Dear athiests and "scientists" [Spirituality & Religion]

The burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something that has never been shown to actually exist. I don’t have to prove the nonexistence of something that does not exist. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

Atheism: The belief that we have a long way to go before we begin to understand the infinite complexities of the universe..
Religion: "The big magic sky-man made it all, now give me some money."

The great irony is; that people use science in an attempt to discredit religion with scientific fields pioneered by well known Christian scientists... Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Heisenberg, Von Braun, etc. 🤔

I'm not sure... but this post makes really little sense? After scientific inquiry happened, specially in correct sciences (like physics)... doesn't that give you the basis for further exploration? Can you imagine that peer revieuwed scientific studies that produce a basis for theory that produces a lot of data that apperently is "correct" and can't be "disproven" needs to be reviewed over and over and over again ... That George Stephenson before he build his steam engine had to prove how steam works before he could apply it? That kwantum physicists had to re-evaluate the entire field of physics that it was based on? When people say that we are standing on the shoulders of giants, it means that our previous generations did a lot of the fieldwork, so we as a new generation can use it. And even in science, old ideas can be disproven or found to have certain exceptions, and then the theory changes. Scientific toppics that are not fleshed out enough are in constant flow, there is constant debate about these things because scientists want to find the "truth".


And this part: [b]Quite foolish to keep spouting the "oh that's not real" crap when you're not even going to take a look at it, instead rely on the stuff people in the past wrote.[/b]

Isn't the basis of most religious dogmatic believe some idea someone in the past wrote down? Non factual stories and folklore, glorified by some human pschological believe mechanism and sold as absolute truth without annyone willing to actually investigate these things in a scientific way because old texts already show you how things are?


And altough I take an agnostic position and say that you can't have 100% certaintity if something is happening that we today would call "supernatural". What we can look at, is all the claims of people that say "this is supernatural". Once this claim is made, people with old scientific texts can look at the phenomena that is deemed "supernatural", use modern technology and find out if the claim is "true" or "not". And till today (for as far as I'm aware) non-supernatural believes have been proven to be the truth. It's only wishfull people that seem to keep faith even tough rationality, logic and facts have proven the believes wrong.



And this idea about religions that you harbor: "[b]Even if it doesn't exist, so long as they're peaceful unlike islam...it should be fine"[/b]

Shows' not only an extreme bias towards one religion... it also shows a total lack of looking into what "believes" do with people. What outcomes they produce if they happen in larger groups. These can be ideas of a supernatural nature but also political believes. A believe that is shared by a large amount of people, does have outcomes that can be negative. Even outside of the world of Islam. Just look at christianity and how they regard people that have feelings for the same sex, and what outcomes that has produced over the years? Or dogmatic believes about the human body that was made by god? Outcasting and setting back scientists that were trying to figure out how it all works as some sort of "witchcraft".

It's better to stay to the facts as much as possible, but believe is kinda unavoidable at some point when you create your worldvieuw, but it creates a lot of irrational outcomes which are only visible for those that don't belong to the group that you share your believes with. And these outcomes are arguably not "positive" for everyone that lives near this believe system. So thank science for giving an objective dataset on which you can actually have a discussion on, instead of making stuff up along the way?

Scientists inquire. Absolutely.

Do they give presence and validity to bullshit? No.

There is no evidence of a fake magic man in the sky. Never has been. There is no "real" scientist who would give any thought to it anymore because they have.
Still. No evidence.

Your is a classical 'prove me wrong' hypothesis which puts the burden on others to disprove God's existence. It's not 'so-called science' to ask for the burden of proof but the basic ethics of scientific enquiry and so much else.

Personally, I'm an agnostic because I accept that it cannot be conclusively proven that God does not exist. However, I'm on the extreme atheist end of agnosticism because the case for religion is so weak. I can't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.

1) Why are the multiple different religions, each of which has followers who are committed to their (mutually incompatible) beliefs? Why is your God the correct one and not someone else's?

2) God tells different things to different people. American and South African Conservatives are told to be anti-abortion but in Europe, they are not told this.

3) Religious practice relies on the subjective interpretation of contradictory texts. The New Testament God is not the same as the Old Testament God. Should I forgive homosexuals or stone them?

Calling scientists idiots is pretty hilarious. It's almost like calling someone stupid for being an intellectual. Well, it kinda is that anyway. It's a head in the sand attitude which aims to block out any reasoning that you don't agree with.

