newfie
Well-Known Member
lot of guilt with these characters.
Religion
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
- Status
lot of guilt with these characters.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Poor thing. You have so much shoved into that small little box that is your world when in fact the reality is life and people are vastly more diverse and interesting. But you resort to the collective thinking and group think and then pigeon hole everything into that box and hold on for dear life while life itself passes you by.
But if you don't mind, I won't pray for you as doing so would just compound the problem, seems to me.
And just too blast a crack in your box, one of my daughters is a music director for a church, a position she sought and I fully supported her and still do. I'm proud of her and what she has accomplished with her music training. My wife of 36 years is also a christian, one of which I support and encourage and I never try and convince her otherwise of her beliefs and yet we have good conversations about religion and even the contradictions and she'll also be the first to tell you that atheists can in fact be moral just as she'll tell you christians can be immoral. Thus the false argument that morality comes from religion or as previous stated, should I expect the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
My youngest daughter had a friend wanting to talk to me about being an atheist and when I inquired deeper about the "why" of his interest, I discovered he had gone to a church that told him that his tattoos were evil and against god. The atheism was a means of self serving and not about self discovery. I told him I would talk to him about atheism only on the grounds that he visit more churches, read the bible for himself and even explore other ideas of religious belief and faiths. Then in about 20 years when he hit his 40's and had time to explore the experience of life itself, we might then have a conversation about atheism/agnostism.
And I also don't object to voluntary public prayer which I consider an action of free thought and free association, in this very thread Jones and I disagreed on this issue of public voluntary prayer (and not that he didn't have legit concerns either), nor do I get worked up about Nativity scenes or other religious trappings as cultural displays. But that's me.
Now please continue with your purely subjective ramblings about your vast knowledge of all things atheist and the small little box atheists exist in.
BTW and not that I haven't stated this before: If god is a noun, I'm an atheist. If god is a verb, we're having a very different conversation.
when i mentioned something about low wages at my job to this devout muslim, he used the typical religious response of "being happy with what you have".
well, thats 1 way of looking at things, but i would say looking at the glass half full could also be a way of turning people into conformists and accepting their problems without trying to change them.
so i think with religion you need to have Balance and understand that what sounds like a good thing can be used as a bad thing.
well, thats 1 way of looking at things, but i would say looking at the glass half full could also be a way of turning people into conformists and accepting their problems without trying to change them.
so i think with religion you need to have Balance and understand that what sounds like a good thing can be used as a bad thing.
You're aware that atheism isn't a faith, correct?
And I hope you're not talking about me - I haven't attacked anyone.
You've gotta brush up on your reading comprehension if you think I was 'preaching' anything in those posts. Explaining my reasons for being an atheist does not qualify as preaching. You can't even preach atheism in the first place.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
God knows, some people try.
Some Atheists tend to preach "no religion" like a Southern Baptist and are very intolerant.
I get the feeling you're just googling, reading the headline, and posting these articles without really reading them. The above article in no way supports your assertion that science functions similarly to faith. It actually suggests that, for some people, "belief" in science fulfills a similar purpose as religious belief - that both worldviews provide comfort to believer during times of stress.
Might you consider that the vast majority of all scientists do not share this man's opinion, or do you only read what supports your biases?
There's also the fact that Collins is merely expressing a personal opinion. It means nothing.
This one starts off with a bold faced lie - the suggestion that both religious faith and science both fundamentally posit the existence of something "outside" the universe. Regarding science, this is obviously false. Things outside of the universe are not testable and therefore meaningless to science. The inexplicable physical laws, as they are described in the article, are not posited to exist outside the universe. They are, in fact, fundamental to our understanding of everything, and we do in fact have an understanding of their underlying mechanism, excepting a compete understanding of gravity. We learn more everyday though, and the predictive power of science is unparalleled - as was recently demonstrated with the discovery of the long awaited higgs boson (gives mass to particles).
Science isn't a bunch of wild guesses, as you would seemingly have it. Science follows the evidence with a conclusion; faith follows the desired conclusion with cherry picked evidence.
You're really just googling keywords and posting things you have no understanding of. The laws "breaking down" means that in certain physical situations, we lose the ability to predict anything. This suggests that either the models are incomplete, or that we don't have a compete understanding of the situation (as with singularities, like the potential beginning of the universe ).
But that's the point of science. To probe past the limits of our understanding by confronting our ignorance. Guess what? A few hundred years ago, the "laws" broke down when trying to explain planetary motion. But instead of passing the problem onto god, as you would have it, we kept pushing until we figured it out.
Not true. As shown in the logical conclusion of a black hole, physics is at a conundrum. In short, infinite density at a single point. Of course this means Tim Wright was wrong when he said, "You can't have everything; where would you put it?
So, you take issue with the fact that the nature of science is to constantly test and refine our understanding of the world?
I never get these types of arguments. Would you rather we say "this is it, no questions allowed?" Well, maybe you would.
That would be an antitheist. An atheist can be many things besides an atheist. Atheism on its own, however, is simple disbelief.
Of course that's what I'm doing because you won't. You insisted that science doesn't rely on faith. Of course it does. And you can try to "explain away" the limits of science but that misses the point. Both science and religion have their limits but more importantly both have very practical applications and neither diminishes the other. What's wrong with that?
I'm not attacking science.
Do you suggest that religion does not? That is a superficial understanding of religion.
What's not true? I literally just said that in certain situations physics loses its predictive power. That does mean something is off, but so what? Do you think science claims omniscience?
The *point* of science is to continually refine our understanding. The laws still work beautifully in describing a *huge* amount of phenomena. If you'd like a practical example, then you can thank our understanding of physics (relativity in particular ) for your gps. Without an understanding of time dilation, gps wouldn't work.
Did we figure it out? I believe much of planetary motion is similar to what we once believed about the movement of atomic particles that now is in question. Doesn't it make sense that maybe those ideas could be inconclusive on the macro and micro level?
- Status
Similar threads
