A Former Atheist

[Cato]

Remember, science can't test the supernatural so they have no authority to state a position on it, really. 

Evasive bullshit. When claims of the supernatural are said to intervene with the natural world, science very much has authority and is the ideal method by which to test such claims. Consider Joshua 10:13. We know these events did not happen. Claiming science can have no opinion on supernatural events doesn't make the events any more plausible.

Edit: I also find it curious that you directly attempt to invalidate science's ability to opine in supernatural matters, yet attempted to gain credibility for your position by citing scientists that presumably agree with you.

[rexbeccarox]

The unknown. Really, can the theist or the atheist state for absolute certainty their own positions? They may think they can, but can they? 

Well, I'm an agnostic atheist.  I lack belief in deities, but I don't claim to know for certain if they exist or not.

[downbeatplumb]

Let me see. How to answer that. First of all, the origins of science and education didn't get their start in the secular world, but rather in the religious.

This is true up to here.
Scientific method was initially to find out the workings of god.
But then it started to conflict with dogma and the bible and the two went there separate ways. 

 Secondly, I can name respected scientists in many fields who not only not believe in evolution, but also teach the Bible in their spare time. So there may be some disagreement with current science and the Bible regarding the flood and evolution but there isn't as much disagreement as you might suspect.

Evolution is an established fact and the biblical flood is a proven lie.
There are lots of sources that will confirm these statements. Seek and you shall find.

Remember, science can't test the supernatural so they have no authority to state a position on it, really. 

There is no such thing as the supernatural.
No ghosts, no demons, no souls, no fairies, no Elohim, no hob goblins and no gods.
All inventions by primitive societies to explain shit they didn't understand.

Growing up in public schools in the 1970's and 1980's as an unbeliever my science teachers were atheist and most of what they told me, now obsolete science peppered with what I now know was Biblical ignorance was touted as unchangeable fact. Knowledge grows, evolves, changes. Facts don't. Tomorrow's science will no doubt negate the science of today.

This may be the case but you can only go with the most up to date evidence and become more right as the science and equipment improves.
This is a strength of science not a weakness. If there is an error it will be fixed eventually.
Religions will always be wrong. 

Hundreds of years ago the current science thought that night and day were caused by vapors, from the sky in the day and from the ground at night while the Bible had said thousands of years ago that night and day were due to the luminaries.

You know what fixes these errors, science. If they had been religious pronouncements they would still be believed by the faithful now. Religions by their unchanging nature are always wrong. 

The hydrologic cycle from the Bible and hygienic laws from the Bible predated science,

The hygienic laws also include lots of burning of innocent wildlife to purify women after menstruation and other crazy nonsense.
I am unsure of what you mean by the bible explaining the hydrological cycle and suppose it is similar to some of the bulshit scientific claims muslims make for their book.

 the latter during Moses' time were only realized in the last 150 years. Until then a physician would go from the morgue to the birthing table without so much as washing their hands. The spherical shape of the earth was explained by the Bible hundreds of years before science concluded it.

You know who else thought the world was spherical? ancient greeks.
And the idea that people thought the world was flat.
Not so true as you would think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enOFVFDkTsY 

My family and friends are mostly atheists, and like myself at the time, they don't believe everything science dictates to them. None of them that I know believe in evolution. We thought of it as bullshit, like the American public school's teaching of myth and legends, propaganda and outright lies in the guise of historical fact.

The thing with science is that it is not about what you can believe but about what you can prove.
I grow tired of religious people trying to drag science down to their level.

[/quote]

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't lack belief in deities because in absence of my belief in deities nothing is lacking or deficient. All is well in such nonbelief.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

The subject of the thread, upon request, was my own personal history as a former atheist. The focus of the response has been a general doubt of my claim to have even been atheist. I think I've been pretty clear what I believe and I don't see my having harped on what atheist believe or lack thereof but their rejection of my own claim as such. 

So when you said this:

The point is, you most likely instilled in your young son some materialistic fantasy based upon mythology, customs and tradition that you knew wasn't true but presented as truth to your impressionable child in order to mislead, and control him and yet you have a big problem with anyone else incorporating these alleged tenets. Atheism is hypocritical, nonsensical, uninformed antiquated polemic pontification. Social and political frustration primarily expressed poorly by failed Christians with a Utopian quasi scientific ideology equally uninformed and hinged upon the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution. And you, I suspect, think that is original and clever. It isn't, so why not be more tolerant of other people's paradigm? 

You were projecting?

Uh. Perhaps, but not harping I don't think. 

[Angrboda]

Would you describe yourself as a creationist, and if so, what kind, YEC or OEC?

[rexbeccarox]

So when you said this:



You were projecting?

Uh. Perhaps, but not harping I don't think. 

You're the only person using the word "harping," but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is: do you really not understand how insulting it is to assign viewpoints to people you don't know, and in addition, who have told you they don't actually hold such viewpoints?  I've seen you get a little upset about the same thing; why is it ok for you to do that?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Uh. Perhaps, but not harping I don't think. 

You're the only person using the word "harping," but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is: do you really not understand how insulting it is to assign viewpoints to people you don't know, and in addition, who have told you they don't actually hold such viewpoints?  I've seen you get a little upset about the same thing; why is it ok for you to do that?

Regarding Christmas celebrations, which were admitted, my response in question explained briefly what my opinion was of atheism and evolution, are you suggesting I haven't had my fair portion of similar opposing viewpoints? I think we each accept that at times it will get heated. 

---

Would you describe yourself as a creationist, and if so, what kind, YEC or OEC?

I don't like using terminology like that because it can be misleading and restrictive. I know it can also be useful, but still. I believe in the Bible's creation account which I guess you could call OEC Creationist. 

I'm going to introduce a new thread in the Christian forum this evening on that very subject if you would be interested in discussing it further, or just check it out. 

---

I don't lack belief in deities because in absence of my belief in deities nothing is lacking or deficient. All is well in such nonbelief.

What is a deity? 

[rexbeccarox]

You're the only person using the word "harping," but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is: do you really not understand how insulting it is to assign viewpoints to people you don't know, and in addition, who have told you they don't actually hold such viewpoints?  I've seen you get a little upset about the same thing; why is it ok for you to do that?

Regarding Christmas celebrations, which were admitted, my response in question explained briefly what my opinion was of atheism and evolution, are you suggesting I haven't had my fair portion of similar opposing viewpoints? I think we each accept that at times it will get heated. 

No!  You did not "explain briefly what your opinion was of atheism and evolution"!  Seriously??  This is your quote:

The point is, you most likely instilled in your young son some materialistic fantasy based upon mythology, customs and tradition that you knew wasn't true but presented as truth to your impressionable child in order to mislead, and control him and yet you have a big problem with anyone else incorporating these alleged tenets. Atheism is hypocritical, nonsensical, uninformed antiquated polemic pontification. Social and political frustration primarily expressed poorly by failed Christians with a Utopian quasi scientific ideology equally uninformed and hinged upon the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution. And you, I suspect, think that is original and clever. It isn't, so why not be more tolerant of other people's paradigm?

You took the opportunity to assign viewpoints and accuse someone of doing something he never even alluded to; you are dishonest.

[robvalue]

Blimey, I missed that. Atheism is hypocritical? I wonder what that means.