Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

Really, Beren? Now what ever gave you that idea? I did try to go back to bashing Atheists but that didn't work.

Now as I understand it atheism is based on the fact that since it is impossible to scientifically prove the existence of God, he/she/it doesn't exist. Does this make atheists evil? No, just limited in their thinking.

 

Hey, I'm not the one who tried to mix those two.

What, if science doesn't have an agenda and contradicts the tenets of religion just by existing?

 

I'm not even sure why I'm putting this link here but ... http://www.deviantart.com/view/10935763/

 

You'll find that out when the footing you stand on is kicked out from under you. What you don't know could be the only thing that saves you in the end...

You aren't doing that, but there are others that claim that we religious people are less intelligent than they are because we don't believe everything that science teaches. We are looked down on by some because we reject things that contradict our faith in favour of something that their science can't prove. To me that is an attack.

To which I have replied:

That part seemed to be ignored...

When a Generally accepted theory is contradictory to the basic accounts of creation, then there will be confilct. There are some that use these theories to prove that Christianity is false. IIRC, the theory of Evolution is based off of observing finches on the Galapagos Islands and examining fossil records of previous lifeforms. There is, by some, a leap of faith made to give them some revolutionary theory that basically disproves the Bible. I trust the words of God (as far as they are translated correctly) over the interpretations of man.

First off, there's that word should. Maybe some do, and interpret their results based on their own desired theories as opposed to starting from the results and working from there. Secondly, if "Scientists" don't use science for their own agenda (for they wouldn't count as scientists once they do that), then would it be fair to say that "Religious" people don't use religion to satisfy their own ends (by the same logic)? There are those opposed to Religion that won't give me the latter, so You'll have to do better to sell me the former...

Most of Science does not contradict faith. They tend, in most places, to be independent of each other. In fact, Medicine, as taught to save lives and ease suffering, would be encouraged by Christian theology. The problem lies in a couple theories that seem to contradict Religious teachings. These I hesitate to accept until I gain such knowledge to reconcile what's claimed with the Religious teachings I have learned up to now. It has been stated that there exists such teachings that would reconcile this, but no link has been provided, so Until I have received that knowledge, I take a cautious approach.

And as long as it's used as a beatstick to try to deter me from my faith, I will REFUSE to grasp that concept. Lines like that prove the point that I've been trying to make. I could just as easily point out that you refuse to accept that God Created all these planets from one set of plans, thus all the planets would have the same set of guidelines, and thus, the species would be the same as whae we observe here. The difference is not that we don't understand the opposing position, but we refuse to accept the other's position...

So then when a major change occurs, certain species or breeds die out. Could it be that another race of primates, strikingly similar to humans, died out in such a shift a few thousand years ago? This would make sense as opposed to one of them having an offspring that would be human as opposed to that primate...

You're getting that just now? I think it began when people started coming out to bash Christians as opposed to discuss the bashing of Aetheists. I opposed bashing Aetheists, but there are some that want to attack Religion at every opportunity. There are also those that gloss over or ignore the positive things I try to say about religion and get to the parts that they can use to attack me--and may find it entertaining to grill me on Evolution and the like...

And it seems that neither side can abide the other maintaining those limits, and wants them to loin them in their limits at the expence of their former limits...

Then those that value Science more so than religion have no right to expect us to drop our faith becaust their teachings contradict ours. As soon as someone states that Religion ought to be abandoned because something in Science has contradicted it, then they add to science an agenda. This, if I understand AFI's post correctly, removes it from the realm of science...

@Shrikant: you may call us sheep if you want, but what faith do you place in your rejection of our teachings?

 

You mean that because a rock can be used to bash someone's head in, this rock has an agenda?

 

The Guy with the rock has an agenda. Just like some people with science has an agenda against Religion. Just as some have used Religion to support their own agenda regardless of what the doctrine teaches...

 

Well, I couldn't very well say "all" scientists do that. I don't know all of them, and there have been scientists who have had agendas, but they are usually exposed when they try to get their findings through the rigorous peer review process all scientists have to endure before getting their work published.

This is true with a few caveats attached. First of all, when I say that pursuit of knowledge should be the pursuit of all scientists, it's not like I feel this exists in a vaccum. A scientist is obviously going to have interest in the subject matter. He will be curious about a particular observed event. After going through some testing he may want to share this information with others in the field who have a similar interest, to take the study of a phenomenon even further. If you classify this as an "agenda" then it logically follows that all scientists would have an "agenda". When I say that scientists shouldn't have an agenda I mean that they shouldn't have pre-conceived notions and intend to skew their results towards a particular point of view. Think of the character Friday from the TV show Dragnet "Just the facts."

