Serious Problems with Atheism

[ignoramus]

It's not you ...seriously... It's the indoctrination talking..
If you can just hear yourself ...

[Pulse]

It's not you ...seriously... It's the indoctrination talking..
If you can just hear yourself ...

I keep quoting scientists and scientific publications, and you keep posting meme's, real compelling evidence on your part  

[Jesster]

I am Falsely accused of lying and quoting Dawkins out of context, then verbally abused, and it's all my fault? Really?

After all the straw-manning you've been doing just so you could take massive dump on us, I really don't care what you say in your defense anymore. If you can't take it, don't dish it out in the first place.

[pocaracas]

oh, Pulse.... I'll be so disappointed if you don't turn out to be a poe.

But just in case, can you stop spewing creatard's skewed view of science and actually acknowledge real science?
No, you can't, can you?
Well then, just try to think for yourself. Why is it that you believe what you believe?
Why do you call it belief, instead of knowledge?
Sure, you sometimes sugar-coat it and call it knowledge - knowing in your heart - but down deep... in your gut, you know it's just belief. unjustified, baseless belief. My question to you is if you can trace the origins of your belief.
From conception in your mother's womb to this present state, what was the psychological path that has led you to believe in what you believe?

Compare your path to that of other believers, particularly, believers in other deities, other religions.

Then explain to those other believers why your belief is worthy of more attention than theirs.

And only then explain why your belief is worthy of more attention that all the justified belief, commonly known as knowledge, that science has gathered since its inception.
And neurosurgeons commenting on cosmology make no more of a compelling case than a photographer commenting on nuclear fusion.

Your gotcha arguments from ignorance are not convincing to anyone. Try to understand why that is, instead of hammering on the same soundless key.

I explained why I believe what I believe, and copiously quote scientists, including a neurosurgeon, and even atheists themselves to prove that Materialistic Atheism is on shaky foundations which makes Theism more plausible, Science is based on preconceived Ideas, on funding the Scientific Dogmas endlessly and not letting "a Divine foot in the Door" , I am suggesting that's an insincere search for Truth. 

No you didn't explain what I asked you to explain.
None of your lot ever do.
Read carefully what I write. English is not my first language, but I do try to write things as accurately as possible.

I asked you to think back on your whole existence and analyze how you came to believe in what you believe.
I didn't ask for the arguments that you later came to find that support your pre-existing belief and are now trying to pass on as if they are the basis for your belief.
I'm asking you to honestly look into yourself, your past, your growth, and understand the genesis for belief within you.

Also, not believing fairy tales told by people is operating on a shaky foundation?! REALLY?!
I think you have that backwards.
Preconceived ideas IS the foundation of all religions. Science relies on very few of those to build up the whole edifice.
An insincere search for Truth is one that starts off with the conclusion and then works its way there - the hallmark of all religious belief.
Haven't you ever heard the saying about throwing rocks at your neighbors when you have a glass roof?

Truth, being an accurate description of Reality, is the utmost concern of Science.
Certainly, it's not a complete edifice. It may have some wrong parts.
It's based on what we can all sense.
[hypothetical scenario] If all of civilization were to be lost, science could be rebuilt from scratch. Religion, if any would develop (and it would most likely develop), would be different - think about why that is (maybe it has to do with the underlined word above).

Please see; "Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth" by Henry H. Bauer.

I'll quote another scientist, so its obvious my concerns are shared by other scientists;

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that

could explain the observations” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its
centre, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical
grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.
What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology
tries to hide that.” (Emphasis mine) Gibbs, W.W., Profile: George F.R. Ellis; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally, Scientific
American 273(4):50–55, 1995.

