Atheism and Faith

Edella · 04-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rsade

No

God or a creator is simply a more logical a belief system than the pure blind faith in the religion of science.

BTW I love science, especially cosmology and astronomy.

What brought you to the "pure blind faith" that is the "religion of science?"Does your faith in cosmology ever clash with your faith in God?

ughaibu · 04-13-2006

Rsade: In that case, you have yet to answer Questor's question. If rephrased as 'what is the cause of your belief?' you might find it more accessible.

Eclogite · 04-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edella

What brought you to the pure blind faith that is the religion of science?

I really cannot let this uneducated and therefore ignorant, deliberately provocative comment pass without a suitable retort: please, Edella, cite a single instance of pure blind faith within science that was not subsequently fully and rigorously validated by the experimental method.

One or more theists in this thread are taking the position that atheism and science are equivalent. Poppycock! They then seek to equate science with religion, in regard to the alleged presence of faith in both. More poppycock! From where I sit such arguments have the appearance of either gross ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. They do not serve to advance the discussion, but introduce gross distortions of the truth, that benefit no one.

Edella · 04-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edella
What brought you to the pure blind faith that is the religion of science?

It was sarcasm .I forgot to put quotes around "pure blind faith"and"religion of science". Atheism and science are certainly not the same,nor do I think science is blind faith.Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Eclogite · 04-14-2006

Ah. That makes much more sense. That's the problem with sarcasm and irony, they don't always come across too clearly. Still, it gave me a chance to have a little rant, so thanks for that. [That was resigned, self deprecating humour, not sarcasm.

]

InfiniteNow · 04-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rsade

As I (and others) have said nothing begins to exist without cause.Ahhh' that would include our universe.

Causality has been challenged and the studies repeatedly confirmed which violate Bell's theorem, or put another way, confirm quantum nonlocality. Just fyi...

Eclogite · 04-14-2006

Jolly unsporting of you InfiniteNow.

- using facts and evidence to discount dogmatically held, yet unfounded beliefs. What will be next? Logic and reasoned argument? Surely a step too far.

Boerseun · 04-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rsade

As I (and others) have said nothing begins to exist without cause.Ahhh' that would include our universe.

And, of course, God Himself.
Which, of course, explicitly requires the existence of an Uber-God, who created God.
Which, of course, explicitly requires the existence of an Uber-Uber-God, who created the Uber-God.
Which, of course, explicitly requires the existence of an Uber-Uber-Uber-God, who created the Uber-Uber-God.
Which, of course, explicitly requires the...
Aah, what the hell - I'm sure you get the idea.
The universe exploding out of itself is just as improbable as requiring a God to kick-start it. There's just less redundant elements in the equation.
Saying that the universe must have a creator is logically inconsistent, as described above.

Saitia · 04-14-2006

Hello cwes99_03,

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

many scientists use the word truth to define SR and GR though no absolute proof of either has been set forth in stone.

Can you give me an example of anything set forth with "absolute proof"?

Quote:

I believe you are actually pointing to the idea that nothing can be absolutely set in stone without knowing everything in the universe, and therefore truth can be treated relatively.

Um, no and yes. All truth comes from God, who is absolute, but when truth becomes allied with fact, it is conditioned by time and space; that makes all truth discovered in time and space relative and partial.

Quote:

Please PM me for further discussion though of what you believe to be truth and I'll be happy to debate some topics as to how they relate to a true understanding of the Bible.

Thanks; but I think I would rather be force-fed refried beans and raw cabbage and involuntarily used to fill warehouses full of Boerseun's Macies' parade-size inflatable dachshunds with butt-gas until I expired, before I'd debate Bible verses with another human being. . .

(I'm just kidding.

Where are you in central Illinois? I grew up in Springfield)

—Saitia