Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (1 Viewer)

[NCB619]

it's one misery of the dark...world, that religion has had a direct involvement in

 

[Iron]

Condoms are the solution obviously.

That and economic solutions,

final solutions to the African question.

Ok m8, you say that to a stack of violent blokes who think nothing of raping any women they find when the sun goes down --Hey fellas! Remember! Protect yourself!
Problem solved

 

[birdy17]

thanks for provin 2 us that ur stupid.

Science and religion are opposites - one is based on fact and rationality whereas the other is based on belief, superstition and the supernatural.

In summary, science is proven to be true, whereas religion is unreliable, untruthful bullshit.

stupid maybe...

but science and religion are far from opposites, that's merely your opinion.
and not all of science is "proven to be true"
how many times has the model of an atom changed in the past 100 years?? science is not completely about fact but about theory and proving theories.

anyway:
"galileo, kepler, pascal, boyle, newton, faraday, babbage, mendel, pasteur, kelvin and clerk-maxwell were all theists, most of them christians. their belief in God, far from being a hinderance to their science, was often the main inspiration for it." (Beyond Opinion, pg 110 - ravi zacharias)

 

[birdy17]

but christianity is a failed science...
You got that funny doublethink smell about you

how is christianity failed science?

"that funny doublethink smell"? what does that mean?

 

[Kwayera]

anyway:
"galileo, kepler, pascal, boyle, newton, faraday, babbage, mendel, pasteur, kelvin and clerk-maxwell were all theists, most of them christians. their belief in God, far from being a hinderance to their science, was often the main inspiration for it." (Beyond Opinion, pg 110 - ravi zacharias)

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[birdy17]

Birdy is utterly right. Science is only concerned with 'hows', while a philosophical system like Christianity is generally only concerned with 'whys'. They need not conflict and usually should not conflict. Once you realise this, you can grow up and stop these ignorant attacks

thankyou.

and compliment aside that was very well said.
and much better than i could have said it haha
nicely done.

 

[birdy17]

What has that got to do with anything?

it was in response to mudkip94 saying "Religion is for dumb people who don't understand or accept science"

 

[Kwayera]

it was in response to mudkip94 saying "Religion is for dumb people who don't understand or accept science"

Fair enough, but to be fairer, in this day and age there's an acceptable and logical alternative to being religious. Back then, there wasn't. Of course, there are many, many contemporary heroes in science who are religious, but their scientific prowess is usually in spite of their religion, not because of it.

 

[Iron]

Kway, there is nothing to spite. Faith and reason arent the waring concepts you believe them to be. They are married and quite happy together tyvm. Ok?

 

[sam5]

stupid maybe...

but science and religion are far from opposites, that's merely your opinion.
and not all of science is "proven to be true"
how many times has the model of an atom changed in the past 100 years?? science is not completely about fact but about theory and proving theories.

anyway:
"galileo, kepler, pascal, boyle, newton, faraday, babbage, mendel, pasteur, kelvin and clerk-maxwell were all theists, most of them christians. their belief in God, far from being a hinderance to their science, was often the main inspiration for it." (Beyond Opinion, pg 110 - ravi zacharias)

most of those scientists you listed there are primative scientists who were just developing theories about science. Religion was HEAVILY entrenched in the thoughts of pple back then, so they didnt have much of a choice.

The reason these theories have changed is because they were thoughts and theories. However, as we have developed, we have learned further to now confim our suspicions about scientific theories. Better technology has allowed us to confirm theories for a good few years now...and now that they all fit experimental testing...they are deemed to be factual.

I also noticed that many modern scientists wernt in ur list of theists. e.g. where is einstein? It is their scientific discoveries that leads them to believe that religion and superstition are false because of new confirmations. '

Heres a stat for u: did u know that only 2% of scientists at the UK Academy of science are theists?

This shows a link (or separation) between science and religion.

Why is the national percentage of atheists increasing? Because of increasingly discovered science and the increased societal acceptance of a disbelief in god.

 

[sam5]

Fair enough, but to be fairer, in this day and age there's an acceptable and logical alternative to being religious. Back then, there wasn't. Of course, there are many, many contemporary heroes in science who are religious, but their scientific prowess is usually in spite of their religion, not because of it.

Thats correct. There was no logical alternative to religion in those days...so religion was widespread.

People knew no better, so to get a sense of comfort and 'being', they belived in god. As generations developed, these people continued to belive in god because that was all they knew.

But as science developed a more factual basis, people now have a reason to disbelieve in religion.

Just remember, the people who told us of religion had very primative and most likely incorrect ideas. e.g. the earth is flat, a sighting of mars means danger is ahead.

 

[birdy17]

most of those scientists you listed there are primative scientists who were just developing theories about science. Religion was HEAVILY entrenched in the thoughts of pple back then, so they didnt have much of a choice.

yes it was. i won't deny that.

The reason these theories have changed is because they were thoughts and theories. However, as we have developed, we have learned further to now confim our suspicions about scientific theories. Better technology has allowed us to confirm theories for a good few years now...and now that they all fit experimental testing...they are deemed to be factual.

yes that's true.

I also noticed that many modern scientists wernt in ur list of theists. e.g. where is einstein? It is their scientific discoveries that leads them to believe that religion and superstition are false because of new confirmations. '

it's a quote, i can't change it, and i'm not sure about modern scientist.
and i'm not sure, you'll have to ask them.

Heres a stat for u: did u know that only 2% of scientists at the UK Academy of science are theists?

This shows a link (or separation) between science and religion.

no i didn't know that. did you know that 78% of stats are made up? okay joking. and i see where your drawing that conclusion... but what about other institutes of science? stats of one doesn't reflect all.

Why is the national percentage of atheists increasing? Because of increasingly discovered science and the increased societal acceptance of a disbelief in god.

i still don't understand how science disproves religion/God.

What factual science disproves God??

 

[Enteebee]

Birdy is utterly right. Science is only concerned with 'hows', while a philosophical system like Christianity is generally only concerned with 'whys'. They need not conflict and usually should not conflict. Once you realise this, you can grow up and stop these ignorant attacks

LOLlllll....

I kno u be trollin

 

[sam5]

Birdy - thanks for giving me the chance to explain my ideas, unlike Iron, who shuts down any atheist before they get a chance to express themselves.

I have read a couple of quotes from Einstein himself that suggested (but didnt confirm) that he didnt believe in god.

But anyway... i know that the Australian (not uk) academy of science in canberra also has a high percentage (at least 70) of atheists.

Also read results of a survey once that said that more than 60% of all scientists in the USA are atheists.

What you can see is that these percentages are much higher in scientific groups than in the normal society. This shows a link between science and atheism - and thus the converse.

Thats why i think that science tends to 'lead' (thats a poor word to use) to there being more atheists, because the knowledge allows us to find alternatives to religion (e.g. Darwinism, Urey and Miller experiment, that big boson thing that the LHC is trying to create).

Science at this stage cannot directly disprove god. It will be extremely difficult to disprove god. It will require 2 things:

1. Some really good discoveries in quantum physics

2. Enough fact/evidence/belief that god is very unlikely, which will cause society to slowly disbelieve in a god.

If that is the case, god will then become a proven 'incorrect theory' - alike all those other disporved theories e.g. Lavoisier's theory of acids (i hope u do chem lol)

 

[Enteebee]

Not that it matters but:

Einstein writes of 'childish superstition' | Science | The Guardian

Einstein may have been a deist of some sort... but I'm leaning more on the side of it just being a poetic notion for him.

Science at this stage cannot directly disprove god.

Science never 'proves' or 'disproves' anything... I'd argue that science relies on an assumption of naturalism, that the supernatural has no place within scientific discourse - so God is already out of the picture for science.

 

[Kwayera]

no i didn't know that. did you know that 78% of stats are made up? okay joking. and i see where your drawing that conclusion... but what about other institutes of science? stats of one doesn't reflect all.

93% of members of the United States Academy of Sciences "disbelieve or doubt the existence of God".

 

[sam5]

93% of members of the United States Academy of Sciences "disbelieve or doubt the existence of God".

cheers

 

[birdy17]

Birdy - thanks for giving me the chance to explain my ideas, unlike Iron, who shuts down any atheist before they get a chance to express themselves.

everyone deserves to be heard.

I have read a couple of quotes from Einstein himself that suggested (but didnt confirm) that he didnt believe in god.

yeah i've heard various ppl say einstein is, other say he isn't, doesn't really bother me either way was an incredible scientist either way.

But anyway... i know that the Australian (not uk) academy of science in canberra also has a high percentage (at least 70) of atheists.

Also read results of a survey once that said that more than 60% of all scientists in the USA are atheists.

haha fair call. not much i can say to that haha.

What you can see is that these percentages are much higher in scientific groups than in the normal society. This shows a link between science and atheism - and thus the converse.

Thats why i think that science tends to 'lead' (thats a poor word to use) to there being more atheists, because the knowledge allows us to find alternatives to religion (e.g. Darwinism, Urey and Miller experiment, that big boson thing that the LHC is trying to create).

yeah i agree. i won't deny that science allows ppl to more confidently be athiest and all that. but i just don't think it can be said that science disproves God. or vice versa

Science at this stage cannot directly disprove god. It will be extremely difficult to disprove god. It will require 2 things:

1. Some really good discoveries in quantum physics

2. Enough fact/evidence/belief that god is very unlikely, which will cause society to slowly disbelieve in a god.

If that is the case, god will then become a proven 'incorrect theory' - alike all those other disporved theories e.g. Lavoisier's theory of acids (i hope u do chem lol)

hmm maybe. see i don't think you can disprove God and with that you can't prove God. one day he might very well become and 'incorrect theory' but it's still a theory nonetheless.
and you can have the the whole world disbelieve something but it doesn't necisarily make it not exist. just means its not acknowledged.

i think that God no matter what religion can only be 'proved' to a certain point after that it's about the faith of the individual.
and while this maybe be hypocritical or contradicting i believe that because of this, the 'does God exist' debate will just go round and round forever never really coming to any conclusions

[o and i do chem but i don't know about that one.. perhaps something to look forward too haha]

 

[birdy17]

Science never 'proves' or 'disproves' anything... I'd argue that science relies on an assumption of naturalism, that the supernatural has no place within scientific discourse - so God is already out of the picture for science.

i agree. well said.

 

[Riet]

Einstein said "god does not roll dice" or something to that effect. He was wrong. If he'd been an atheist, quantum theory would have developed far quicker.

Edit: He also said: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."