The Trouble with Atheism.....

Nimos said:

I have seen it and I don't really get the impression that the host really understand atheism at all.

Click to expand...

That argument is getting old.....like that other old chestnut...."you don't understand evolution"....implying that if we just "knew" about evolution or atheism, we would all be instantly converted.....its actually what I do know about evolution and atheism that keeps me where I chose to go over 50 years ago. You are free to keep your belief system and I will keep mine.

Nimos said:

He keeps trying to push the idea that atheism is just another religion and uses books like the origin of species as some sort of bible, that different buildings are like temples etc. That is not the case, its about knowledge and search for truth based on what evidence there is for set truth. Science simply happens to be the method by which we establish truth. We have no other method!!

Click to expand...

So a flawed scientific method is better than belief in God? How?
In evolution, there is no "set truth"....the scientists will tell you that.....there is no proof for any of it......and if something comes up tomorrow to show that they were in error, a paradigm shift may be necessary and all that stuff they said was fact, disappears into thin air, where it came from.

Nimos said:

The origin of species is not like a bible, its a book containing some ideas of how living things evolved, the whole industry that have tested and verified that evolution is a fact, is what convinces atheists that this is more likely than a God, for which we have no evidence at all.

Click to expand...

Darwin had an idea, but he later expressed some doubts about the things that strongly indicated intelligent design. All creation is evidence for the Creator because blind chance could never be responsible for such perfection....and the systems that drive all the various process, like how everything on earth is recycled....this cannot be accidental. Earth is a closed system of regeneration and recycling, otherwise we would be drowning in our own waste, without food oxygen or water.It all works perfectly because it was designed to.

Just one element that makes up a huge part of this earth is the miracle called water......without which not a single thing could survive here. But it is a finite commodity....there is a set amount of water on earth, that is constantly recycled through precipitation so that clean fresh drinking water falls from the sky to keep land dwellers alive. Its source is the vast oceans where evaporation picks up moisture and stores it in the clouds, which in turn take it over land to deposit it as fresh drinking water and to irrigate all the plants life. Is that just a fluke of nature? You can think so if you wish....

Nimos said:

Then he tries to pull off an argument that since scientists can't explain what happened before the big bang and neither can religious people, that both arguments are equally valid. Which is simply not true. Whether or not scientists can explain what happened before the big bang or not. Doesn't mean that religious people doesn't still have to provide their own proofs for God, simply leaning back as if their position is valid without evidence is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

But that is the crux of the whole matter.....science doesn't need to provide "proof"....so why does God need to provide "proof"? All the proof we need is right under our noses.....some just choose not to see it.

Its all about our own choice to believe whatever appeals to our heart. The spiritually minded ones among us will tend to clearly see God's hand in creation.....but those who think all mention of God is unscientific nonsense will choose to believe in a flawed theory, over appearing to be uneducated and gullible to others.

Nimos said:

Also he tries to make the point, that atheism doesn't give any reason to be moral, which is completely nonsense, again given the fact, that religious people simply assume that God exists and that, that is somehow acceptable as a starting point and therefore this perfectly explain why morality comes from God, that is not a valid argument, it is simply an assumption without anything to back it up.

Click to expand...

I think the world's dictatorships (past and present) based on atheism are demonstration enough that morality finds its origins in the Bible and in a God-given conscience...that is why godless atheistic behavior, becomes animalistic, predatory and lacks compassion....when there is no morality and an abuse of free will, it is a horrible mix. When something contravenes God's laws is always wrong.....and at times leads to very harmful outcomes. God's laws lead to no lasting harm for anyone.

Nimos said:

He also uses this as an argument to point out that atheism causes just as much death and destruction as religion does, which again is a rather poor argument, unless he can demonstrate that Stalin for instance, was motivated in what he did, was in fact driven by his lack of believe in a God and not simply because of him wanting power and control.

Click to expand...

Its hard to imagine any despot claiming to be a Christian whilst taking millions of innocent lives.

Hitler was in bed with the Catholic church....was he a Christian? His actions proved that he wasn't.
Its one thing to claim a label, but another thing entirely to live up to what you claim to believe.

Nimos said:

So I don't really think this host have made a lot of deep thoughts about this topic, most of his arguments are fallacious and the rest I think are easily disproved as being weak at best.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion....but it isn't mine....might it be that the evolutionists will only find fault with this video? Is that somehow unexpected?

Deeje said:

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Click to expand...

I will respond to this question, not by using technical means which are the direct product of science, like semiconductors, computers, forums databases, intercontinental laser communication, but by using Christian means. I will whisper it in my room and pray to Jesus that you get it.

Tell me if it worked.

Ciao

- viole

Deeje said:

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Click to expand...

If I say "yes," can we get religion's tax breaks and preferential treatment, too?

SigurdReginson said:

I really don't have 45 mins of time to watch a video... I gotta get ready and go to bed so I can get up at 4 am and do another 12 hour shift. Maybe you could just post a TLDW?

Click to expand...

Its not the kind of video you can just describe in a few words......try to watch it when you have time.....its great food for thought.

Deeje said:

But that is the crux of the whole matter.....science doesn't need to provide "proof"....so why does God need to provide "proof"? All the proof we need is right under our noses.....some just choose not to see it.

Click to expand...

What crux?

Science needs to provide evidence. Your God, too. So, where is it?

Ciao

- viole

Deeje said:

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Click to expand...

A correction here: Atheism isn't a religion just as much as theism isn't a religion. The add-ons, such as rituals and certain beliefs are what makes a religion.

