× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
New Topic  
Polymorphism Polymorphism
wrote...
13 years ago


Ignorant atheist:

-Does not understand the distinction between faith and fact. Faith cannot be disproven by fact.
-Foolishly believes that he can convince Christians that god does not exist
-Says things like "the bible says ___ but science has proven that _____ is wrong and therefore God does not exist"
-Tries to back up his belief in evolution and science without actually having knowledge of either


Ignorant Christian:

-Tries to disprove scientific fact with pseudoscience and limited understanding
-Does not understand the difference between a scientific theory and theory used in the colloquial sense
-Believes that the great scientists of centuries past are like prophets and that disproving them therefore disproves the validity of all science
-Believes that there can be no morals without religion

Most of the internet is filled with ignorant atheists debating with ignorant Christians.  It really is a disgrace.
Read 3010 times
11 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
Valued Member
Educator
13 years ago
Here's my personal take on it. I believe that it is only through reason that one is able to comprehend the world around them. Before I became a scientist, I used to consider the biblical teachings of creation as factual evidence of how the universe developed. However, now, if you were to use reason to deduce whether this idea is true, we would likely discover that the world is far older than 10 000 years. In fact, the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a devout Roman Catholic priest. Pope Pius XII declared that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation.

Personally, I think that God wants us to be sceptic believers; this is why we were designed with a brain of incredible potential for discovery. Atheist = lazy; they reason without faith, yet faith goes beyond reason.

Which side are you on?
Polymorphism Author
wrote...
13 years ago
I am atheist in the colloquial sense though technically agnostic.  I believe that there is a possibility that god exists, however that probability is just about as high as wizards and witches existing or the boogeyman. 

The problem with religion is that it is not a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore completely incompatible with science.  There is no way for me to disprove it and I have accepted that fact.  However, even if it is true, much of religion relies on prayers and miracles.  If religion is not based on reproducible and testable phenomena as science is, then what understanding of the physical, observable world does afford me?

Sure we can attribute all of the things we don't yet understand to god, however I would like to think that those are simply areas that science has not uncovered yet.  In ancient times, the Greeks believed that Zeus hurled lightening bolts from Olympus.  Is this "understanding" necessarily better than simply saying "we don't know"?  If in our modern times all scientists attributed the unknown to god, then what point would there be in further research and discovery?  The answer is already there.

Emotionally, morally and intellectually, my rejection of religion does not cause me to lack anything a Christian might have.  In fact, I believe it gives me a better appreciation for the value of this short life that we have. 

wrote...
Staff Member
13 years ago Edited: 13 years ago, duddy
Some of the greatest scientist that ever lived argued against atheism. For instance, Sir Isaac Newton argued that gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.

There is no scientific law, principle, or theory that argues that things happen for no reason. How can the Big Bang have initiated if it wasn't for something to have stimulated it in the first place. So, all of a sudden there was matter? I agree with the Big Bang, evolution (technically - on a smaller scale), but I also believe in a Deity and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
- Master of Science in Biology
- Bachelor of Science
Polymorphism Author
wrote...
13 years ago
Some of the greatest scientist that ever lived argued against atheism. For instance, Sir Isaac Newton argued that gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.

You forget that science is not like religion.  Great scientists of the past are not idols and their words reflect the times that they lived in.  I can name many great scientists who were atheist but that is beside the point.  Beliefs of great scientists have absolutely nothing to do with the religious debate. 
wrote...
Staff Member
13 years ago
I agree with "Great scientists of the past are not idols and their words reflect the times that they lived in" and that's why I hate to quote famous scientists; regardless, if a greater thinker of the past - a man who reasoned, as Bio_man put it, for a living - I think he can be a model for us.
- Master of Science in Biology
- Bachelor of Science
Polymorphism Author
wrote...
13 years ago

There is no scientific law, principle, or theory that argues that things happen for no reason. How can the Big Bang have initiated if it wasn't for something to have stimulated it in the first place. So, all of a sudden there was matter? I agree with the Big Bang, evolution (technically - on a smaller scale), but I also believe in a Deity and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

How can you believe in microevolution without believing in macroevolution?  

Also, please note that the big bang theory does not state that something comes from nothing.  It states that the universe expanded from an extremely dense state.  Additionally, the big bang theory may very well be wrong.  The beauty of science is that if we are wrong, we can admit it and strive towards a more correct answer.  The bible is rigid and unchanging.  I believe one day science will be able to explain the origin of the universe, but just because we cannot explain it now, does not mean that it is logical to invoke god.
Polymorphism Author
wrote...
13 years ago
I agree with "Great scientists of the past are not idols and their words reflect the times that they lived in" and that's why I hate to quote famous scientists; regardless, if a greater thinker of the past - a man who reasoned, as Bio_man put it, for a living - I think he can be a model for us.

Shall we start practicing alchemy then?  I believe Newton was very much into alchemy.  Slight Smile
wrote...
Staff Member
13 years ago
Grinning Face What he did on his spare time is none of my business.
- Master of Science in Biology
- Bachelor of Science
wrote...
Staff Member
13 years ago
Here is another theist scientist; great explanation.

- Master of Science in Biology
- Bachelor of Science
wrote...
Donated
Valued Member
13 years ago
Slight Smile I'll stay out of this one.
wrote...
13 years ago
I agree that believing in god has no scientific base, so it can't be proved or rejected. It is totally a matter of choice, and i don't really see what's the point of discussing the presence of god if we all agree on the importance of being good and helping others in the societies we live in. After all, if there was a god that is what he would want us to do, more than praising him day and night. Personally i believe in god, but unfortunately and because of many many ignorant believers, believing in god and in a certain religion ( islam in my case ) tends to classify you as one of those ignorants. I see religion and science as two different unrelated things, and the conflict only originated because the religious authorities in the past tried to fill the void science is meant to fill, and now it's payback time for scientists  Face with Stuck-out Tongue.

I hate to see channels like discovery and national geographic and many others talking day and night about the big bang and evolution ( not that i oppose those theories ), when they should address much more important and basic scientific facts that most people does not know well. It is a shame to see a person who doesn't know the difference between an eukaryote and a prokaryote talking about evolution, or a person who can't name the planets of our solar system in order talking about the big bang.. the media seems to focus on those topics because " ignorant atheists " ( as polymorphism described them ) take these theories as tools to prove that religions are incorrect and that god doesn't exist. And i don't really see why those channels and why any scientist would want to be involved in a conflict between science and religion that in reality doesn't even exist.
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  981 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 707
  
 321
  
 796