Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you can certainly understand the religious person's doubt about unknown science and those who attempt to define it. They have a right to be apprehensive when they know that someone is telling them something in arrogance, which they themselves probably aren't even sure of.
At least the lowly contemptible common everyday religious working man will accept the scientific discoveries which have been verified, although maybe he is slower and years behind in accepting it. On the other hand, it seems like the atheistic scientist will NOT accept any part of religion.
On the other hand, it seems like the atheistic scientist will NOT accept any part of religion.
This is an unconscious bias incorporated into their misguided belief about objectivity. They come from a position that believes there is NO purpose or design to our reality. That automatically precludes looking for any and ignoring any conceivable implications that there might be. They actually think that is objective and unbiased.
On the other hand, it seems like the atheistic scientist will NOT accept any part of religion.
Does it not occur to you that the workings of the cosmos might not be based on your sense of fair play?
If something is seen as invalid because the supporting evidence is weak and the dis-confirming evidence is strong, do you propose that we view it as valid anyway just to be good sports?
This is an unconscious bias incorporated into their misguided belief about objectivity. They come from a position that believes there is NO purpose or design to our reality. That automatically precludes looking for any and ignoring any conceivable implications that there might be. They actually think that is objective and unbiased.
As usual you get it back to front. The -not unconscious, but unrecognised bias of your position failt to admit that the for a purpose or design (other than that of evolution or ourselves) is merely a faith claim on your part. You compound this by implying that we refuse to look because we are afraid of what we might find out.
This is par for your course, bias, faith claims, denial and intellectual dishonesty. Not least in thinking that you are the objective and unbiased one. I doubt that you'll find many others who agree with you.
But you can certainly understand the religious person's doubt about unknown science and those who attempt to define it. They have a right to be apprehensive when they know that someone is telling them something in arrogance, which they themselves probably aren't even sure of.
At least the lowly contemptible common everyday religious working man will accept the scientific discoveries which have been verified, although maybe he is slower and years behind in accepting it. On the other hand, it seems like the atheistic scientist will NOT accept any part of religion.
First paragraph -- yes, they have a right to be apprehensive...and sometimes foolish.
Second paragraph -- Many religious people do not accept, for example, evolution. Period. You're wrong. Having worked with many professors in various scientific fields, particularly the geosciences, 90% that I met were Christians, the others I just wasn't sure of, and didn't know well enough to ask. And in case you're wondering why a geosciences student would know what their professor's religious beliefs were...well, when your professors are teaching evolution and the Big Bang (etc.), it's a natural part of many discussions.
Does it not occur to you that the workings of the cosmos might not be based on your sense of fair play?
If something is seen as invalid because the supporting evidence is weak and the dis-confirming evidence is strong, do you propose that we view it as valid anyway just to be good sports?
They do this every time. The believer simply cannot accept that somebody does not believe for good reasons and must invent all sorts of Reasons that they foist on us. Bias, fear, satanic influence, just want to sin. Going through a phase of rebellion. Anything rather than accept that we have good reasons for not believing.
It probably doesn't occure to them that is persistent behaviour is rude and insulting, but they'd probably Interpret that and getting annoyed because we don't like being told the truth about ourselves.
(and I wonder if any will be able to resit the feed -line for another dirty trick? )
But you can certainly understand the religious person's doubt about unknown science and those who attempt to define it. They have a right to be apprehensive when they know that someone is telling them something in arrogance, which they themselves probably aren't even sure of.
At least the lowly contemptible common everyday religious working man will accept the scientific discoveries which have been verified, although maybe he is slower and years behind in accepting it. On the other hand, it seems like the atheistic scientist will NOT accept any part of religion.
Ozzy chum, that sounded like you are saying that because ordinary bods accept the verified and validated results of science, it's only fair that science accept the unverified faith -claims of religion.
Do me a favour.
Talking of 'atheist scientist' as a pretty palpable accusation of Bias, is just another way of refusing to accept that there really are no good reasons for believing any part of religion, other than an instinctive tendency to the delusion.
A warning light for you should be Mystic eagerly backing you up "By Jove yes, atheist professors - they are all biased!"
Does it not occur to you that the workings of the cosmos might not be based on your sense of fair play?
If something is seen as invalid because the supporting evidence is weak and the dis-confirming evidence is strong, do you propose that we view it as valid anyway just to be good sports?
You haven't provided evidence that the universe just popped out of nowhere for no reason.
Ozzy chum, that sounded like you are saying that because ordinary bods accept the verified and validated results of science, it's only fair that science accept the unverified faith -claims of religion.
Do me a favour.
Talking of 'atheist scientist' as a pretty palpable accusation of Bias, is just another way of refusing to accept that there really are no good reasons for believing any part of religion, other than an instinctive tendency to the delusion.
A warning light for you should be Mystic eagerly backing you up "By Jove yes, atheist professors - they are all biased!"
My point is that some atheists are not viewing this in a realistic way. They are trying to be rational about something that they actually know very little about. To me it seems that the religious person is the more rational one overall, even if they are wrong on certain points.
Otherwise you look like the ant who only knows about the one big rock under the tree.
You haven't provided evidence that the universe just popped out of nowhere for no reason.
We don't need to. Because we don't claim that HAS to be the explanation. If you claim that it HAS to have been created by a god, the burden of proof is on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
My point is that some atheists are not viewing this in a realistic way. They are trying to be rational about something that they actually know very little about. To me it seems that the religious person is the more rational one overall, even if they are wrong on certain points.
Otherwise you look like the ant who only knows about the one big rock under the tree.
You are still getting it wrong. You are buying into the venomfang fallacy, the appeal to unknowns. The dismissing or ignoring of what we do know, as best we know anything. Speculations about the Unknown are useful and if it makes for a plausible hypothesis, science may look for ways to verify it.
But you have no explanation or mechanism or hypothesis. You have only a faith -claim and 'Unknown territory' to hide it in. This is worthless as speculation, but it is irrational, wrongheaded and delusional to claim that this is a believable or valid claim.
Now, you have raised some good question but they are Questions, theu are not answers. They do not Prove anything as yet. But appeal to the unknown is not even a decent question - it is merely a faith -claim that you can put beyond what science knows. The epitome as the gap for God fallacy.
I am minded to ask a question I have never got an answer to - if as you imply you are not religious, and you don't subscribe to slavation, or a god -handing out tickets for an afterlife on the basis of whether people believed in its existence or not - why is it so all -fired important to you that you make a case for the existence of this thing?
Why - to reverse a common Theist question of atheists - are you spending so much time and effort on something that really doesn't matter whether we believe it or not?
(after MysticPhD) "This is an unconscious Theistic bias incorporated into their misguided belief about reality. They come from a position that believes there must be purpose or design to our reality. That automatically precludes their looking for any alternative explanations and ignoring any that are proposed to them. They actually think that is objective and unbiased."
As a rule of thumb, if you take everything that Mystic says and reverse it, you won't go too far wrong.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-25-2018 at 05:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Ozzy chum, that sounded like you are saying that because ordinary bods accept the verified and validated results of science, it's only fair that science accept the unverified faith -claims of religion.
