Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2016, 11:13 AM
Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
My least favourite creationist has been posting again. This time claiming that his religion is "more scientific" than atheism.

If you have a Flickr account you can see what he's on about here:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3503436407...491298295/

Quote:1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
____________________________________________

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a development of order.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_____________________________________________

3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – that a natural, first cause of the universe was uncaused.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________

4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.

Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which is obviously inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe, and thus incapable of being a first cause of the universe.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
___________________________________________

5. The Law of Biogenesis says – life cannot arise by natural processes from sterile matter.

Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of that fact, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition, when environmental conditions are conducive. Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from, which is fatal to their idea of a purposeless universe?

Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis

______________________________________________

Scientific compatibility score:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
______________________________________________

So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?

Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.

Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with non-contingent, autonomous powers, which they clearly don't possess.

This means the answer to the question is ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.

Verdict ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

Essentially he either misrepresents science or makes up "science" to "prove" that his peculiar brand of christianity is scientific and rational, while atheism is false and unscientific.

Of course what he's doing is creating a strawman.

Neither atheism or Christianity have anything to do with science. Atheism being "a disbelief of lack of belief in god or gods - atheists can have any world view they like, any belief system they wish, any ideas, any culture. Atheists can even deny science if they like.

So the creationist - "Truth in science" - an oxymoron if there ever was - is trying to equate faith in a deity with knowledge of science.………. laughably preposterous. Even more preposterous is that he's trying to equate his own peculiar brand of Christianity with knowledge of science.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
10-10-2016, 11:17 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
But how was Jesus created?

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
10-10-2016, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 11:44 AM by jennybee.)
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
On a side note: You know who has a Christian science book: Ray Comfort. This is where many hardcore Christians are getting their science from. I read his book "Scientific Facts in the Bible" when I was a Christian. It actually helped me on my journey to atheism since it is completely absurd. It's almost impossible to make it all the way through without laughing hysterically. However, I can see how some Christians who want to hang onto the delusion of their religious beliefs and also "science," might feel this book is legit. That of course is the scary part. The book, as you may imagine, takes passages out of context and pattern makes like crazy to try and get current scientific understanding to fit with Christianity. Rationalwiki (I think it is) debunks most of the claims in the book for anyone who is interested in Comfort's "scientific" biblical claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
10-10-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Then again - ANY scientific law is simply a human construction that still holds up to testing....... It could concievably need future modification. These laws didn't come with the universe's instruction manual as the theist likes to imply.......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
10-10-2016, 11:43 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(10-10-2016 11:13 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  My least favourite creationist has been posting again. This time claiming that his religion is "more scientific" than atheism.

If you have a Flickr account you can see what he's on about here:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3503436407...491298295/

Quote:1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
____________________________________________

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a development of order.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_____________________________________________

3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.

Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.

Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – that a natural, first cause of the universe was uncaused.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________

4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.

Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which is obviously inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe, and thus incapable of being a first cause of the universe.

Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.

SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
___________________________________________

5. The Law of Biogenesis says – life cannot arise by natural processes from sterile matter.

Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.

Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of that fact, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition, when environmental conditions are conducive. Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from, which is fatal to their idea of a purposeless universe?

Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis

______________________________________________

Scientific compatibility score:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
______________________________________________

So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?

Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.

Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with non-contingent, autonomous powers, which they clearly don't possess.

This means the answer to the question is ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.

Verdict ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

Essentially he either misrepresents science or makes up "science" to "prove" that his peculiar brand of christianity is scientific and rational, while atheism is false and unscientific.

Of course what he's doing is creating a strawman.

Neither atheism or Christianity have anything to do with science. Atheism being "a disbelief of lack of belief in god or gods - atheists can have any world view they like, any belief system they wish, any ideas, any culture. Atheists can even deny science if they like.

So the creationist - "Truth in science" - an oxymoron if there ever was - is trying to equate faith in a deity with knowledge of science.………. laughably preposterous. Even more preposterous is that he's trying to equate his own peculiar brand of Christianity with knowledge of science.

