Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • No

    Votes: 58 82.9%
  • Total voters
    70
What I am saying is that those who promote science, fact, and reason...who are then found promoting their imaginations as science are mentally ill...

The theist beings with an admission of faith, the atheists claim to be without faith...but just read what they write and see that they embrace with the same degree of faith as the atheists in their own "scientific" imaginations...

Quote from dsq:

Believing in people waking up from the dead(easter) is a form of mental illness,no?

Are you telling me that people who beleive in myths and superstition dont suffer from delusions?
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

those who promote science, fact, and reason...who are then found promoting their imaginations as science are mentally ill...
More...

God what a bunch of gobbledygook.You really have to strain stupidity to come up with that statement.You mean science is a figment?You need hospitalization asap.Your diagnosis:szchizophrenia.

Like i said,you think people who beleive in myth,superstition are not delusional or crazy?
 
Have you ever heard the term "science fiction?"

People presenting ideas they have no way to prove nor falsify are scientific?

Please...try applying the rules of hard science to this crap that is thrown about these days as "scientific theory."

Seriously, listen to the way in which this crap is presented. It is neither logical nor scientific, it is just musing by people who have a background in science...who are looking for an alternative explanation because they have an atheistic agenda...

Fundamentally, and principally it is not much difference then when the Church wanted to keep the people ignorant and not actually question what the Church leaders were doing...

We have finally gotten to the point where people can think critically, and now they try to turn off that critical thinking in the name of science?



Quote from dsq:

God what a bunch of gobbledygook.You really have to strain stupidity to come up with that statement.You mean science is a figment?You need hospitalization asap.Your diagnosis:szchizophrenia.

Like i said,you think people who beleive in myth,superstition are not delusional or crazy?
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Have you ever heard the term "science fiction?"

Please...try applying the rules of hard science to this crap that is thrown about these days as "scientific theory."

Seriously, listen to the way in which this crap is presented. It is neither logical nor scientific, it is just musing by people who have a background in science...who are looking for an alternative explanation because they have an atheistic agenda...

We have finally gotten to the point where people can think critically, and now they try to turn off that critical thinking in the name of science?
More...

and you beleive in a book that says a man parted the seas,walked on water,rose from the dead?

you are missing an important element of your rant about critical thinking and science and that is logic.Science has logic.Your fairy tales have nada.
 
No, I don't believe in a book that says a man parted the seas,walked on water,rose from the dead?

I am not a Christian...

Saying something is logically possible also includes the existence of God.

Proving that something which was proposed scientifically through rigorous testing is quite a different thing...

It is nothing but musings of scientists, science fiction, and has no greater value than theistic thinking for a purely scientific point of view...

We need to stop this lunacy of granting special license to a scientist on areas that are beyond proof, simply because they are the ideas of someone with a scientific background...

BATTLE OF THE PARADIGMS


How is it possible that these two groups can arrive at such mutually exclusive conclusions? Actually, this paradoxical state of affairs regarding cosmological homogeneity is not that hard to understand. When humans repeatedly use an assumption or model it gradually becomes transformed into "fact". In perhaps the best known treatise on scientific evolution, entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn documents how scientists become so steeped in a paradigm that healthy skepticism about assumptions and models tends to disappear. What begins as speculation metamorphoses into common sense and self-evident truth. Usually this is supported by tentative evidence that, with all good intentions, is subtlely shaped to fit theoretical desires. On the other hand, contradictory evidence is all too often ignored or belittled. For example, one cosmologist referred to recent evidence solidly lining up behind inhomogeneity as "anecdotal." Scientists tend to look for and find what they expect to find; it is far more difficult to recognize the importance of results that are not expected.

Such an impasse is the norm when a new scientific paradigm challenges an old one. Paradigmatic consensus is usually very beneficial to science in that it organizes knowledge and coordinates scientific activity. But unfortunately there is a problematic side to the consensus approach. Scientists who have studied, conducted research, and made their scientific mark under the guidance of a paradigm are often confined to its conceptual limits. Competing paradigms sound decidedly wrong; the new hypotheses seem to be to self-evident violations of scientific knowledge. Moreover, competing paradigms represent a threat to one's professional status and one's sense of intellectual security. A changeover of paradigms requires people to give up deeply held beliefs and to accept new ones that sound somewhat outrageous. Obviously this is not something that comes easily to us.

The debate over the legend of cosmological homogeneity may be symptomatic of an on-going , slow-motion, revolution in cosmology. Major contests between old and new paradigms are not fought and won quickly, but rather are more like the collisions of two glaciers. The more massive one will eventually overpower the other, but the action is slow-paced and at times it is not clear which side has the momentum. Will the theoreticians' dream of a homogeneous cosmos finally emerge before the survey limits reach to the edges of the observable universe, or will the 50 year old trend of inhomogeneity on ever-larger scales continue unabated? Do we know nearly everything about the universe or are we still groping for a basic understanding? Time will tell.

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/LOCH.HTM

Quote from dsq:

and you beleive in a book that says a man parted the seas,walked on water,rose from the dead?

you are missing an important element of your rant about critical thinking and science and that is logic.Science has logic.Your fairy tales have nada.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Theistic or atheist dogma is still dogma...
****empirisism by definition cannot be dogma****

"As far as what is more likely or what the preponderance of the evidence shows, life in general and human history in particular does not support the logical construct of a simultaneously perfect loving merciful omnipotent and omniscient god."

Those stuck in a Judeo Christian concept of God, either theist or atheist would naturally come to this conclusion at times.

Other ideas of God not bound by the Judeo Christian concept of God have a different answer to your false dilemma...

Imagine a system that does nothing but reward or punish what God designates as good or bad behavior, that there is perfect justice as people reap what they sow, and don't think of one life as the time frame upon which this process works...this way of looking at things will blow the concept of "innocent victim" and God as unloving and merciful right out of the water...

****OK this is pretty conjecture on your part (there is as much evidence for this conjecture as there is for god being a fire breathing unicorn) and just a way around the logical breakdown of the christian view of god. Sort of like saying that if you just forget about our reality and conjecture that when one dies they rise to an elevated state oif being, sort of like a graduation, then murder can actually be a good thing. This is the type of out of reality conjecture that allows for all sorts of lunatic justification of cults and other entirely imagined belief systems****


Those who seek their happiness only in the world, will forever get that chance, and those who seek their happiness only in God will forever get that chance.

****again where is there any shred of evidence for this conjecture? You don't know god, its properties, or even of its existence any more than anyone else alive so why do you persist in acting like you do? What makes you so special that you think you know the mind of god? If there was a god is it even likely that you could comprehend such a being? Who is more likely to be mentally ill, the man who sees the burning bush and believes it imparts some other worldy wisdom to him or the man who recognizes it for the hunger or drug induced hallucination that it is?****

Those who want to stay on the wheel do so, those who want to get off the wheel may do so...

****where is this evidence for there being something other than the earthly wheel? Who is more likely to be mentally ill, someone who sees earthly reality on equal footing with some imagined other state of being or someone who sees reality as more concrete than any other imagined state of being?****

Who amongst the theists are really willing to give up the world for God?

****is that a direct quote from Jim Jones or the wacko from Waco?****
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:



Saying something is logically possible also includes the existence of God.
More...
No it doesn't. Logically possible excludes flying pigs and God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top