That should never happen. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but no respectable scientist would ever even attempt to publish something that had the aim to cause people to abandon religion of any kind. He would be a laughingstock of the scientific community. Any scientist knows that it is impossible to disprove faith, ideals, or beliefs. It is categorically impossible. Thus, science cannot be used as a tool to cause people to abandon religion, as the entire concept of religion relies on people's faith, ideals, and beliefs. When someone publishes a paper that states something about the evolution of humans, the scientist in question could have one or several of a whole list of motives. He could just be personally interested in the subject matter. He could be trying to spread knowledge to others in his field. He could even have selfish reasons, such as gaining respect and prestige within his field, or he could be hoping to make money. One thing he WON'T be doing is trying to cause people to abandon religion - that is unless he's OK with the idea that no one in the scientific community will ever take seriously anything he attempts to publish ever again.

 

I think the problem here, Aldeth, is that those in the scientific / atheist community (I know that's a broad brush) don't realize how much that they actually take on faith.

From the standpoint of someone with religious faith, that equal or greater leap of faith to hold a irreligious view of the world makes the scientific / atheist community seem almost like a rival sect, struggling for the minds of it's members.

Every scientific theory or paper (from non-creationists) begins with the assumption that there is no God. It doesn't have to say it in an outright manner, the silent dismissal is an attack to those of religious faith.

That's why it's so hard for either side to understand each other, although both will claim that they do.

 

So many of the arguements seem to bulk atheism and science together. Just an observation that seems to be lost in the arguement:

Not all atheists are scientists. Not all scientists are atheists.

So the next questions are:

How does the atheist, who is not a scientist, support his or her non-belief?

How does the religious scientist, who DOES believe in evolution, remain devout?

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive to everyone.

 

Does it really look that way to you, Hack? Wow, this rather surprises me. I've never felt that sort of inherent assumption in any scientific study I've ever done. Usually it strikes me that people are simply trying to investigate how the world around them works. Does that have to be a challenge to religion, or could the religious scientist (and there are quite a few... I regularly read statistics that state that more scientists and doctors are churchgoers than not) be looking in to things as a better way to understand God?

I posted something in another thread that was ignored, but I think it bears repeating. This is a theory that the rabbi I'm studying with heard from one of his professors:

Who can say how long a cosmological "day" was, back in the time of creation? Who can say just what God did to create light? Could it not be possible that He said "Let there be light" then triggered the Big Bang and sat back to watch the show?

Same deal with evolution... what human can know the mind of God to understand how much time it took Him to create us? Maybe he triggered evolution and stopped it when the human form was reached. We weren't there to know, and when He told the story he put all the timeframes into terms our limited minds could grasp - hence, a "day". What is a "day" to that which is Infinite and Timeless?

This is what I like about Reform Judaism - there's a significant attempt being made to reconcile science, society, and religion. Nothing happens in a vacuum from the others.

 

Sorry, but that's complete

Unless you're somehow tied to the idea that God = the world was literally created in 7 days, and God planted the fossils to test our faith...

The idea that such dogma = faith would have every serious Christian theologian spinning in their graves, from Augustine and Aquinas to the recently deceased Pope.

Lets listen to Pope John Paul II in his Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996, on the subject of evolution:

See? Even John Paul II, who I think we can all agree wasn't a flaming liberal athiest, doesn't find the need to oppose science to religion; rather, he points out the difference in methodology and area of study between the physical sciences and the metaphysical disciplines. In no way does he make absurd claims that science is an plot against religion, and he has the tradition of Catholicism behind him, which despite a number of unfortunate episodes has on the whole played a central role from the dark ages on in preserving knowledge furthering the sciences in the West.

Note that his only objection has to do with the use of evolution to say that there is no spiritual/metaphysical element in the human mind.

Science has absolutely nothing to say for or against belief in a transcendent God outside of space and time. Because science doesn't deal with things outside of space and time.

And science doesn't deal in timeless truth. Facts and theories are always open to reinterpretation.

You guys read (or more likely, hear about) someone like Richard Dawkins and think all scientists do is sit around thinking of ways to make fun of the faithful. And then you make absurd statements about the sciences being fundamentally anti-religion because God said the world was created in exactly 7 days (earth days, I assume? has the earth become the center of the universe again?), and when people laugh, see, there's proof science is anti-religion...

 

The scientists make no assumptions. If there was evidence for a deity, then scientists would make theories concerning the deity, and try to prove them right or wrong. Since there is no evidence for a deity, there isn't any scientific theories for one.

 

The Same for the Religious crowd on particular points of doctrine. When we focus on a particular point of doctrine to study we have some interest (from curiousity to outright need for help) in that topic.

No, that isn't what I was labeling as an agenda. An agenda is to gear their work to reach a certain conclusion, then present it in such a way that their point is given legitimacy and their critics are called into question.

I'm not sure that is entirely sucessfull. These preconceived notions may cloud their interpretation of what they see...

Then who are these people that try to claim that Evolution is proof that religion is false?

So then it's not the scientists but the average Joe on the street that sees the record of Creation in the Bible, sees the scientist talking Evolution then tries to use Evolution to tell the religious that their holy books are wrong and that they should abandon their silly fairy tales? This should offend you greatly, because it casts an unfavourable light on men of science...

