ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[BabaVoss]

Atheists by definition hold the belief that there are no Gods. If they're (as you say) demanding proof then they're arguing in bad faith. Lack of a proof is not proof of the opposite (I forget the technical term for this.)

What you say is true though. Most self professed Atheists do take that tack in argument. I used to do that too, but I realized it was never going to persuade anyone and didn't make me look great either. So now I'm a Strong Skeptic: I personally believe there is no God, and I argue to weaken the beliefs of God believers.

Show me a proof that Gods do not exist, or cannot exist. And I will show you a true Atheist.

Of course, there is no proving a negative. But most atheists I have spoken with don't really care all that much. I've never demanded anyone prove the existence of any god. I don;t believe in god, but am open and interested in what believers see that I simply don't. I'm certain that all religions are wrong, and that all gods have all been made up by humans.

 

[Daisy]

I'm certain that all religions are wrong, and that all gods have all been made up by humans.

Why? For what reason? Where did that common desire through the ages come from?

 

[BabaVoss]

Why? For what reason? Where did that common desire through the ages come from?

Fear, mostly. Fear the unknown. Humans have always wanted explanations for what we couldn't understand. The sun was a god, thunder was a a god, etc. Then we got more creative over the ages.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Fear, mostly. Fear the unknown. Humans have always wanted explanations for what we couldn't understand. The sun was a god, thunder was a a god, etc. Then we got more creative over the ages.

Also, we developed introspective self awareness. We discovered our own agency and then assumed agency in everything. Animals, inanimate objects, everything in the sky...

 

[Dragonfly]

Why? For what reason? Where did that common desire through the ages come from?

Fear, mostly. Fear the unknown. Humans have always wanted explanations for what we couldn't understand. The sun was a god, thunder was a a god, etc. Then we got more creative over the ages.

BabaVoss is spot on.

Fear is the quintessential “go to” tool in the Christian toolbox.
It’s the thing they fall back on when they’ve got nothing else.

In addition to fear - add in a helping of:

arrogance
lust for power/control
superstition
greed

 

[tosca1]

Natural forces.

Like what?
Explain those "natural forces."

Why aren't you specific?

 

[Proudmoore]

I think the OP took Jesus' phrase about faith as tiny as a mustard seed a little too literally.

 

[tosca1]

Science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Lol -THE NAS JUST DID SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
It's not ruling it out!


This is their official view!
Posted in an FAQ in the site by NASA!



The National Academy of Sciences also says:

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection,
and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.


"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious.
But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.


Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[tosca1]

The main difference between an atheist and a theist is that atheists are typically ok admitting when we don't know something
while the theist has to make something up to make himself feel good and in control.

Answer:

No.
The main difference between a theist and an atheist is that the theist can offer evidences for his belief, while the atheist has diddly squat!
The atheist can't even point to science as an authority on the matter!

The theist makes a rational rebuttals/argument........................................ while the atheist can give only incoherent ramblings, and knee-jerk comments to pass for rebuttals or arguments!

 

[Lisa]

Answer:

No.
The main difference between a theist and an atheist is that the theist can offer evidences for his belief, while the atheist has diddly squat!
The atheist can't even point to science as an authority on the matter!

The theist makes a rational rebuttals/argument........................................ while the atheist can give only incoherent ramblings, and knee-jerk comments to pass for rebuttals or arguments!

A theist cannot prove that any god exists in an objective manner that doesn't rely or religious belief or faith to support, so your claim is blatantly untrue. There is zero evidence of god, heaven, hell or Jesus as the son of god. It is no more true than a Dr Seuss book.

 

[BabaVoss]

Science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Lol -THE NAS JUST DID SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
It's not ruling it out!

This is their official view!

No, sorry. The first sentence in your quote tells the story.

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge..."

What I said remains true. "Science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural." Science has always recognized there are things outside of science to be considered. This quote tells you that - right up front. You just missed it.

 

[tosca1]

Science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural.



No, sorry. The first sentence in your quote tells the story.

What story is that?
What else are religious experiences?
What is GOD - if not supernatural?

What I said remains true. "Science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural." Science has always recognized there are things outside of science to be considered.

You can't say science has nothing to say about the supernatural.
It just did.
What did the NAS say?
It explained that they can't observe it.
It explained that science's capability is limited.
And................it didn't rule it out.

The NAS says, the supernatural is another, separate realm!

The NAS even referred to the belief of a GOD-CREATED world (which they call, theistic evolution) - which is compatible with all the discoveries science has made!


The problem is, you're conflating "nothing to say," with "observation and analysis."


