I hadn't meant to blog this morning, but I saw this one and thought I'd set yet another theist who just didn't get it straight. Feel free to go over and add you own two cents worth of reason. It's fun! It's free!
Atheism: Does it make sense or is it an uncompromising, fundamentalist religion?
I'm not going to respond to the other blogs any more. The readers have taken them so far down rabbit trails that the subject matter and purpose of the blogs have gone way over their heads. Instead, I will pose this points for all of you evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, atheists, and agnostics to consider:
You claim that you cannot trust the bible because it was written by men, yet you trust and seem willing to be martyred for fallible textbooks written by... men. Think about that one for a moment.
You claim tolerance when you can't even tolerate us speaking up against a THEORY.You wonder why the Bible never changes, when textbooks and evolutionary 'discoveries' change all the time to stay 'current'. Here's my quesetion: Which scientific statement in the bible needs to be updated? Answer: They are all current, yet were written 4,000 years ago. Hmm...
You wonder how theists can believe that there is something outside of time and space and matter, yet you wholeheartedly, uncompromisingly believe that matter came from nothing. Question: Where's the evidence for that?
You wonder why Christians are always trying to 'shove the Gospel down your throat', yet would not stand idly by if someone was in danger and you were the only one around to rescue them. Answer: Chew on this - If you wholeheartedly believed there was a heaven and a hell and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to hell, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?
Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer? We are adamant with you because we can't comprehend why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge His Creation, yet cares enough to offer you redemption. We just can't figure out why you would reject that offer.
Everything in you screams "Oh, I don't want to die", yet you celebrate death (evolution would mean death brings forth the next kind, whereas Creation dictates God breathes life, and life is a gift not to be taken for granted).
Rather than answer me point-by-point, pick the point that bothers you the most about this blog, and respond to it FREE OF CURSING OR INSULT. I just received a message from one of you saying you don't use insults, then replying to my response with cursings and blasphemy. Come on, act your age and let's reason together.
Here's what we do know: You're going to die, and we care enough about you to rescue you from the grips of Hell. Is that not compassion?
Also, please proofread your responses to make sure they make sense to the other readers. Thanks.
With all the presupposition I can muster, God bless!!
Atheist's Nightmare
I must say you know absolutely nothing about not only atheism, but your own religion. You are so wrong that I cannot possibly do this point-by-point. Okay, let's begin the education (cracks knuckles....).
"You claim that you cannot trust the bible because it was written by men, yet you trust and seem willing to be martyred for fallible textbooks written by... men. Think about that one for a moment." No. I accept provisionally theories (the definition of which you, as many other fundies, do not actually know, as I will get to in a moment...) which explain sets of observations. The Bible has all the hallmarks of being written by men and none of those I would expect if it were a god's word. It has changed drastically to the point where we do not actually know with any certainty what parts were actually contained in it! Atheism, on the other hand, is simply an acceptance of the null hypothesis in the lack of any evidence to the contrary that there is no supernatural being.
"You wonder how theists can believe that there is something outside of time and space and matter, yet you wholeheartedly, uncompromisingly believe that matter came from nothing. Question: Where's the evidence for that?" This seems to me to be the First Law of Thermodynamics argument. The problem is that the sum total of the mass-energy of the universe is exactly 0. As to what initiated it, we do not know. So what? To immediately jump to a supernatural origin is what is known as premature curiosity satisfaction. The so-called Big Bang model predicted the results of several to incredible accuracy. Two of these are the hydrogen/helium ratio and the cosmic microwave background. Question: what part of the Bible predicted the observed expansion of the universe? While we do not have all the answers yet, at least we are willing to admit it instead of making convoluted arguments as to how scientific discoveries 'fit' into the Bible somehow.