These Christian "science" people are almost as scary as their beliefs. I hope people don't take it seriously, but sadly, you know some will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
10-10-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Ugh this whole argument is so tired and lacks complexity, also they're not even describing it correctly. They want to be credible? Ok they need to answer these questions:

1.They want us to believe that all the energy in our universe always existed and that it's part of a God that also always existed?That's a huge stretch but ok, why does the energy in our universe need to come from a God?

2.Where did this God come from? If God is energy and he can't be created or destroyed and everything must have a creator than how was his energy created, where did it come from?

3. If these "laws" are so damn convincing, what about the "laws" of evolution, what is it about evolution that is contradictory to the first law of thermodynamics? If you can accept the scientific laws of a physicist if you feel it "proves" your argument of a God, why is it so easy to dismiss scientific laws of a biologist when it contradicts your God? You either accept scientific laws of nature or you don't. In the very least an atheist is open minded enough to accept any evidence based theories, not just the ones they like.

4. Isn't it easier to accept all the energy in our universe always existed, why conjure a God to explain it when nature already does? Why is it easier to believe this energy has a consciousness, loves us and judges our actions? You would have to believe a magic wizard man who always existed transformed all the energy in our universe one day out of boredom and then all that energy is now just being changed, never being destroyed...it can't be destroyed which leads to:

5. Could God destroy energy? If he can't, he's not all powerful and thus not a God, if he can destroy energy, he's not natural and energy can be destroyed when God decides it should be. So the first law is actually wrong in that case since energy can be destroyed naturally by this natural God, so why are you using a flawed law to prove your God exists again?

6. Ok so God is magic (ie. not natural, supernatural)? That is not scientific and if the argument is that all the energy in our universe came from somewhere why does it have to be a God much less this one specific God? It could be any God and also if there is no "natural" way to create energy than that means all energy just always existed, there was no creator or the creator was supernatural which there is no reason to believe supernatural beings exist. Scientifically no living being can exist outside of nature as we know it.

So in conclusion, an atheist position is the only logical, reasonable, and intellectually honest position to take if we're only considering the laws of thermodynamics. There is still no proof or reason to believe the energy in our universe came from a God, is a God or exists in a supernatural or metaphysical state we can't measure or define. It's still a faith based position, not scientific in any way.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
10-10-2016, 02:30 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(10-10-2016 11:13 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  My least favourite creationist has been posting again. This time claiming that his religion is "more scientific" than atheism.
Atheism has nothing to do with science, it is merely lack of belief in a claim. Don't need science for that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
10-10-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
I've run across this from Christians. They list all the things in the Bible that were finally "proven by scientists".

https://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt...ible.shtml

Except if you really look at the list it's total nonsense. For instance, the earth is not "free floating". It is held in place by gravity. They then try to get past this by saying gravity is "nothing". I like to point out that gravity is one of the major physical properties of the universe. Without gravity the planets and stars would be going willy-nilly everywhere, also the earth isn't "free floating" in space, it's moving in an orbit while the sun is traveling through the galaxy at a very high rate of speed.

Doesn't matter though. They live in a magic, superstitious, delusional fairy tale place and they like it that way. It's sad.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
10-10-2016, 05:19 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(10-10-2016 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 11:13 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  My least favourite creationist has been posting again. This time claiming that his religion is "more scientific" than atheism.
Atheism has nothing to do with science, it is merely lack of belief in a claim. Don't need science for that.

True indeed. However, the scientific method of evaluating claims does help you debunk a lot of the tripe that has passed for human "knowledge" in the form of religious (magical) claims for a long, long portion of our history. Therefore, atheism often has to take on the weight of explaining, "But whyyyy don't you believe in the Magical Flying Dragons our culture has worshiped for millennia?"

It's why the religionists have worked so hard at creating pseudoscientific explanations for their magical claims, in order to dress the old mythology in a veneer of seemingly-respectable modern thought. It only works if you don't look too closely, of course, but then again most of them don't look too closely at anything.

It's why the surest way to become an atheist is to actually read the scriptures.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 05:41 PM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(10-10-2016 11:36 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Then again - ANY scientific law is simply a human construction that still holds up to testing....... It could concievably need future modification. These laws didn't come with the universe's instruction manual as the theist likes to imply.......

But it does! They think the Wholly Babble is just that manual. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: