atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Some do. But as I said, there are thousands of kinds of reasons not to believe in God. There is no one group called 'atheists'.

22

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Actually most of them who declare themselves an atheist do that. Perhaps you are not considering the factor which is making people to have/find reasons not to believe in God. How can understanding with science alone make someone think about not existence of God? Although i do not object but you at least cannot deny the fact that some are there to run this campaign actively.
What could be the reason/need for a believer to declare himself an atheist?
After getting distracted by sectarianism?

23

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Most of the world's atheists live in China/Russia and have no inclinations of getting into scientific arguments.

'Some' is the key word here. 'Some' religius people also kill others for simply subscribing to another faith. Atheist have a right to 'preach' their beliefs, just like those who believe in God. Instead of rubbishing everything they say, people can make sane, reasonable counter-arguments.

It is other way around as well. A lot of 'atheists' accept some religion at some point in time. Some change religions during their lifetimes. There cannot be one reason/need. I am sure there would be different reasons for different people to turn away.

One turned atheist when his local church put up a lightening rod.

24

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Chinese are bhudists, more like theistic agnostics. Also Wikipedia tells different story then yours.

[QUOTE]

'Some' is the key word here. 'Some' religius people also kill others for simply subscribing to another faith. Atheist have a right to 'preach' their beliefs, just like those who believe in God. Instead of rubbishing everything they say, people can make sane, reasonable counter-arguments.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, now you are in agreement with me that atheism is also another form of religion.

[QUOTE]

It is other way around as well. A lot of 'atheists' accept some religion at some point in time. Some change religions during their lifetimes. There cannot be one reason/need. I am sure there would be different reasons for different people to turn away.

One turned atheist when his local church put up a lightening rod.
[/QUOTE]

One can acknowledge the mistakes from Christianity but he can consult other religions as well if he is really interested in finding spirituality but not 'material evidences'
And, who tell him the second option?
Who make him check everything against science?
See we are returning to the point of validation of religion through science.

25

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

You know what i mean by 'second option'.
1. Being lazy does not lead one to atheism unless he is told by someone the 'second option'
2. Again someone must be there to tell him the second option.
3. Who make it persuasive enough for them? What is the benefit they get by propagating this persuasion material?
For example, 'living beings evolved from non-living' part is found in classic books but this part somehow could not get the place in Wikipedia, why?
4. kind of agreed as they do not practice the religion. But again, they are easily impressed by that 'persuasion'.
5. China is different case as said above.
6. Being an atheist and propogating atheist beliefs as 'scientific facts' are two different things, and that is our topic.

26

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

^ can you give an example where ‘atheist beliefs’ are being propagated as scientific facts? We can go from there.

P.S. China Dominates World’s ‘Atheist Map;’ Religiosity Declining in US

27

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

^ your post #23 :D

28

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Easy there dude!!
Did you read the title of the thread. Did you read the last entire part of my post that you quoted and quoted what you fancied quoting.
"Science itself has never rejected the existence of God. If there are theories that negate this then there are researches and study that support the existence of God argument ."
I didn't use the argument if science does not reject existence of God then God exists. I said and reiterated what aijazali had written in his first post neither science disapproves nor approves existence of God.
I don't need any science or anything to prove to me that God exists or not, to believe in God, speaking for myself. For me God is there and has been and will be there forever and that's the absolute truth to me. Science is too small a drop in the ocean of knowledge, that I would ever lay so much emphasis on to prove to me anything about God. When we read Quran, as i have no knowledge of other religious scriptures, we are encouraged to observe and logically search for the existence of God, the mention of sciences, natural processes.

And speaking of atheists, maybe all atheists don't use science, but there are those who do and there are those connected with the scientific field who do vociferously.
As of science denying mermaids, hogwarts and unicorns or not, firstly go low on your Harry Pahter doses. Everyone knows about their fictional nature, and even if one doesn't, no one is really ever hounded by thoughts of their existence and no scientists ever wastes funds and time studying and researching over them. And no atheists ever use them as their arguments to prove God doesn't exist. Please do not humiliate yourself using examples not even suited for an elementary school kid.
I want to know if and anyone can answer that, if pain is not seen, wind is not seen, photons are not seen, Black holes have never been seen then why we want to be believe they exist. If its insane to ask such questions then God, the absolute entity, whose existence is much larger then these small intangible sensory processes, must have laid out signs and logic quite enough in things, matter etc to feel his existence. See here for your easy understanding i am using feel his existence. This is step one, further reflection, search for truth comes next.