"You wonder why the Bible never changes, when textbooks and evolutionary 'discoveries' change all the time to stay 'current'. Here's my quesetion: Which scientific statement in the bible needs to be updated? Answer: They are all current, yet were written 4,000 years ago. Hmm..." The Bible has changed considerably, as I've said. Any textual critic would tell you that. As for the "scientific statements" in the Bible (there are no correct ones), how about rabbits and coneys chewing cud? (They do not.) How about a description of the Earth as flat? (It is not.) A bat is not a bird, etc. For a more full description of biblical 'science' gaffs, see here. The reason that Science changes is due to our ever increasing knowledge base leading to asking new questions. Question to you: what new discoveries in Science have been made stemming from the Bible? Answer: none in the last 2,000+ years. Hmm....
"You wonder why Christians are always trying to 'shove the Gospel down your throat', yet would not stand idly by if someone was in danger and you were the only one around to rescue them. Answer: Chew on this - If you wholeheartedly believed there was a heaven and a hell and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to hell, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?" There is a big difference between pulling someone from a burning building (a very real, immediate threat) and some perceived, nebulous future threat. Let's change the question around. Would you kill someone if you thought that they would some day years later attempt to cause you harm and claim self-defense in the same way you might kill an armed intruder invading your home that meant you immediate physical harm?
"You claim tolerance when you can't even tolerate us speaking up against a THEORY." You are under the impression that a Theory is just some sort of idea pulled out of thin air. Nothing could be further from the truth. A Theory in Science is something that 1) explains a set of observations; 2) makes testable predictions which can verify the theory; 3) explains new data as it comes in; 4) is falsifiable (that is, it can be shown to be incorrect). Natural Selection is a Theory, explaining a huge amount of data from comparative morphology, molecular genetics and paleontology. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has absolutely none of the attributes just described. Nothing makes a scientist like myself angrier than someone ignorantly saying "Well, it's just a theory." We fell embarrassed for people that say that. The biggest difference between Religion and Science is that in Science our Theories can change if a better explanation can be found. This has happened a number of times. Two that come to mind are the development of the Relativity and Quantum Theories. Along with Natural Selection, these Theories changed the way in which we look at the world and even the universe. Religious dogma, on the other hand, is brittle and incapable of taking in new ideas and prefers to place its fingers in its ears and annoyingly go "La-la-la-la-la!"
"Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer?" The reason people insult you for 'witnessing' to them (what an odd term) is because they are insulted. What it says to them is that you think you have a superior moral system (you do not, by the way). By trying to convince someone to convert to your world view you are insulting theirs. You bring insults onto yourself and haven't the foggiest why. Such is the blinding effect of religion. Not everyone shares your beliefs, even other Christians. 'Witnessing' is disrespectful every bit as much as if you were asked to dinner and insulted your host's cooking . Actually, it's more disrespectful because you are rarely invited.
"Everything in you screams "Oh, I don't want to die", yet you celebrate death (evolution would mean death brings forth the next kind, whereas Creation dictates God breathes life, and life is a gift not to be taken for granted)." I have found this to be the opposite. Knowing that I have only this one life to live I cherish every moment of it. I am willing to lay money down on a bet that I have accomplished more in this life to this point (roughly half way) than you will in the whole of yours. When I leave I will go to the same place I was before I was born: oblivion. Religious people are quite happy to hasten the process for some reason.
"You're going to die, and we care enough about you to rescue you from the grips of Hell. Is that not compassion?" No, it's just disrespect for my beliefs. Worry about yourself and I will worry about my own fate. You don't have the right to take that responsibility onto yourself.
"We are adamant with you because we can't comprehend why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge His Creation, yet cares enough to offer you redemption. We just can't figure out why you would reject that offer." Let me say this really slowly so you can understand. All religions bear the hallmarks of being totally man-made. Therefor there is no gods, no heaven, no hell (what kind of a god would create hell? not a loving one...), no redemption, no.... If the Bible is God's word, wouldn't you think that he would have made his words immutable and immune to the huge number of copying errors made by scribes? There are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the whold of the New Testament! What atheists don't understand is why you would believe in a deity just because a book says so! I've said it before, just because the National Enquirer says Bat Boy exists doesn't make it so!