It's not true that science has nothing to say about it.
Lol - there's a lot that has been said about the supernatural!

This quote tells you that - right up front. You just missed it.

In other words - you're giving your claim as an addition to the list of atheist nonsense.
Thank you.


have a nice day.

 

[BabaVoss]

What story is that?
What else are religious experiences?
What is GOD - if not supernatural?


You can't say science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

It doesn’t.

It just did.

No.

What did the NAS say?
It explained that they can't observe it.
It explained that science's capability is limited.

Read the first sentence again, slowly: "Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge..." They start out by saying these things are outside of science.

 

[watsup]

Lol -THE NAS JUST DID SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
It's not ruling it out!


This is their official view!
Posted in an FAQ in the site by NASA!



The National Academy of Sciences also says:

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection,
and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.


"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious.
But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.


Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,

WMAP Site FAQs

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov

Misinterpretation of what is said.

 

[tosca1]

Misinterpretation of what is said.

Explain how it's been mis-interpreted.

 

[watsup]

Explain how it's been mis-interpreted.

See post #636 and #638.

 

[watsup]

The theist makes a rational rebuttals/argument........................................ while the atheist can give only incoherent ramblings, and knee-jerk comments to pass for rebuttals or arguments!

As I say, I always love your irony in the morning! Gives me a good laugh as I’m eating my cereal!

 

[tosca1]

A child with cancer has hundreds, if not thousands of people (of many denominations and faiths) praying for the child to survive.
Child survives.


Prove it was the prayer that did it, and not simply just science, and the medical professionals who cared for child.

Answer:

Actually - the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on YOUR shoulders.

WHY?

I'm assuming that the child's condition has been determined terminal by medical profession: NOTHING CAN BE MEDICALLY DONE about it.
It's just about paliative care now. easing the suffering until the end comes.
The child was prayed for by thousands.
He survives.

The child's survival is deemed as an intervention from God.
The parents says it's an answer to prayers.


Does it matter what denominations people belong to, who prayed for the child?
Some may belong to other faith - but they're also praying for the child. Does the fact that they pray for the same child, do their prayers count? I don't know.




That the child had survived, is the proof that is being offered by believers that their prayers were answered by God.

You say, it's not. PROVE IT.



Furthermore - if the child claims she talked to GOD..........................telling her she'll be fine, the onus is on you to prove that it's not an answer from God.

 

[tosca1]

See post #636 and #638.

See #637.


bye.

 

[BabaVoss]

Explain how it's been mis-interpreted.

*sigh*

OK, let‘s parse what you quoted. I‘ll include the first 2 complete sentences since you apparently aren’t able to interpret the first one correctly.

“Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.”

Now I’ll bold the relevant parts;

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.

Now I’ll parse a bit; Science is NOT the only way, OTHER ways include religious experience.
(They are tellling you here this is not science)

Now I‘ll use a few different words to say the same thing; Science is NOT the only way to learn things. Religious experience is ANOTHER way (other than science) to gain understanding.
(This says that science and religious experience are two separate things, again)

So no, it does not say what you claim is says. If you still don’t see it, have someone else read it to you and maybe they can explain it better than I.

 

[watsup]

See #637.


bye.

I did. It’s repetitive nonsense that you have posted multiple times a day for years on end, and yet you STILL do not understand it in spite of being corrected by literally dozens of other posters, the latest being BabaVoss.

 

[Logician Man]

As I say, I always love your irony in the morning! Gives me a good laugh as I’m eating my cereal!

 

[DCCougar]

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

You sure know how to cherrypick. I can do that too, with no editing.

"The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level."

Do you think using bigger type and red color makes a "bigger" point?

The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.

 

[DCCougar]

the theist can offer evidences for his belief....

Oh please. What hogwash is this? Whatever theist thinks he has "evidence" for his belief is grossly deluding himself.

 

[Gordy327]

What story is that?
What else are religious experiences?
What is GOD - if not supernatural?

Delusions!

You can't say science has nothing to say about the supernatural.
It just did.
What did the NAS say?
It explained that they can't observe it.
It explained that science's capability is limited.
And................it didn't rule it out.

Not ruling something out is not the same as affirming it. There is simply a lack of objective evidence either way.

The NAS says, the supernatural is another, separate realm!

By definition, the supernatural cannot mix or influence the natural realm. Therefore, it's a non-issue.

The problem is, you're conflating "nothing to say," with "observation and analysis."

No, the problem is you're trying to take something way out of context or twist it to support your own narrative. It's intellectually dishonest.

It's not true that science has nothing to say about it.
Lol - there's a lot that has been said about the supernatural!

Yes, in fairy tales and fantasy stories.