Atheists and their lame arguments are turning me back to God.

Oh dear. Where do I even begin?
I (very recently) had discussions with a couple of people here on SW who, no doubt, think they're rather sophisticated when it comes to their understanding of the deeper philosophical issues, but who are nevertheless in all likelihood suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
One of them seems to believe that simply because a person happens to have degrees within a certain specialised field, that therefore must mean that he or she is an expert on everything else as well, and that we should feel embarrassed to question their dogmatic assertions, while the other one seems to genuinely believe that "nothing is real", which is so obviously wrong for so many reasons that I shouldn't have to state them here (but will if someone actually asks).
I recently watched a video that I thought was superb. Note: you have to watch the WHOLE video, or at least half of it, and not just the first few minutes.

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nahd3iMqTa8&t=833s]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BlueSkyKing · M

A while back.

Bellatrix2024 · 22-25, F
@BlueSkyKing We ALL believe in the value of evidence, so you're not unusual in that respect, but whenever an atheist demands evidence, and I ask, "Okay, so what would convince you, what kind of evidence do you seek?", they can never answer that question

I did answer: Objective evidence. Does lack of evidence help you seek a certain religion?

Dawkins was a biologist. My favorite book is Unweaving the Rainbow which came out many years before The God Delusion. It’s about science literacy and critical thinking much like Sagan’s Demon Haunted World. Neil de Grasse Tyson currently is doing the same.

I enjoy science and almost everyday I get to read something new. Religion relies on superstition. Don’t need it, don’t want it.

Note that most of the best selling atheist books were written as a personal response to 9/11. The arguments are still valid.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing “I enjoy science and almost everyday I get to read something new.”

It sounds to me that science has become your religion. You are looking at it the wrong way. The scientific method can be used for anything, including God. Seeing as there is no good and evil or right and wrong, it is up to the person whether they want to accept it. You cannot go around saying there is “objective evidence” when objective facts do not exist. For them to exist, truth would need to exist. You don't believe truth exists.

Bel6EQUJ5

@BlueSkyKing

Note that most of the best selling atheist books were written as a personal response to 9/11. The arguments are still valid.

They are? How? What were those arguments anyway? Do you remember what they were?
Well, I do recall that the very first such book was Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", which came out in 2002, and which I actually read - three times.
Now I have to say that he doesn't actually address the question of God's existence within it, but rather "the dangers of religion" and the apparent lack of critical thinking on the part of those who are "religious", a term he doesn't actually define or even try to give a coherent meaning to. At no point within the book does he mention the fact that atheists can be just as dogmatic in their beliefs and assertions as "religious" folk, nor does he even hint at attempting to question his own biases and presuppositions, so overall one cannot seriously say that his book was an honest attempt to do anything other than excoriate "religion" (whatever that is) and ignore the reasons why people who believe in God believe what they do.
In other words, he wasn't interested in actually trying to understand those he so contemptuously looks down upon.

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya You want truth? Test. Truth demands to be tested.

Bel6EQUJ5

@BlueSkyKing For a second there I thought this was going to be a quote from the film "A Few Good Men", LOL
The truth? You can't handle the truth!

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing Tests should be open and limitless. Are you open to new and different results?

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya Absolutely. Tests are designed models based on evidence that is detectable and measurable. They must be repeatable by anyone at anytime. No one shots.

“In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”
― Richard P. Feynman

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing Scientists often cheat and manipulate the evidence. They create favorable conditions and mollycoddle the organisms they experiment with.

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya Science is self checking. That’s why the tests are repeated. When a scientist publishes for peer review, a target appears. Lots of other scientists will recreate the exact conditions. They will do falsifications and will validate or reject.

Many decades ago, some scientists claimed to make "cold fusion". It was big story and the media gave it a lot of press. But it couldn’t recreated and the claim was retracted.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing “Lots of other scientists will recreate the exact conditions.”

What exact conditions are they? It is impossible to recreate exact conditions in a lab, and impossible for the process to occur in the same amount of time scientists said it did.

Let's use the example of abiogenesis: cells could not have come from nonliving compounds. How did cells survive? Scientists know the cells couldn't have survived, which is why they have to support them when trying to prove abiogenesis in a lab. They accelerate the process and they cheat. The earth was apparently full of rocks and lava, yet these incredible cells developed with purpose.Why is life the purpose of the planet? What made it so?

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya This you should ask user Newjaninev2. She has best knowledge on the subject.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing Are you sure? She said life originated from organic compounds, not inorganic compounds. Does she know what abiogenesis is? I have found her answers vague and unimpressive.