RE: Idea
May 22, 2016 at 4:11 am
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2016 at 4:15 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
We cannot care about a fictional character. What part of that is so hard to understand? How much do you care about Lord Shiva?
As they have already pointed out to you, science deals in what is measurable and testable. That means it cannot test the supernatural unless/until it interacts with the material world in some way. If God is simply the Deist version, the Prime Mover, Creator, whatever, then science has nothing to say on it, and I don't see how it can. However, when you start to believe in miracles and other interventions in the natural world, such as for instance the alleged efficacy of prayer, then that can be measured and tested--- and it fails, every time.
You forget that a significant portion of the evolutionary biologists and other scientists of the world are Christians, and have no issues with the discoveries of science. These people, however, know enough to realize that things like the magical creation 6000 years ago, the global flood, etc, did not happen as claimed in the scriptures.
Atheists find none of the god-stories convincing. That's it. There's nothing beyond that. If you add on additional philosophies, such as Communism, you're no longer dealing with their atheism (even if the additional philosophy rejects the idea of the existence of gods) but their philosophy. Many atheists, you will find, have strongly Humanistic views/philosophy because their refusal to reject the findings of science leads them to reject many of the prejudices our culture instills in people, and believe in doing what is best for everyone, not just for themselves.
What you have done is set up a strawman of atheism, a fake and false equivalence, and kicked it down in front of us. Congratulations! Let us help you kick down the false version, and talk about what atheism really is and is not. Oh, wait, we already are... so try listening, this time. I know all of this has already been explained to you. So why didn't you listen?
As they have already pointed out to you, science deals in what is measurable and testable. That means it cannot test the supernatural unless/until it interacts with the material world in some way. If God is simply the Deist version, the Prime Mover, Creator, whatever, then science has nothing to say on it, and I don't see how it can. However, when you start to believe in miracles and other interventions in the natural world, such as for instance the alleged efficacy of prayer, then that can be measured and tested--- and it fails, every time.
You forget that a significant portion of the evolutionary biologists and other scientists of the world are Christians, and have no issues with the discoveries of science. These people, however, know enough to realize that things like the magical creation 6000 years ago, the global flood, etc, did not happen as claimed in the scriptures.
Atheists find none of the god-stories convincing. That's it. There's nothing beyond that. If you add on additional philosophies, such as Communism, you're no longer dealing with their atheism (even if the additional philosophy rejects the idea of the existence of gods) but their philosophy. Many atheists, you will find, have strongly Humanistic views/philosophy because their refusal to reject the findings of science leads them to reject many of the prejudices our culture instills in people, and believe in doing what is best for everyone, not just for themselves.
What you have done is set up a strawman of atheism, a fake and false equivalence, and kicked it down in front of us. Congratulations! Let us help you kick down the false version, and talk about what atheism really is and is not. Oh, wait, we already are... so try listening, this time. I know all of this has already been explained to you. So why didn't you listen?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