To me it is impossible to de-link science from the religion. To me the very reality of existence of God is grounded well in science. or there is no science at all. And one can go on and believe in as many evolution theories as they want, sometimes evolving from rock sometimes from monkeys sometimes from a computer pc, only to trivialize mankind as much as they want.

And yes kakabili whilst you go sappy over letting atheists preach freely like any other faith etc, they really would do it or will happily not do it without your approval being expressed or not on this forum. But the thing is if you are preaching something and doing by cherrypicking and using arguments suiting your needs most( speaking of any belief group), then you must be prepared for the criticism.
And yes people from other faiths get criticized too. So why can't one bring up a discussion about atheists and specially if it is viewed as an important issue too.

29

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Pain can be scientifcally measured. So can photons and blackholes. There is plenty of evidence from last 100 years about all three. God, however, can be a fictional character like Harry Potter. If you talk about 'feeling' existance of God, then it is not a scientific experiment but a dimension of faith.

If, however, you argue that God is much bigger and greater than what we can imagine and sceintifically detect, then I'll accept that. When there is faith involved, there isn't much need for sceintific evidence.

I have been asking for a specific example where atheists used science to further their argument and what they/he/she said was a lie. No answers so far.

I need examples. I cannot go on talking in the air like that. I need examples of your arguments here:

  1. Which sceintific evidences suggest God exists?

  2. Which sceintific evidence that has been proven false is used or 'cherrypicked' by atheists to further their cause?

When you have those, then you can provide counter arguments. If 'some' atheists say something rediculous, please highlight that and ridicule them in public instead of denouncing ALL of them.

I'm waiting.

30

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

That is you. Some people want a scientific proof of God and they would not believe in one till such proof is provided. Let them go to hell. They are a small minority anyways.

They use our very limited sceintic knowledge to propogate their belief, you use holy books and traditions [which seem like fairy tales to a lot of people]. Eventually, both sides do not have very strong foundations

31

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

I thought you would add #3 Which sceintific evidences suggest God does NOT exist, too.
That suggests you are not ready to discuss the point but interested in typical arguments of 'disapproving" existence of God.

32

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

as in this thread arguments are given against their beliefs but you "proved" those belief "scientific facts".
So we reached a conclusion that what atheists propagate is "scientific facts" but incidentally is disapproving Religion.

33

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

I am not interested in arguments.

I am just waiting for concrete examples of your claim. Please add #3 but give me example(s) of what you are saying about atheists.

34

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

You believe theory of evolution is all fact?

I know you will avoid it but I must ask.
What is the difference between an atheist and a scientist?
Ok, maybe you still not getting it so let me make it easier for you.
The very reason for a scientist (non-religiosity) to declare himself an atheist (anti-religiosity)?

after all my argument is in Post#32.

35

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Theory of evolution... is a THEORY. No theory is ever FACT. If it is a fact, it is no longer a theory but a law.

Having said that, still the evidence presented to support theory of evolution is still much more convincing than a story of a couple thrown out of heavens to this earth as a result of eating a forbidden fruit.

Not all scientists are atheists and not all atheists are scientists. Dr Abdus Salam claimed he got scientific inspirations from Quran.

Please give examples of your claims. Still waiting.

P.S. I have absolutely no idea what is being said in Post#32.

36

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

ask any atheist he will tell you that theory of evolution is true and on top of it he will explain your ignorance regarding comparison of law and theory.
as for you need example, i think you are just trying to look naive.

37

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

^ This is the attitude that keeps borderline people away from religion.

I'm out

38

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

lolz, itnay naazuk to na thy aap :D

39

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

believe me, the word 'ignorance' is not from me. they explicitly call them ignorant who try to prove theory of evolution inferior in credibility then law.

40

Re: atheism vs science & real face of atheism

Wow at each and every single word. Not even atheists want to equal God with Harry Potter despite all the painstaking efforts to disprove His existence.

Secondly, another major wow, that is photons, pain , black holes can be measured. Go back and read again i wrote “seen” i never spoke of measured. Who cares measured or not when eyes are not seeing then why believe they exist, if God's existence has to challenged on a similar context.

I never said God is too huge to be measured, I instead said, if aforementioned processes like such can't be seen but felt then the entity behind the entire creation, how can He go unfelt.

Then the questions:
1. Which sceintific evidences suggest God exists?

