible. How do you explain the case of atheists who became christians by reading the Bible. I want a list of things that you believe, not about christianity but about atheism.

I actually know what Christians believe and have read the Bible. You'll have to ask those atheists. Just so you know, there are Christians who stopped believing by reading the Bible. Others by learning more about the world. How do you explain that? Your desire for a list reveals that you've not thought things through. Do you think you can give a comprehensive list of what you believe?

winner01:

You made serious claims without any evidence, people can see that;

1. We seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
2. Religion closes the mind

You dont need ad hominems to sneak your way out of this one.

There's no ad hominem attack in my response. The evidence of religion closing the mind is what you've displayed with your rejection of the theory of evolution. I never said "we seek knkowledge for the sake of knowledge". Take the time to reread what I wrote.

winner01:

@ bolded, religion gives millions of people meaning also. Why do you earnestly seek to take that away?

Who says I want to take it away? I'm simply pointing out the fact that religions are not true.

winner01:

What have you come to learn? And why are you so sure that it is christians who "sometimes" use their brains and not atheists. Maybe you should give us examples of atheist inventions and innovations that prove this baseless point you've made.

What I meant by the sentence "what we've come to learn" is about what we have discovered so far. I thought that was obvious. Because Christians are the ones who believe false things about the world. What is the relevance of examples of "atheist inventions"? Again, you don't seem to understand that what I'm responding to are the false beliefs of Christians.

winner01:

I've not come to see lists of names but to see the evidence you claim to have. The ideas you so much condemn is what brought rise to the modern science you are trying so much to hijack.

You mean the idea that zombies roamed a city 2000 years ago somehow means that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?

winner01:

You have really exalted yourself to a point where you feel you can judge how much christianity is incompatible with science. Faith in God is different from the faith you're talking about. Christians seek to know more about our world as commanded by God. Science does not rely on faith but pseudoscience does. And pseudoscience seems to be the official anthem of contemporary atheists. You have faith that macro evolution must have happened even though you were not there and the available evidence points away from it. Now that is pseudoscience.

One doesn't have to be present at every event to know that they occurred. After all, you weren't there during Jesus' conception yet you believe he was born of a virgin. You weren't there when he died yet you believe zombies roamed the city after he died. You weren't there when Noah was loading the ark yet you believe the story. You weren't there when Balaam's donkey spoke yet you believe it spoke. These beliefs are worse than pseudoscience. They make no sense at all.

winner01:

On the contrary, it is you who have hidden truth from yourself or better still, tried to suppress the truth. What basis do you have to claim that religion is on a lower level than science? What names would you call the worlds greatest christian scientists? Why are you trying so hard to side with science when it has absolutely nothing to offer atheism? undecided

The basis that religions require false beliefs. I won't give them any names. Actually, science has given some good reasons not to believe in your God.

winner01:

Let me try to agree that fossils are rare. lol. Over 1.5 million species, and the fossils go missing in all the very important places? undecided I'll leave people to make their deductions from this.

Don't just agree, look it up for yourself. Fossils go missing in the important places? That statment makes little sense. We don't have fossils of all the animals that ever lived but you think that the fossils we do have aren't important? Sheesh.

winner01:

You cant give any other example because there isn't any other except the pseudoscience of macro-evolution. We have not failed to learn, it is you who has failed to learn, unlearn and re-learn. Even the major proponent of evolution admitted that he had removed the process of "Observation" from his pseudoscientific theory.
Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design. In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."


That single theory is more than enough to show my point. I see that you have your Darwin quote-mine dictionary ready. Please can you tell me what that quote was in reference to?


winner01:

I looked it up reluctantly because i knew it would be the same stale stories.

1. Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963
2. Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock.
3. Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
4. Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

The species formed in all four evidences are similar to their parent stock in appearance and features. And this is absolutely not proof of macro-evolution but adaptation (otherwise known as micro-evolution) and mutation.
It is the same phenomenon at work when the average height of men and women increased by several inches in the Western world over the course of the 1900s. Of course, better health and nutrition played a large part in producing larger-sized people. In the same way, microevolution is at work when breeders produce varieties ranging from Chihuahuas to Great Danes within the one species Canis familiaris the domestic dog.