A Mathematician commenting on cosmology... again, a fallacy...
But let's address the problem: you can, if you so wish, to claim that the Earth stands at the center of the Universe and nothing in Cosmology will go against that. Right?
But Cosmology goes a bit beyond that remark, doesn't it? Or don't you know? Are you just parroting certain quotes that were given to you by someone else? Someone, maybe, with an agenda?
Anyway, what Cosmology claims is that any place in the Universe can be considered the center and everything we can observe remains the same, regardless of where you place this center. Everywhere is the center. Which just makes this mathematician's quote seem unimportant, useless... worthy of a good old-fashioned eye-roll and a DUH!

But it does raise the question: why did you think it was relevant?
As far as I can tell, the best answer to this question is that you are ignorant of actual science.
If you are ignorant of science, then you are in no position to attack it.
That you do attempt to attack it is a symptom of something else.... something that is what rubs people the wrong way and makes them respond to you aggressively, derisively, mockingly.

That said, do try to rationally analyze your own belief. Not the reasons that have come to pseudo-support your belief. The actual origin of your belief. Not the origin of the religion you follow... that's for later... first, the origin of your own mind's belief.

[ignoramus]

Poca, beautifully said.

When you ask such honest and revealing requests, I fear the alien down his throat will just tighten the grip, for its own survival.

[pocaracas]

Poca, beautifully said.

When you ask such honest and revealing requests, I fear the alien down his throat will just tighten the grip, for its own survival.

Thanks, man.

I'm just trying to get people to think for themselves.
Funny you should mention an alien...
One of the hypothetical scenarios one can request is: imagine an alien comes to Earth - what will he think of our religions?

[robvalue]

Spoilers

---

It's always the same. So predictable.

Arguments from authority. Attacking science. Personal experience. Deflections. Hand-waving arguments.

If there was any substance to any of this guff, we'd have seen it by now. Instead people try and draw up their own goalpoasts on the wall to kick a ball against. There's never anything that could convince anyone who doesn't already share the beliefs.

Of course, we know (possibly better than them) why they actually believe. Mainly, because they were indoctrinated. Even if they weren't, they've been immersed in the mythology since birth. It only takes a crack in critical thinking combined with some strange experiences for it all to come flooding in. It's almost always the local mythology that comes flooding in, of course.

And the belief is reinforced. Look at the reliance on authority. So and so believes. Everyone believes. Millions believe.

Then the big one: confirmation bias. This is absolutely huge.

There's also the extreme danger of properly analyzing your own beliefs. I know what it's like. I've been there myself, with other issues. The mind creates a really strong barrier to reason. There's the fear of having to consider you've been wrong, for a long time. And having to re-assess everything from the ground up, from this new perspective.

---

[pocaracas]

It's always the same. So predictable.

Arguments from authority. Attacking science. Personal experience. Deflections. Hand-waving arguments.

---

If there was any substance to any of this guff, we'd have seen it by now. Instead people try and draw up their own goalpoasts on the wall to kick a ball against. There's never anything that could convince anyone who doesn't already share the beliefs.

Of course, we know (possibly better than them) why they actually believe. Mainly, because they were indoctrinated. Even if they weren't, they've been immersed in the mythology since birth. It only takes a crack in critical thinking combined with some strange experiences for it all to come flooding in. It's almost always the local mythology that comes flooding in, of course.

And the belief is reinforced. Look at the reliance on authority. So and so believes. Everyone believes. Millions believe.

Then the big one: confirmation bias. This is absolutely huge.

There's also the extreme danger of properly analyzing your own beliefs. I know what it's like. I've been there myself, with other issues. The mind creates a really strong barrier to reason. There's the fear of having to consider you've been wrong, for a long time. And having to re-assess everything from the ground up, from this new perspective.

---

Dammit rob, spoilers!!

[robvalue]

Ahem, whoops. Sorry

Spoilers added for those who want to work out for themselves why they believe.

[purplepurpose]

There is a lot of good in peaceful faith. The only problem is that successful life of a believer has a lot of: fear of hellish agony, guilt and shame of not being selfless enough in the past and present, hardships in the name of selflessness. I bet, this is the REAL reason why people are choosing atheism in most of the cases.