Indoctrinations stems further than religion. As there are indoctrinated theists, there are indoctrinated atheists and the indoctrination is caused by common add-on beliefs and rituals which form into specific groups and cults.

Tribalism is the natural state of most humans and when you have enough people supporting a certain viewpoint, you will have tribalism as a result.

So we all know about indoctrination and tribalism in theistic religions. But there is also indoctrination and tribalism in groups that incorporate an absence of deities such as new atheism, certain sub groups of socialism, atheist social media, scientism and I assume many more.

So I would correct your second questions the same way I would correct the same question regarding theism:

"Are there atheist groups that are really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Do they have their “fundie” evangelists, and their hate speech just like the churches it criticises?"

I would agree with you. And I think these types of groups are inevitable even if theism doesn't exist because that is the social nature of human beings.

Deeje said:

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Click to expand...

I stopped when he asked: what happened before the Big Bang? That was sufficient to make the rest useless.

How can one be still so silly to hope to bring a scientist in difficulty by asking that? Or to add a iota to the evidence for a God?
First of all, the question might be meaningless since there might not be not a "before". Then, it is as silly as asking: what is more southern of the South Pole?

And, in general, lack of knowledge about the naturalistic reasons for X, DO NOT automatically increase the plausibility of a supernatural explanation for X. That would be probably the mother of all fallacies. It might provide some cozy feeling to believers in the Great Juju, and equivalent deities, since they we will still have some zone of unknown they can hide behind, but it is not really much more than that.

Actually, scientists like to not know everything. And they all openly admit it. That is why they are scientists, actually.

Ciao

- viole

Revoltingest said:

Under US anti-discrimination law, atheism is a religion.

Click to expand...

Yes.
The same way a corporation is a person...

Jeremiah Ames said:

ok, I’ll be devil’s advocate:

it turns out to be a pond of fresh water

Bob goes and drinks

Ray dies of thirst

(i like being devil’s advocate, must be the devil in me, sorry)

Click to expand...

You and I must have vastly different understandings of what a "mirage" is...

Deeje said:

All creation is evidence for the Creator because blind chance could never be responsible for such perfection

Click to expand...

So perfect that some kids die of cancer after two months. And He forgot, when He so lazily cut and pasted us from gorillas design, being so under pressure for the upcoming day of rest, to remove the gene that grows tails, just to turn it off at the last second.

He should have created us when He was not so tired, and with His head already into the weekend.

Ciao

- viole

Deeje said:

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Click to expand...

*sigh* Just because some atheists act in similar negative ways as some religious people doesn't make atheism a religion. Some theists behave that way too but nobody calls theism a religion.

Atheism and theism are characteristics that describe singular aspects of an individual, something a person is. A religion is a set of shared beliefs and practices, something a person does. Atheists can be religious or not and theists can be religious or not.

I may get around to watching that video but nothing it could say will change the simple facts I wrote above and a lot of people here would do well to try to understand them.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Nothing more, nothing less.

Whatever else people (mostly not atheists, as though they would know) attribute to atheism is typically unfounded bias

Deeje said:

If atheism behaves just like a religion, then it deserves the label IMO

Click to expand...

We sure could use a little tax break, am I right?

Deeje said:

If atheism behaves just like a religion, then it deserves the label IMO.

Click to expand...

I don't know when I'll next have a spare 45 minutes to watch the vid, but science is not a religion because science goes by evidence.

The correct reply to religious claims is 'Show me'.

The correct reply to scientific claims is 'Show me'.

The complaint seems to be that only one of these can indeed show you.

Meanwhile there isn't even a definition of "God" such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not.

Mestemia said:

Yes.
The same way a corporation is a person...

Click to expand...

No, corporation personhood exists only for some legal
contexts, eg, standing in court, speech, but not for
others, eg, marriage, voting.

Deeje said:

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Click to expand...

I have a direct question for you.

What is your definition of atheism?

The word is only important in religious conversations about it. I'd assume most atheists can don't even think about deities nontheless the theology and opinions religious people have of them.

Revoltingest said:

No, corporation personhood exists only for some legal
contexts, eg, standing in court, speech, but not for
others, eg, marriage, voting.

Click to expand...

So both are only for SOME legal contexts, and neither are for all legal contexts so the difference is the specific context texts that they do not share?

Mestemia said:

So both are only for SOME legal contexts, and neither are for all legal contexts so the difference is the specific context texts that they do not share?

Click to expand...

I cited the anti-discrimination context for
atheism as a religion. I don't know of others.

Deeje said:

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Click to expand...

If you summarize the key claims in the loooooong video, I'll respond

Deeje said:

Thoughts on the content of this video....well worth watching....(a bit over 45 mins)
A lot of interesting issues explored on science’s role in atheism.

Searching questions...interesting comments by scientists.....does science really “know” what it’s talking about...or does it just assume to know, based on its own pre-conceived ideas and resulting deductions?

Is atheism really just another religion, complete with its temples, its revered ones, and its scripture? Does it have its “fundie” evangelists, and it’s hate speech just like the churches it criticises?

Without reference to the presenter, please comment on just the content.

Click to expand...

This is probably the TV programme (or based on such) that he made in 2006 for Channel 4 (from Wiki), and which I probably watched at the time - I usually do for such items. Rod Liddle is not a particularly inspiring individual to listen to (or read as I recall), and I would likely have dismissed his arguments then as much as I would do now - given that many of his points, from earlier posts, are hardly new. I'll duck out on watching this again. This might be useful:

The Trouble with Atheism - Wikipedia