These examples show, as in the rest of nature, that all species do have a margin of change available within their genetic pool to adapt to conditions. This trait is found in man, who can adapt to freezing weather, as the Eskimos do, or to the broiling sun in the desert, as bedouins have done. But bedouins and Eskimos are still human beings, and if they changed environments again, eventually their offspring would also go through minor changes to better adapt to their new environment.

What has never been scientifically demonstrated in spite of many examples of wishful thinking is macroevolution, or the change from one distinct species to another. Species of Elephants or any other land mammal never evolved into a whale or otherwise, Dogs have never evolved into birds or human beings as evolution outrageously suggests.

The evidence available has continued to prove that; There are invisible but firmly fixed boundaries that mutations and adaptations can never cross. Why then do you choose to believe that it happened by faith? undecided

Maybe you can learn more HERE

Looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution actually states. You should look it up. Secondly, you need to know what species are according to biologists.

winner01:

All you done from the start is maintain incoherent judgement. Which ideas have you examined yourself and what date was the idea reviewed by you. You people just believe that once you are atheists, you can start to preach science as if it is related to atheism.
The careful analysis of ideas, claims and evidence available is what made me find my place as a child of God.

I've examined the ideas of your God and found them wanting. As I said earlier, science gives good reasons not to believe in your God.

winner01:

The hindus who gave us numbers are theists. What exactly has atheism done for humanity? undecided

They're still not Christians though. Atheism has helped us shed your useless God.

winner01:

If millions of people, me inclusive, claim that God answers our prayers and it works for us, then what exactly is your problem?.

The fact that it is not true.

winner01:

Why are you trying so hard to disprove the real life experiences of others and instist that yours must be accepted.

I'm not. I'm just telling you that your religion is fatally flawed.

winner01:

We will continue to believe in God and God will continue to reveal himself to people. The best you can do is to wail online or pick up arms to annihilate religious folks like atheist leaders have done in the past. Either way, religion will continue to grow.

Sure you can continue believing all you want. It still won't make those beliefs true.
Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by winner01(m): 6:01pm On Apr 05, 2018
thehomer:


Most of them have bad reasons or haven't thought things through but I have.
I get it, every other person is wrong but not you, you must be right.

thehomer:


My life is not at stake. Beliefs regulate how one would interact with the world. Whether you would like something to be true or not doesn't make you believe one way or another.
Actually it does, some atheists have claimed that they want atheism to be true and that even if "proof" existed, they still won't believe in God.


thehomer:


Have you forgotten how to read your own posts? It was in response to your claim that many great scientists have alluded to the importance of religion. Do you think you don't have a preconceived notion?
Except the meaning of preconceived notion has changed, several atheist seem to get naturally defensive when they hear the word christian scientist as if science is atheism-based.

thehomer:



I actually know what Christians believe and have read the Bible. You'll have to ask those atheists. Just so you know, there are Christians who stopped believing by reading the Bible. Others by learning more about the world. How do you explain that? Your desire for a list reveals that you've not thought things through. Do you think you can give a comprehensive list of what you believe?

Of course many atheists claim to have read the bible only for you to discover in arguments that they understand next to nothing in scriptures. Do you also care that some atheists became Christians and that many of us who hold Christianity as truth weren't always Christians?

thehomer:

There's no ad hominem attack in my response. The evidence of religion closing the mind is what you've displayed with your rejection of the theory of evolution. I never said "we seek knkowledge for the sake of knowledge". Take the time to reread what I wrote.

I do not understand. Does this mean anyone who does not agree with the atheistic ideology is close minded?
This is serious.


thehomer:


Who says I want to take it away? I'm simply pointing out the fact that religions are not true.