My friend, there are no such people that are atheists except for those skeptics lying 6 feet under their headstones. The skeptics like to think they're atheists but they're not. As for trying to discredit God and His Word, all they ever accomplish is ridicule and acting like spoiled brats. That's what's annoying about them. Professing themselves to be wise they become fools. It's a crying shame to see people like these guys to throw themselves in the mud thinking they'll come out clean.

OK, but creationists would need to be held to the same standards. They need to stop saying "oh that's not real" when presented with science.

You have the whole process backwards. The point isn't to shout "that's not real", the point is not to shout "that's real" without evidence to begin with.

No problem... you design and carry out a controlled trial with valid and reliable methods to demonstrate the existence of “god” and submit it to a peered review journal. That’s a good start

@Kwek00

[quote]Oh no, I got blocked. You and Dan can have a campfire now.[/quote]

The numpty blocked me too. He knows his arguments won't withstand even cursory examination so he ran away. I expect he just blocks anyone who doesn't agree with him. :)🍻

Most of the atheists and so-called scientists here are usually spouting about things they have little or no knowledge of whatsoever and are often quoting things from idiotic atheist websites. They are also often as fundamentalist in their views as any religious fundamentalist who accepts things without thinking about them. They also tend to be intellectually as narrowminded as they accuse other people of being . Quite sad really

Some things are just blatantly impossible though...

Dunning-Kruger in action right here, folks.

No atheist or scientist I have hard about had tried to ram their science or belief down the throat of other. Newton didn't ring doorbells to tell about gravity.

A lot of atheists, if not most, have read the bible due to being former Christians so they don't need to "take a look at it." I highly doubt you've ever sat down and read Darwin or tried to understand evolution, pot calling the kettle black ;)

Who shat in your porridge 😂😂

I will definitely agree with this. They are so closed minded and won't accept any viewpoints that are different than theirs.

That ironically describes organized religion too. They rely on the stuff people in the past wrote, except that it has/had no empirical evidence not so ever.
If we're talking about the claim that "god exists", that is not for science to answer. Science concerns itself with measurable objective goals not subjective and semantically relative concepts.

You know, if atheist are so annoying there is a simple solution. Stop listening to us and go back to only listening to people who agree with you.

Science cannot measure what is in our hearts

There is a big difference between "oh thats not real" and "There is no evidence for that".

The first one is what Christians say when I ask them my god The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The second is used by people who follow logic and science when religious people say a mass murder was "all part of god's plan.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

I’m kind of a proud atheist but I at the same time I kind of don’t fully knock the idea that God exists. I have kind of a science fiction view of that kind of stuff and that in some ways we don’t and may never fully understand what else is really out there and therefore kind of can’t fully disprove that it exists.

I have one question. In your essay, what's the difference between scientists, and scientists?

oh dear... just oh dear...

I mean, you can inquire into the existence of God and go "Oh well, that's made up."

You don't understand science.

Faith is blind, once someone truly believes. There is no way they will not believe. Despite their arguments coming from only one original source, the bible. Religion plays an important role for many. The world would change radically if the existence of God was suddenly, categorically disproved.

Ever notice how their 'science' is way out of date. Cutting edge science is disproving their favorite theory so they cling to stuff that passed its stale date 50 years ago.

[quote]oh that doesn't exist it can't happen" [/quote]

I think it's a bit unfair. Maybe there are some people carrying on that way but i think you'll find the bulk of us are simply saying "there's no credible reason to suppose that this exists or that this is even possible".

A good skeptic does not accept a claim as valid until such time as that validity has been demonstrated. And that's how it should be because anything else is an unreliable path to truth.

[quote]rely on the stuff people in the past wrote.[/quote]

Ok, but that was straight up meant as a joke, right?

[image deleted]

Have you noticed how childish and/or hate-filled the anti-God commentary is? Remarkable for such self-styled "humanists".

There's a lotta arrogance there. At best they just prove what already exists or has existed. They didn't create it

This is why faith is so important. The ability to believe in something far greater than mankind.
And religion is garbage without our own relationship with god. To me it’s personal.

Remember there always have been people hallusinating.
Let us be careful to believe everything we hear.

I find it hard too close my mind in a infinite universe where anything and everything is possible.