Jump to content

Is Atheism Dead? An Interesting Read.


ADeepThinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

The old testament is for those who are under the law with its curses on lawbreakers.  The new says "He who is without sin cast the first stone."

The new also says "Slaves obey your masters even the cruel ones" but that is besides the point why should I believe anything the bible asserts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

For the purposes of our rules, preaching (or soapboxing) is defined as pushing an idea without evidence or support for it, yet insisting its correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it. It's against our rules because it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher, or anyone unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument. 

So why is so much of it done here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

A person may say, "I do not believe in God."  That same person is not saying, "I will never believe in God."  Stephen Hawking seems to have necessitated for himself his own formal unbelief in God, and therefore of judgement, when he rejected his wife, who had so lovingly and continuously dedicated herself to him that she not only saved his life, but enabled him to become the scientist he was.  It's sad that he formally restated that position shortly before he passed on to meet him.  Oh well, surprises happen.   And God is merciful.

 

Do you have any evidence hawking rejected his wife or accepted god?  Or are you just another dishonest theist lying for jesus? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, studiot said:

And modest with it, I see.

No brag, just fact.  I'm 71 years old, I read a LOT of non fiction, mostly educational stuff, very few novels, I watch no t.v., do not listen to the radio.  I don't waste much time, though I rest a lot these days, afternoon grandpa naps you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So why is so much of it done here?

Many people without the knowledge can't do the critical thinking necessary to check an explanation for soundness on their own. Instead they make up supernatural elements to fill the gaps in their knowledge, leaving them with nothing but faith to gauge the strength and trustworthiness of what they think they know. It's extremely difficult to move someone from a stance they took emotionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

If thou judgest thyself to be such a fortunate man that pride does not blind you you must be a happy man, I hope your judgement is true.    "Eye for eye" was under the Mosaic law, and men were so violent in that day that that same law also commanded them to no longer eat raw meat, but to cook it first.  The new law which came after man had been somewhat open to non violence through the law (for penalty under law does inhibit violence) is the law of the spirit of love which says, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."  1 Timothy 4:10     That same Spirit in that same book says, "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."   Mathew 26:54      It's no wonder so many people DON'T believe in God, with so many in imperialist pulpits preaching for war (resulting in the promotion of their own personal imperial empire.)

 

The Bible or any other holy book is not evidence, they are claims that require evidence, you cannot use a claim as evidence of itself any more than suggesting a mystery as a solution for a mystery means anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moontanman said:

 

Do you have any evidence hawking rejected his wife or accepted god?  Or are you just another dishonest theist lying for jesus? 

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html     I also watched the documentary of his life, he left his wife for the woman they hired as his personal assistant.     

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Start another thread of you want to discuss your ignorance of science 

Strange, for honesty and truth's sake, what ideas of mine do you consider ignorant?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

No brag, just fact.  I'm 71 years old, I read a LOT of non fiction, mostly educational stuff, very few novels, I watch no t.v., do not listen to the radio.  I don't waste much time, though I rest a lot these days, afternoon grandpa naps you know.

So why did you claim to be exempt from normal reasoned discussion practice and proceedure when you  failed to address the Philosophical substance of my post about the dictionary definition you posted in support of your Philosophical? position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, coffeesippin said:

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html     I also watched the documentary of his life, he left his wife for the woman they hired as his personal assistant.     

Ok, not that it matters really, but I reject god as well due to a complete lack of evidence of the existence of a god. Evidently I am in good company... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So why is so much of it done here?

Some science is fact and law....some science is theory and the best explanation we have based on evidence at any particular time....some science as per a previous link I gave you, is speculative, though speculative based on already evidenced and known science. god or any ID myth is unscientific and without basis, other then a "god of the gaps"attempts.

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Do you have any evidence hawking rejected his wife or accepted god?  Or are you just another dishonest theist lying for jesus? 

From what I know, Hawking's wife, Jane, actually rejected him. Certainly not critical of her, as she is deserved of much praise for looking after Hawking during difficult times. He did not accept god as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, studiot said:

So why did you claim to be exempt from normal reasoned discussion practice and proceedure when you  failed to address the Philosophical substance of my post about the dictionary definition you posted in support of your Philosophical? position?

You'll have to include some examples of what your talking about, Studiot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moontanman said:

Ok, not that it matters really, but I reject god as well due to a complete lack of evidence of the existence of a god. Evidently I am in good company... 

