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.
While we are in the mode of reviving old threads I went back to the oldest one under 'Atheism and Agnosticism'. It was very interesting to see how much 15 years of science can answer some of the topics discussed, and how really nothing has changed in the theist's evidence supporting their claim that a god exists. It was rather fun reading. I hope I live long enough to revisit this thread in another 15 years of science pressing and religion clinging to even more aged notions without a shred of evidence.
Given the current direction of efforts on the fringes of science, I suspect the opposite will be true. We will know more making God the more reasonable conclusion. Of course, it will still fly in the face of the pragmatic forces that control human life and society so little will change. The powers that be will not allow it, IMO. (Jesus referred to them as the principalities and wickedness in high places!).
IMO it is more a matter of the general populace getting further and further from science, empiricism, or rationalism, such that no matter what science discovers in the next 15 years it will simply be ignored by a great many people.
Those who hew to dogma (religious, political, ideological, whatever) will always try to sideline and disparage and undermine inconvenient facts.
That is why for example we are almost certainly going to take ourselves into climate collapse and not even try to mitigate current trends. Making money on the way down the tubes is far too important to people who have purchased the reigns of power.
While authoritarian / fundamentalist religion has played an outsize role in popularizing conspiracy theories and gaslighting techniques to ward of rational discussion or argument, it is not solely such groups I blame for the current state of affairs. But I place a lot at their feet.
IMO it is more a matter of the general populace getting further and further from science, empiricism, or rationalism, such that no matter what science discovers in the next 15 years it will simply be ignored by a great many people.
Those who hew to dogma (religious, political, ideological, whatever) will always try to sideline and disparage and undermine inconvenient facts.
That is why for example we are almost certainly going to take ourselves into climate collapse and not even try to mitigate current trends. Making money on the way down the tubes is far too important to people who have purchased the reigns of power.
While authoritarian / fundamentalist religion has played an outsize role in popularizing conspiracy theories and gaslighting techniques to ward of rational discussion or argument, it is not solely such groups I blame for the current state of affairs. But I place a lot at their feet.
When you see your future in heaven, you probably care less about what is here and now, and what is left for posterity.
When you see your future in heaven, you probably care less about what is here and now, and what is left for posterity.
Or what is left to your eternal destiny.
It is not entirely asserted hokum. Some of it just reflects the mindset of idealists. I am, at heart, constitutionally, an idealist, which is probably why I stayed in fundamentalism as long as I did. Because it's not just all about a divine panopticon in which you are watched day and night as to whether you are naughty or nice. It is also about how things "ought" to be or "could" be. It is easy to imagine frolicking in the Elysian Fields
without thinking through the ramifications of how it would work and how human nature would have to be altered to make it even somewhat compelling for endless age upon age. That might lead to you questioning whether we would even be recognizably us which then makes the afterlife less appealing and possibly even a little scary.
I mentioned the climate crisis in this sub-thread. One of the things about fundamentalism that makes it skeptical of climate change even now when it's rather obviously problematic is the notion that god is In Control and puny man can't really cause any big problems without god allowing it, which he never would. That is highly idealistic thinking. So is the notion that it is man's destiny to "subdue the earth and all that is in it" that it is not unsustainable, arrogant or selfish to dominate the environment as we see fit, but a god-given imperative really. We "should" be able to rule the roost without regard to "lower" life forms, or the viability of the interleaved ecosystems in the biosphere. If you want to enjoy that kind of freedom and prestige then of course you aren't going to be interested in any sort of counter-narrative!
This is another illustration of how ordering one's life by abstractions that sit apart from the facts of our existence but are anchored in some posited spiritual realm or future afterlife can be downright harmful and dangerous. Many Christians have managed to not take their scriptures so literally or seriously that they can't compartmentalize their idealism and make actual life decisions based on actual benefits or harms. Many have not. Too many, apparently.
I don't know. I wasn't going to respond to this thread since the OP hadnt posted since 2017.
But anyway...
You don't need a vast knowledge of science to be an atheist. But rationality and reason, which are synonymous with science, are the reasons atheists are atheists. That's all there is to it.
When you compare the earth being built in 7 days with.. what? I forgot what young earthers think is the time line... 3000 years or something?
And you compare that with the 13.8 billion years of evolution of the universe, what makes the most sense?
This vastly complicated universe took all this time to develop or, whoops it all appeared one day as if by magic: what do you conclude?
The Bible isn't a science book. It's a storybook.
Atheists believe in reality, not fiction. That's it in a nutshell.
I don't know. I wasn't going to respond to this thread since the OP hadnt posted since 2017.
But anyway...
You don't need a vast knowledge of science to be an atheist. But rationality and reason, which are synonymous with science, are the reasons atheists are atheists. That's all there is to it.
When you compare the earth being built in 7 days with.. what? I forgot what young earthers think is the time line... 3000 years or something?
And you compare that with the 13.8 billion years of evolution of the universe, what makes the most sense?
This vastly complicated universe took all this time to develop or, whoops it all appeared one day as if by magic: what do you conclude?
The Bible isn't a science book. It's a storybook.
Atheists believe in reality, not fiction. That's it in a nutshell.
Well stated. Of course I am a former earth science teacher who taught evolution and the likes. I'm a blasphemer!
I don't know. I wasn't going to respond to this thread since the OP hadnt posted since 2017.
But anyway... You don't need a vast knowledge of science to be an atheist. But rationality and reason, which are synonymous with science, are the reasons atheists are atheists. That's all there is to it.
When you compare the earth being built in 7 days with.. what? I forgot what young earthers think is the time line... 3000 years or something?
And you compare that with the 13.8 billion years of evolution of the universe, what makes the most sense?
This vastly complicated universe took all this time to develop or, whoops it all appeared one day as if by magic: what do you conclude?
The Bible isn't a science book. It's a storybook.
Atheists believe in reality, not fiction. That's it in a nutshell.
The bold is true. But as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!" You can't have a vast knowledge of current science and still be an atheist!! Heh, Heh, Heh!!
The bold is true. But as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!" You can't have a vast knowledge of current science and still be an atheist!! Heh, Heh, Heh!!
Well of course you can. A high proportion of scientists are atheist or agnostic at least.
There are exceptions of course. Francis Collins comes to mind.
I don't understand how he squares the human genome project with his beliefs, but each to their own.
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.
You can't have a vast knowledge of current science and still be an atheist!! Heh, Heh, Heh!!