That's what it seem like atheists want to do. Atheist evangelists grin
You'll have to have studied all religious beliefs and know all things to make such an outrageous claim. Do you now see the meaning of close minded?

thehomer:


What I meant by the sentence "what we've come to learn" is about what we have discovered so far. I thought that was obvious. Because Christians are the ones who believe false things about the world. What is the relevance of examples of "atheist inventions"? Again, you don't seem to understand that what I'm responding to are the false beliefs of Christians.

All these general accusations about Christians make you sound bigoted. Christianity have provided many of the brightest minds that have ever lived.


thehomer:


You mean the idea that zombies roamed a city 2000 years ago somehow means that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?

I do not understand what you mean by zombies

thehomer:


One doesn't have to be present at every event to know that they occurred. After all, you weren't there during Jesus' conception yet you believe he was born of a virgin. You weren't there when he died yet you believe zombies roamed the city after he died. You weren't there when Noah was loading the ark yet you believe the story. You weren't there when Balaam's donkey spoke yet you believe it spoke. These beliefs are worse than pseudoscience. They make no sense at all.

Now you have a soft spot for pseudoscience, I understand grin.

I was not there during the events but with historical record and evidence, hearsay, archeological evidence and existential relevancy, I have come to make my own decisions.

I still do not understand what you mean by zombies.

thehomer:


The basis that religions require false beliefs. I won't give them any names. Actually, science has given some good reasons not to believe in your God.
How can you say religion requires false beliefs, this is tantamount to infinite knowledge. Science was advanced by majority of these folks whose ideology you so detest.


thehomer:


Don't just agree, look it up for yourself. Fossils go missing in the important places? That statment makes little sense. We don't have fossils of all the animals that ever lived but you think that the fossils we do have aren't important? Sheesh.

Lol, maybe if you have a better look at the fossil record, you'll be able to decipher that the transitional fossils required as proof of evolution of one form to another is outrightly missing. Till date, there are no examples in history or presently of "change of kinds".


thehomer:




That single theory is more than enough to show my point. I see that you have your Darwin quote-mine dictionary ready. Please can you tell me what that quote was in reference to?
.
Lol, that quote was in reference to the whole theory of evolution. Darwin admitted to many other inconsistencies in his ideas.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980959_1353325912111307855847593601288972119265443n_jpeg22bb58dc800fe4501ff9a5a9384c533e

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980960_132266881743167462609206803864670214952096n_jpeg1a7e4a245eba31b90fb39d4a415a27b6


thehomer:


Looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution actually states. You should look it up. Secondly, you need to know what species are according to biologists.



Lol, you have no point you know.

thehomer:


I've examined the ideas of your God and found them wanting. As I said earlier, science gives good reasons not to believe in your God.

.
You examined it and found them wanting undecided what did you examine and why did you find them wanting undecided also why are you combating the examinations of other on scientific based atheism. Are you the custodian of truth? undecided


thehomer:

They're still not Christians though. Atheism has helped us shed your useless God.
Lol, Hindus have a god or gods, are you not outraged about that or is it just the Christian God?

Also you do know that a belief in God is native to humanity? undecided


thehomer:



The fact that it is not true.



I'm not. I'm just telling you that your religion is fatally flawed.



Sure you can continue believing all you want. It still won't make those beliefs true.
How can you desperately want to write off the real life experiences of billions of people and claim that only yours is true. Your atheism has all the bigotry of most religions cos that's what you make it seem like.

Millions and billions of people have been lying to themselves but only you and a few others are correct. Okay, I get your point.
Re: 4 Simple Responses To Science-based Atheism by thehomer: 6:45pm On Apr 10, 2018
winner01:

I get it, every other person is wrong but not you, you must be right.

Correct.

winner01:

Actually it does, some atheists have claimed that they want atheism to be true and that even if "proof" existed, they still won't believe in God.

You may like it if gravity were suspended temporarily but that won't make you believe it will happen tomorrow at 10 am.

winner01:

Except the meaning of preconceived notion has changed, several atheist seem to get naturally defensive when they hear the word christian scientist as if science is atheism-based.