Here is a verse I am quoting : "He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness." [Al-Qur'an 39:6] **
Do some search yourself and find out what three veils of darkness are?
How many of us not well-versed in internal human body environment and how processes work knew of this already. How many parents before becoming parents knew of this. And these questions I am asking hold no significance either, as science has already proved this ever since the inventions of microscopes, sonography equipments, heck even **possibly(emphasizing possibly because history has given no such evidence yet, but still giving some room for doubt) since the introduction of C-sections that even predate sonos, micros etc.
The century in which this verse was revealed: 7[SUP]th[/SUP] century.
C section are known to mankind, oh yes I had to google it, since 16th century.
The rest of the scientific inventions followed. And even the scientist admit the instruments inability to study human anatomy in intricate details.
The prophet was not a magician. No magician ever revealed this information. Then how he narrated this information in these verses?
Since, above quoted information was what I discovered on my own and it had exactly nothing to do with google search and am no science dignitary, and scientific-evidence seekers still seeking out more, for them whether enough or not, I am quoting a scientific authority’s statement here:
“Prof. Marshall Johnson is one of the leading scientists in US, and is the head of the Department of Anatomy and Director of the Daniel Institute at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia in US. He was asked to comment on the verses of the Qur'an dealing with embryology. He said that the verses of the Qur'an describing the embryological stages cannot be a coincidence. He said it was probable that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a powerful microscope. On being reminded that the Qur'an was revealed 1,400 years ago, and microscopes were invented centuries after the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Prof. Johnson laughed and admitted that the first microscope invented could not magnify more than 10 times and could not show a clear picture. Later he said: "I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that Divine intervention was involved when Muhammad (peace be upon him) recited the Qur'an.”

And that is just one example i have quoted from Quran. I am not claiming Quran to be a book of science. If God to had to write a science book He wouldn't have given us a brain to go, research, think logically, do inventions. He gave us cues. Showed the connections. Elsewise He might have given a separate book on science only covering that and a brainless head to humans.

  1. Which sceintific evidence that has been proven false is used or 'cherrypicked' by atheists to further their cause?

May be you need to go back and read the posts even more carefully. I never said scientific evidences picked by atheists to prove their point were later proven wrong (the scientific evidences). I said they pick scientific arguments that suit their need and focus more on their cause, to negate God's existence.
Back to your question, current day science has already proved the evolution theories to be highly fallacious and flawed. The study of human genes reveals it is not possible for humans to
Here are important questions:
Prove evolution of eyes through natural selection.
If life is to grow out on its own, then why there is no life of mars, despite the presence of water.
No evolution theory could explain the origin of matter, space or time.
If humans had evolved on their own, then how come men and women’s reproductive systems not independent of each other, not designed as the way they are, working in pairs. A man could hold an egg whilst another guy producing sperm and a woman could produce sperm and another egg. Why such perfect synchronization?
DNA of every species is exclusive and natural selection cannot transform one species’ in to another’s.
Have you heard of humans displaying signs of natural selection based on environment?
Seriously a thought that really bothered me is why if evolved from maankeys, then why there still are monkeys and apes. Shouldn’t they all have gone extinct or evolved into humaaans. And why haven’t we evolved further into something else. Like kakaballi evolving into beautiful mermaid wooed by evolutionists.
The list is very long. How still you see theory of evolution carrying more weightage when even the evolutionists run out of arguments.

And then as you say: If 'some' atheists say something rediculous, please highlight that and ridicule them in public instead of denouncing ALL of them.

Nobody is here to ridicule any one in public, the purpose is to refute the arguments in a logical way or with as much effort that could be done.
And yes another important thing, out of all the atheists on the planet, not all would have seen the face of school, not studied science, he will refute the existence of God not based exactly on scientific studies, but maybe through borrowed arguments/transferred knowledge or just plain excuse that God isn't seen so doesn't exist. So nobody is saying that all atheists do this, But there are those that we get to meet in our lives who use scientific arguments, quote xyz scientists, and then there are atheist scientists too who use scientific knowledge as a tool. Aren’t they representing their group? Why is the mainstream majority doing this?
Here is a definition of atheism by a popular atheist and blah, the lack of empiricism is so prevalent and he defines atheism.
“An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is someone who believes that there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles*---except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand.”*
Concentrate on the bold part, you lack evidence and yet you make claims (his books, publications). Like seriously? He debunked his own belief in a small part of his own definition.