And there is no condemnation from me towards you. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That doesn't say he accepted god before he died as you claimed 

I really don't believe I would have written that.   What I thought I wrote was that he rejected God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, coffeesippin said:

You'll have to include some examples of what your talking about, Studiot.  

Must be time for this famous nap.

I only gave one example and referred to one instance of dictionary posting.

I did not mention the plural.

 

But if you have difficulty following our last three exchanges, even theought hey were are very brief,  I can gather them all together in one place for review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, coffeesippin said:

And there is no condemnation from me towards you. 

That's mighty white of you, I also reject the supernatural, anything real should have a measurable effect on reality. Weasel words like quala can be used all day long but at the end of the day you are still left with nothing but sopsilism...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The new also says "Slaves obey your masters even the cruel ones" but that is besides the point why should I believe anything the bible asserts? 

Good advice for someone who needs to feed a family in our modern economic era don't you think, Moon?  I can't tell you why you should believe the bible .. that might be considered preaching, you know, like someone telling me why I should believe in the Big Bang? NOT that I say BB is false, just that I believe there is a better explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

8% of atheists cannot believe in God because atheism is the disbelief in God .. so 2%of atheists cannot be certain that God exists. 

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
 
  1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
     
    You are right though that scientific method has no general relationship with the rejection of God because I am a person who believes that science not only shows the existence of God but proves, for instance, that the beginning and the end of this universe are as described in the bible.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

I think we all know that the textbook definition of atheism doesn't match up with how the word is actually used on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Do you have any evidence hawking rejected his wife or accepted god?  Or are you just another dishonest theist lying for jesus? 

Strange and whoever or whoever .. What I wrote was:  "Stephen Hawking seems to have necessitated for himself his own formal unbelief in God ..." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

For the purposes of our rules, preaching (or soapboxing) is defined as pushing an idea without evidence or support for it, yet insisting its correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it. It's against our rules because it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher, or anyone unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument. 

 

Preaching? You mean like this comment below? (and many others similar to it)

 

"All science is speculation until shown otherwise. That is the greatest benefit of science and the scientific method." (page 2)

 

No evidence was provided to support the existence of this supposed entity called "The Scientific Method". I personally consider the evidence for the existence of "The Scientific Method" to be exiguous at best, on a par with the evidence for God perhaps. Many others, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists agree with me. But said poster "insists it is correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it".

 As you rightly say, it is indeed "a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher" since he is "unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument".

 

Whoops! Sorry to hijack your own hijacking.

Edited by Reg Prescott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

How many would be believers without being indoctrinated as little children? It's nothing to take pride in when it's the result of the abuse of immature minds. 

Irrelevant. The claim made was that religion was dying. This is false. Saying that it has to do with indoctrination is irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. At any rate, I'm surprised at you. I would think that a Darwinist would naturally conclude that religion was inculcated into humankind through natural selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zosimus said:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

I think we all know that the textbook definition of atheism doesn't match up with how the word is actually used on a daily basis.

For "heavens" sake Zosimus .. we are using the English language despite its huge failures, I can't switch to the Greek or Latin or Hebrew popular today (please forgive my jest.)    In my experience 'Atheist' is used by EVERYONE I know everyone I have EVER known to describe someone who does not believe in God who created the universe.    It has NEVER applied to whether a person goes to church or not, for instance.

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Preaching? You mean like this comment? (and many others similar to it)

 

"All science is speculation until shown otherwise. That is the greatest benefit of science and the scientific method." (page 2)

 

No evidence was provided to support the existence of this supposed entity called "The Scientific Method". I personally consider the evidence for the existence of "The Scientific Method" to be exiguous at best, on a par with the evidence for God perhaps. Many others, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists agree with me. But said poster "insists it is correct while ignoring reasoned, supported arguments against it".

 It is "a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher" since he is "unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument".

 

Whoops! Sorry to hijack your own hijacking.

Hi Jack.  Good to hear from you.  (Yes I know, your name is Reg, you caught the joke I am sure.)   YES!!!   BY GOLLY!!   Just like that kind of preaching!!!!!   Another good example you included:   "It is "a waste of time trying to discuss anything with a preacher" since he is "unwilling to change their mind after hearing the best supported argument".   Yes .. that kind of preaching.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.