This dismissal also makes it much more difficult to bridge the gap and try to understand the things that Darwin observed (I do believe he obserrved something, and others since then have made similar observations) and what Scripture says. But when these discussions start, I am asked to neglect parts of what I believe, hence this reconsiliation is doomed to failure.

T2Bruno, You have repeatedly mentioned the Teachings of Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and claim that he may have bridged this gap. do you have any such link? It would greatly help this discussion.

That doesn't mean that they operate from the basis of God existing. If I understand rightly, then they try to explain things independently of God. Could this failure to acknowledge God in these things lead them to error?

From the Pearl of Great Price:

One day to God is a thousand years unto man.

Therefore, if we talk the Lords time, that's 1000 years to make the Heavens and the Earth, 1000 years to bring forth light and divide it from the darkness, 1000 years to Cause the waters to appear and divide them from the land masses, 1000 years to create plant life in all it's varieties, 1000 years to bring forth animals in all their varieties, and 1000 years to create man (and woman of course).

It says there that it is Thoelogy, not Science that brings out such ultimate meaning.

Yes, the reduction of humanity from divine sons and daughters of a loving Heavenly Father to another (albeit, more advanced) form of Primate is something that leads me to call Evolution into Question. I do not doubt that species adapt over time, but I simply ask that Creation be considered as a start point, and that Cats were created as cats, Dogs were created as dogs, and humans were created in God's Image. What is observed as evolution would simply be the adaptation from one generation to the next, but they are basically what the Lord created in the beginning, each reproducing after it's kind.

Then how come people don't want to hear other theories I have suggested, and mocked them soundly rather than given them a proper rebuttal? There are those that tout Science as trumping Religion (even those that don't) that really don't want to hear science reconciled with Religion...

First, I've cited that one day with God is 1000 years unto man. Secondly, in the accounts I've heard of Creation, I've never heard that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

But still by refusal to acknowledge God in all things, then that may call these findings into question. It's not about God, but about what they see, and that is seen as assuming that God is not there. That is the attack on religion...

Then why do people insist on trying to claim that Evolution disproves Religion because their theory contradicts the accounts of Creation?

 

As far as I am aware most people don't try and claim that evolution disproves Religion. If you assume that the accounts of creation in Genesis were alegorical (which fits the order in which evolution believes life formed on the planet) then the two can exist side by side.

 

Where? All I see is people insisting on trying to claim that people insist on trying to claim that Evolution disproves Religion because their theory contradicts the accounts of Creation.

 

It doesn't offend me personally, as I am not the one who is doing it. It's not even someone similar to me in my profession who is doing it. The mistake is on the part of the person listening who assumes that this person is a scientist (and why anyone would assume that some average Joe is a scientist without some backing - like having a PhD in a given field - is beyond me.)

Look, there are nutjobs are all over the place. All I can say is the nutjobs that go around trying to prove that religion is nonsense are just as bad as the ones who go around trying to prove thier religion is "best".

They come in all shapes and sizes, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them were in fact scientists. All I'm trying to say is that most scientists are not at all like this. Just like how you would point out that it is incorrect to say that Mormons practice polygamy, just because a small sect of them still do. You would point out that these people are effectively excommunicated from the church. Likewise, you would be incorrect if you said that scientists use their findings in an effort to debunk religious thinking because a small percentage of them do. I would point out that these people are typically ridiculed in scientific circles and aren't taken seriously - even by their peers.

Of course it's about what they see. That's what scientific observations are, and it is the way that experimentation works. You cannot simply assume something happened in an experiment if you didn't have some way of observing it - either directly or through some instrument. They aren't assuming that God isn't there, but merely that they cannot fathom how He would have any impact on the observation regardless.

These are the nutjobs that I was referring to earlier in my post. I don't see anyone on this site doing this to you, so I'm assuming by "people" you mean people in general and not specific members of these boards.

EDIT: BTA posted while I was posting, so I apologize that some of what I said is a repeat of his post.

 

Gnarf, you keep want specific references yet YOU are the Mormon and have full access to the teachings. Actually several members of the Quorum of the Twelve ARE scientists (WHAT?! Ohhh the shock, the shame. They must be stinking science SPIES!). You should take the time to learn more about your own faith.

The neutrality of the Mormon church on evolution was affirmed in a letter from President McKay to William Lee Stokes dated February 15, 1957:

Hmmm... it seems the church is not willing to make a stand (by the way, this is the only time a President of the Mormon Church has made an official comment). Another by McKay:

How about this comment from a slightly more famous President:

And you should recognize this name:

Talmage also wrote "Jesus the Christ" -- and he was a geologist.

Well now I've taken up too much space and time attempting to satisfy your whims. Hopefully, this wasn't too off topic.

 

That can't be right. 1978? I don't know when Young died, but it had to be over 100 years ago. I'm certain he was born and died in the 1800s. Maybe the book was published in 1978, but it certainly wasn't authored at that time.