Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

Quote from Ricter:

...You could say that God, in his infinite complexity, has given us such a marvelous universe, if you will.
More...
And yet he couldn't be bothered to make himself definitively known to everyone in no uncertain terms, so that there could be no possible room for any other interpretation. Instead, he reportedly requires his followers to exercise unyielding faith, thereby suspending logic and critical thinking. Meanwhile, what separates us from all other living creatures on this planet is the disproportionate size of our prefrontal cortex, which gives us our ability to think critically and logically. So, god, in his infinite wisdom, supposedly wants us to suspend and abandon the very thing that defines us as a species in order to secure salvation. My only question is: what was he smoking when he came up with this sitcom premise?
 
I'm not going to argue about it, I only posted that as way for someone to "flex" a bit in their thinking. Not that atheists are already flexible.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I'm not going to argue about it, I only posted that as way for someone to "flex" a bit in their thinking. Not that atheists are already flexible.
More...
There you're confusing felxibility, science, particle physics, laws of physics, with the word atheists .

A bit like confusing scientific theory with the words "just a theory"
 
 
Quote from stu:

There you're confusing felxibility, science, particle physics, laws of physics, with the word atheists .

A bit like confusing scientific theory with the words "just a theory"
More...

I know the difference between scientific theory and theory in the layman's sense, so I'm going to assume you're talking to someone else. As for your other comment, why do you care if someone believes in a God who set the universe and its laws in motion? It should make no difference to you, all that the scientific worldview accepts as true is untouched by that. At this point you appear to be seeking total conformity... ?
 
Quote from Ricter:

I know the difference between scientific theory and theory in the layman's sense, so I'm going to assume you're talking to someone else. As for your other comment, why do you care if someone believes in a God who set the universe and its laws in motion? It should make no difference to you, all that the scientific worldview accepts as true is untouched by that. At this point you appear to be seeking total conformity... ?
More...
Seems by what you say it's ok for God pushers to care , but not ok for anyone to question what they say.

It's fine for ‘believers’ needing to spoof, wangle, distort, their way through science as if doing so might somehow make their fantasies more plausible, but not ok for others to point out how it is fundamentally dishonest to do that.

And apparently it's fine for yourself to do similar by inferring Einstein and quantum physics makes no (common) sense, engendering the usual predilection for some inexplicable intergalactic Chuck Norris type Creator. But just let someone disagree or even query such nonsense, or just try to have a reasonable discussion, and they're suddenly characterized as inflexible atheists who shouldn't care anyway.

So how come you would care the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing? Why does -no God required- sound so bad?

Why should this in any way threaten superstitious imaginations of a Supernatural Creator, when simple blind religious delusion is so determinedly untouched by scientific theory fact or knowledge and for that matter, by pretty much anything else?
 
Quote from stu:

Seems by what you say it's ok for God pushers to care , but not ok for anyone to question what they say.

It's fine for ‘believers’ needing to spoof, wangle, distort, their way through science as if doing so might somehow make their fantasies more plausible, but not ok for others to point out how it is fundamentally dishonest to do that.
More...

That's my question. Why, when reality, and the science that describes it, will not be affected by people believing "it all" was set in motion by an agent, do you have to insist on saying "dishonest"? You can't leave it alone when you have everything, you have to have more.

But you're right, the bible thumpers are similarly insistent. But for this thread, I'll just focus on the flask thumpers.
 
Quote from Ricter:

That's my question. Why, when reality, and the science that describes it, will not be affected by people believing "it all" was set in motion by an agent, do you have to insist on saying "dishonest"? You can't leave it alone when you have everything, you have to have more.

But you're right, the bible thumpers are similarly insistent. But for this thread, I'll just focus on the flask thumpers.
More...
So when for example you say or infer Einstein doesn't make (common) sense.... it's wrong to question that because science is right....?
what are you talking about?

Believing "it all" was set in motion by 'an agent'... is not open to question is it not? There are no grounds to query that because why...science has it right ....so let delusion reign instead!?

Seems like the mother of all special pleading arguments you have there.
 
Quote from stu:

So when for example you say or infer Einstein doesn't make (common) sense.... it's wrong to question that because science is right....?
what are you talking about?

Believing "it all" was set in motion by 'an agent'... is not open to question is it not? There are no grounds to query that because why...science has it right ....so let delusion reign instead!?

Seems like the mother of all special pleading arguments you have there.
More...

What am I talking about? What are you talking about??

Ok, the other guy is "deluded". Are you happy now?

I bet you're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top