I am not one of those atheists that will insult you or curse at you (unless you really tick me off). That there are atheists that will do that is true, just as there are theists who will do the same, but they are a minority. People are people. Most atheists are (unfortunately) silent. Thankfully, this is changing due to people like you.
In Reason,
Unashamedly Atheist
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
“While we do not have all the answers yet, at least we are willing to admit it instead of making convoluted arguments as to how scientific discoveries 'fit' into the Bible somehow.”
You are taking the same approach you accuse the theists of taking. You are positing a “science of the gaps.” It’s like saying that science does not yet know, but I am sure it will cover the gaps in my knowledge someday. The theist explains the world as it is now. There are no gaps in their arguments.
“For a more full description of biblical 'science' gaffs, see here.”
Your link is a site known to take comments from an archaic translation out of context. It is also know to totally ignore alternative explanations of the passages.
“Question to you: what new discoveries in Science have been made stemming from the Bible?”
No scientific discoveries could be made without finding order in the universe. The order science finds, it explains by positing more order. It is viciously circular in this approach. It cannot answer the basic question: where did this order come from.
“…some perceived, nebulous future threat.”
You have to ignore allot of evidence and proofs to postulate that.
“Natural Selection is a Theory, explaining a huge amount of data from comparative morphology, molecular genetics and paleontology.”
Again, it explains order based on order. It give no answer to the question of where this order came from. It also leaves on without a way to know any truth whatsoever.
Rational thought and argument can not be defended if our thoughts are under the control of a brain that evolved. Everything we think is then encoded in our DNA. We would have no reason to converse.
“By trying to convince someone to convert to your world view you are insulting theirs.”
That makes you one of the most insulting person on the web. You are constantly trying to convert people to your line of thinking through argument. If you are not trying to convince, then just shut up and leave us alone.
“I am willing to lay money down on a bet that I have accomplished more in this life to this point (roughly half way) than you will in the whole of yours.”
And you call us arrogant. I have accomplished nothing of value on my own. Anything I have has been a gift from God, even my faith.
“All religions bear the hallmarks of being totally man-made.”
Your way of thinking does not even bear the marks of being man-made. It is just a result of your DNA and the impressions your bio-chemical factory know as a brain gives. Reference my earlier comment on all of the arguments and proofs you ignore.
“There are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the whold of the New Testament!”
99.9% of the New Testament is established using accepted techniques of historical textual criticism. The .1% doesn’t affect one single Christian doctrine.
There you go again trying to convert us. You are displaying your arrogance again.
You might also try spell-checking your blog entries before posting them.
“I am not one of those atheists that will insult you or curse at you (unless you really tick me off).”
No, you will just declare us the “WEAKEST LINK” and stop posting our intelligent comments.
"You are taking the same approach you accuse the theists of taking. You are positing a “science of the gaps.”" Nope. If I do not have enough information to take a position, I do not know. Saying goddidit is taking a position prior to having enough information to take any position. As for no gaps, explain how goddidit. If you can't, that is a gap.
"Your link is a site known to take comments from an archaic translation out of context." The ol' taken out of context crap. Try again.
"where did this order come from." Read Vic Stenger's book. He explains it better than I can.
"You have to ignore allot of evidence and proofs to postulate that." If you mean the bible, you bet I ignore such an untrustworthy source. "99.9% of the New Testament is established using accepted techniques of historical textual criticism. The .1% doesn’t affect one single Christian doctrine." Really? Then why do textual critics continually argue over whether Jesus said or did anything in the gospels? Why are there so many sects out there if it's so clear? Why were the texts altered to keep to am 'orthodox' belief system?
"That makes you one of the most insulting person on the web." It's my blog. You came here. I do not go onto street corners and peddle my beliefs. No atheist does.
"Again, it explains order based on order. It give no answer to the question of where this order came from. It also leaves on without a way to know any truth whatsoever." So you immediately jump to a conclusion. Which is to say that you have made me repeat myself. I told you the rules for communication.
And now I say goodbye for good.
Post a Comment