Atheists aren't as rational as they like to think

JP sucks ballz. Shit he says is 20% obvious, 50% unnecesarily obfuscated and 30% wrong.

 

I didn't read her post at all. You're clearly you didn't understand my comment. My points were very simple but I'll try to simplify them for you even more.

I found it funny that Athiest are so deeply invested in a conversation about something that they dont believe in. I don't believe in the tooth fairy but I don't criticize anyone who does because I don't feel it's prudent to spend much time discussing things I feel aren't real.

-Athiests consider religious people foolish for believing in metaphysical beings because of the fact that they can't provide material proof of the existance of such beings.
-The suggest that scientific material proof is the only reasonable motivation for any type of view point.

That type of reasoning is backwards and hypocritical because they themselves cannot provide scientific material proof of their own beliefs which makes them unable to meet their own standard of proof.

I can completely understand why it would be hard for someone to believe in some concious invisible force who watches over and judges all the people of the world. I know more non believer than I do believers and we discuss our views all the time. Usually we have to agree to disagree. It would be hypocritical of me to state that their lack of belief was somehow foolish or immature because they havnt disproved God while having no actual proof of God.

I feel it is perfectly reasonable for an athiest to disagree with a religious person but it is unreasonable to assert their opinion as correct because they don't even meet their own standard of proof in the first place. Thats about as simple as I can make it man.

 

She wasn't criticizing anyone... It was what she thought. Or maybe you weren't awair I was quoting from a blog? I thought I made it clear it was a quote from a blog.

Not all atheists.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/09/god-richard-dawkins-angry-atheist

 

I'm not speaking in regards to her statement. I already told you I didn't read her blog in my previous response.

 

Okay. Maybe there would be less confusion if you hadn't quoted her.

You're welcome. The person who wrote it is actually called Vanessa James and originally she wrote it anonymously but then revealed on her Twitter that she had written it. I actually came across her first on a podcast where she discussed her deconversion with Holly Ordway (who's a former atheist).

 

You wouldn't have been confused if you read what I wrote.

 

I think David Berlinski sums up the toxic environment we all live in pretty well with this quote: "Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on."

 

Good job @This Guy, almost every sentence in your post is completely false. That must be some kind of record. Congratz!

Of course not, just like the inexistence of sock gnomes has not been proven. Who claims otherwise?

Has religion explained anything? "God did it" is not an explanation at all. It means nothing and gets us nowhere. Unlike GR for example which tells us a lot about Big Bang. The question 'why' was never meant to be answered by science.

Also, what's the point of this? Do you suggest we scrap physics and believe that the origin of matter is the Garden of Eden? What do you want? I genuinely do not understand. Unless you're trolling, of course.

Could you tell me which passage in the Bible provides the value of the cosmological constant? Thanks.

Again, are you saying physics is wrong and YOU know better? Okay.

Not sure about this one. I'll ask my roommate. He studies physics. And is a practicing Christian.

Has moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is moral? I don't even...

Do you mean separation of church and state in the Western world? Yes, it's been a force for good. Pretty sure the Pope would have called for a crusade against the Soviet Union if the geezer still held any real power.

Yes. You either have data or you can fuck off.

Sciences have no "philosophy" last time I checked. Religious belief is not irrational. Treating holy texts as historical documents is.

Contempt for idiocy is a healthy, correct attitude to have.

Uff, I've spent like ten minutes writing this. What am I doing with my life?

 

First off, congratulations to you since the quote wasn't mine but David Balinski's. Secondly, the point of the quotes isn't to say science is all there is or to so religion is the only thing that will answer every question. The quote is against the pretentious belief held by many atheists that there will ever be such a time when science will be able to fill in all the gaps of thought or that such a system could bring about a moral society.

As for your crusade comment you were at least accurate, albeit unintentionally, that the Pope would only call a crusade if he had a valid reason to do so like the systematic killing of religous clerics and citizens. That is after all why the crusades happened. They were after all a response to hundreds of years of Muslim sacking of Christian lands and communities. Is that to say some of the soldiers didn't commit horrible acts during war? No, but its not as black and white as you paint it with your big bad church crusade remark: https://home.isi.org/you-thought-crusades-were-evil…until-you-read

 

You quoted him, own it. Not sure you know what 'pretentious' means but hey, you're the native speaker here.

Will science ever be 'finished'? I personally think it's possible but I won't probably live long enough to see it. There are a few caveats though:

• Math: Everybody who's heard about Gödel's incompleteness theorems knows that Math cannot be complete. Laws of logic dictate that it's impossible.
  
• Physics (and everything else): If we had the Theory of Everything, we still wouldn't be able to infer everything because the world is so complicated that even systems of few particles can be computationally too expensive even if you know the rules.

So I don't expect that will be ever capable of predicting the future perfectly. But to say that we cannot survive without religion is just nonsense.

The Western culture that we (probably) both live in is based on religion, specifically Christianity. There's no doubt about that. I don't know a single village or town that doesn't have a church or chapel. But we live in a very different world now.

 

I did read it!!! I wish I hadn't, completely pointless! Why am I even talking to you? A complete waste of my time.

 

Yeah, you could have posted like 10 more threads by now.