non-science shock effect is not convincing.
Even some science sometimes accepts non-science, the early years of string theory was a good example, it was the darling of the science establishment even before it had zero predictive power. If the establishment likes a 'theory' it doesn't really matter if it meets their criteria or not. However switch that around a bit and let a scientist suggest a theory that even hints of an ID for example and the hapless chap will be crucified.
As far as 'winning debates' and the arguments of Creationists like Behe for intelligent design are highly questionable.
Not when its in black and white, a win is a win even if Trump wins it.
As far as the debates Napoleon did not win the Battle of Waterloo. Behe is a qualified scientist, and accurate in 'some' of his descriptions of problems with a natural evolution, but it remains he is 'arguing from ignorance,' claiming science cannot currently explain this and that therefore . . .
I do not agree even though I am not a big fan of Behe. Behe suggests answers that science rejects out of hand. Most of secular science would not admit there is a double standard if they were a guest of the inquisition. There is and its hobbled discovery since the vienna circle last met in the 1930's. Empirical science is of course needed, but I would argue metaphysics is as well, this is especially true as our traditional physics are near worthless in some areas of theoretical physics.
Well, at least you acknowledge a range of how atheists argue their belief, but I still detect a bias and overstatement as to the 'toxic and harmful' nature of some atheist apologists. To me the most 'toxic and harmful' are most definitely 'Young Earth Creationists' that trash science...
Yes well I try to give credit where credit is due. I attempt to be fair even though I feel atheism although having no evil agenda is a dangerous worldview. Still that does not mean atheists are evil or bad people, they are simply lost/wrong in their worldview. Just as atheists are steadfast in their beliefs that the world/universe is godless, Christians, and those that embrace most major religions, including eastern religions are just as steadfast in their beliefs of the supernatural/metaphysical world view. So the best we can hope for is to learn and apply a mutual respect for each others beliefs.
As far as the actual science goes there is not much difference, if any at all, in the science of atheists, agnostics and the diversity of Theist scientists.
That is true.
I am not a fan of emotional trashing of atheist and agnostics, such as using terms like 'notorious.' Anthony Flew is too often cited as a converted 'atheist,' when in reality he did not so to speak convert until he was quite elderly, and Deism is hardly a conversion to anything close to Theism.
I was simply repeating what was published many times and in his hey day Flew would of been proud of that title. Despite your maneuvering flew is indeed a converted atheist, and old age should not effect ones worldview. I also disagree with the Deism comment. Its far closer to theism than atheism too! Why its acceptable for a deist to accept God exists, just not a religion type God. Here is the definition I think is accurate.
de·ism
- belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
Actually I would be a strong agnostic/weak atheist if it not were for the Baha'i Faith offering a more inclusive universal relationship with Creation and Revelation with humanity. Agnosticism is the most rational logical position. Beyond agnosticism there is atheism which makes the philosophical assumption that nothing exists beyond our physical existence, because there is no objective verifiable evidence. Atheism is no more illogical nor irrational than Theistic worldviews making the assumption that other worlds and God(s) exist beyond our physical existence.
Hmm' some of those of your faith might disagree with that last statement. Actually the theistic world views do not say there are other worlds, even heaven will be here on earth according to the bible. But if you know of where other worlds are mentioned in the bible I would like to read it. And of course I am speaking of other worlds. That said I think the Baha faith is good if a questionable having even less evidence of being true than most other religions claims. And instead of critiquing Christians and Christianity your own faith ask its adherents to accept and promote harmony in the religions and of religion and science!
Baha’is believe in peace, justice, love, altruism and unity. The Baha’i teachings promote the agreement of science and religion The Baha’i Faith, the world’s newest independent global belief system, teaches the oneness of God, the
unity of humanity and the
essential harmony of religion.
Btw I have said in many posts here and other forums that I don't claim Christianity is the only true religion, I claim its the religion I must choose out of all the rest as being the most believable. I will do my Evangelical bit to everyone I meet but its usually a thirty second sound byte. In fact I hold a Baha teaching in that I feel there is only one God but many religions. Its up to the individual to educate himself or steel themselves with faith and choose.
The problem of the Theist perspective is the inconsistency on the belief in God(s) and other worlds often justified by ancient mythology, which gives those that do not believe more ammunition to seriously question Theism, as Flew still objected to until he died.
I can not help those with a closed mind accept Christianity or even God. I accept Christianity for many reasons. The bible has been ridiculed many times of its claims only to have archeological evidence emerge to support its claims. I could write a page of font of why I accept the existence of God as true, and why I choose Christianity as the most probable and most true religion. All that font would not convince even ONE hardened soul as per scripture. Even if God rode a lightening bolt to a hardened non believer and tattooed ' I AM THE HEBREW GOD' on their foreheads with laser eyes they still would not believe in God. So instead of wasting my time I evangelize in ways other than preaching or witnessing by talk, but that's another thread! In closing I will say your religion is a fine choice and since I do not believe in hell I will probably be able to say see I told you I was right!
Sorry for the length of this reply but I haven't learned the economy of words yet.....
; { >