Has it now? A scientist can be a Christian. It merely shows their ability to compartmentalize. Science doesn't assume a God.

winner01:

Of course many atheists claim to have read the bible only for you to discover in arguments that they understand next to nothing in scriptures. Do you also care that some atheists became Christians and that many of us who hold Christianity as truth weren't always Christians?

And many atheists understand the Bible better than Christians. Many Christians became atheists by reading the Bible.

winner01:

I do not understand. Does this mean anyone who does not agree with the atheistic ideology is close minded?
This is serious.

No, it means you've shown evidence of your mind being closed due to your religious beliefs.

winner01:

That's what it seem like atheists want to do. Atheist evangelists grin
You'll have to have studied all religious beliefs and know all things to make such an outrageous claim. Do you now see the meaning of close minded?

Atheists pointing out that religions aren't true is good service to humanity. I'm willing to limit myself to the religion you believe since you also don't believe all the other ones.

winner01:

All these general accusations about Christians make you sound bigoted. Christianity have provided many of the brightest minds that have ever lived.

When accusations are true, you have to deal with them on that basis. Christianity didn't provide the minds, some of those people with those minds happened to be Christians. Many others weren't Christians.

winner01:

I do not understand what you mean by zombies

Dead bodies becoming reanimated to roam the streets.

winner01:

Now you have a soft spot for pseudoscience, I understand grin.

I was not there during the events but with historical record and evidence, hearsay, archeological evidence and existential relevancy, I have come to make my own decisions.

I still do not understand what you mean by zombies.

How did you come by this understanding?
Hearsay isn't acceptable evidence for a claim like a virgin birth. See above for zombies.

winner01:

How can you say religion requires false beliefs, this is tantamount to infinite knowledge. Science was advanced by majority of these folks whose ideology you so detest.

Because religion requires false beliefs. Science was advanced by all sorts of people.

winner01:

Lol, maybe if you have a better look at the fossil record, you'll be able to decipher that the transitional fossils required as proof of evolution of one form to another is outrightly missing. Till date, there are no examples in history or presently of "change of kinds".

This is the religion inspired blindness I've been talking about.

winner01:

Lol, that quote was in reference to the whole theory of evolution. Darwin admitted to many other inconsistencies in his ideas.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980959_1353325912111307855847593601288972119265443n_jpeg22bb58dc800fe4501ff9a5a9384c533e

www.nairaland.com/attachments/3980960_132266881743167462609206803864670214952096n_jpeg1a7e4a245eba31b90fb39d4a415a27b6

And the Darwin quotemine continues. I don't know why you think this will impress me or add anything because it doesn't.

winner01:

Lol, you have no point you know.

Have you looked into what the theory of evolution is? Have you looked into the biological definition of species? Looking into them will show you the point.

winner01:

You examined it and found them wanting undecided what did you examine and why did you find them wanting undecided also why are you combating the examinations of other on scientific based atheism. Are you the custodian of truth? undecided

I examined them with the usual tools. What did you examine your God with? Sure. You may call me the custodian of truth if you want it still won't make make the ideas of your God coherent or useful.

winner01:

Lol, Hindus have a god or gods, are you not outraged about that or is it just the Christian God?

I'm not outraged by any God. Do you believe in the Hindu Gods?

winner01:

Also you do know that a belief in God is native to humanity? undecided

Even if that were true, it still won't make your particular God exist. Unless you believe in Zeus.

winner01:

How can you desperately want to write off the real life experiences of billions of people and claim that only yours is true. Your atheism has all the bigotry of most religions cos that's what you make it seem like.

Millions and billions of people have been lying to themselves but only you and a few others are correct. Okay, I get your point.

People misattribute experience all the time.
Thanks for getting my point. Many are called but I and a few others are chosen and correct.

1 Like

(1) (Reply)

Reason Why Fasting Is Basically Useless / Bringing Enugu State To The Hill (BESOTH)2018 / Understanding The Importance Of Praise And Worship

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 280
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.