Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2016, 01:33 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
My earlier response to the atheist that his was a strawman argument and that atheism (or christianity) has nothing to do with science received this response from him.

Quote: You think all you have to do to prove something is post some copy and pastes and links to a biased, atheist, discussion group, which support your opinion.
You must take people on flickr for complete fools.

Everyone knows that so-called 'new atheists' or 'militant' atheists incessantly make the (bogus) claim that they are on the side of science against the "superstitious nonsense" of religion.
And everyone knows that atheism is not simply a non-belief in deities.
To be a genuine atheist you have to believe in the creed of naturalism.
You have no option but to believe in the creation of the universe and life by purely, natural processes. Ask prominent atheists such as, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking if that is what they believe?

That is the essence of atheism - the denial of a supernatural, first cause and the belief in a natural, first cause.
It is intellectual cowardice for any atheist to deny that.
The only reason some atheists could possibly have for denying it, is that they know they are unable to logically or scientifically defend their belief in a natural, first cause and are terrified of their belief in naturalism being challenged. They prefer ridiculing and mocking the beliefs of others, to having to defend their own bizarre, unscientific and illogical beliefs.
Richard Dawkins (for example) uses some damn-fool arguments in his defence of naturalism ... like his idea that evolved aliens (in an apparent, infinite regress) could be responsible for designing life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8.
But, at least, he is honest enough to admit that he believes in naturalism, even though he has enormous difficulty in defending it, having to resort to some extremely, bizarre fantasies, when challenged.
We have to respect him for that, at least.

Every sensible person can understand that the argument I have presented, with my image, is intended to challenge the frequent, atheist claim that atheism is compatible with a scientific viewpoint, while Christianity is a backward enemy of science.
As I have demonstrated, the complete opposite is true.
Atheism is certainly not compatible with science, because atheists deny natural laws and fundamental, scientific principles, whenever it suits them, while Christians quite happily accept them all, without reservation.

Christians have no reason to reject any natural laws, because they don't conflict with Christian beliefs, in fact, they support the idea of a supernatural, first cause (Creator God), by eliminating the possibility of a natural, first cause.

Of course, science doesn't prove Christianity, no one claims that, but it is compatible with science, because Christians fully accept all natural laws and scientific principles. Whereas atheists pick and choose which natural laws they want to accept, based on whether or not they conflict with their ideology of naturalism.

If you think I am wrong, then please tell us (for example) whether, as an atheist, you fully accept the Law of Biogenesis with reference to the origin of life on Earth?
No ifs or buts, long-winded, beating about the bush, or copy and pastes.
It is a simple question, so there is no reason why you cannot just give a yes or no answer?
As a Christian, my answer to that question is an emphatic YES ... what is yours?


So more nonsense in the form of the "everyone knows" bandwagoning fallacy, which he links to his very own definition of atheism and then a fairly crude attempt at reversal of the burden of proof.

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
11-10-2016, 02:31 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
The Law of Biogenesis and The Law of Cause and Effect don't actually exist. The former is a conclusion of a single scientist who lived a long time ago, Louis Pasteur, so not exactly up to date. It's also wrong and not well established as the creationist is stating. The latter is some religious woo.

While the second law of thermodynamics does exist, it is more damning against the very concept of an eternal god or after life. It does not stop complexity increasing locally at the expense of entropy increasing globally.

There's also a fuck ton of strawman arguments that are patently false.

That creationist is extremely dishonest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
11-10-2016, 03:17 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(11-10-2016 02:31 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The Law of Biogenesis and The Law of Cause and Effect don't actually exist. The former is a conclusion of a single scientist who lived a long time ago, Louis Pasteur, so not exactly up to date. It's also wrong and not well established as the creationist is stating. The latter is some religious woo.

While the second law of thermodynamics does exist, it is more damning against the very concept of an eternal god or after life. It does not stop complexity increasing locally at the expense of entropy increasing globally.

There's also a fuck ton of strawman arguments that are patently false.

That creationist is extremely dishonest.

I agree with you entirely Mathilda and he's been told by numerous individuals that he's talking out of his arse. This creationist has a long history of dishonesty, evasion and censorship.

Pasteur's experiment set out merely to disprove spontaneous generation and has no bearing on any subsequent knowledge about abiogenesis etc. His banging on about thermodynamics is a mere regurgitation of hoary old creationist nonsense.

I've simply pointed out that he's made claims about the scientific "acceptance" of atheism and christianity and demanded proof. I'm not expecting anything intelligent back.

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
11-10-2016, 04:25 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(11-10-2016 02:31 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The Law of Biogenesis and The Law of Cause and Effect don't actually exist. The former is a conclusion of a single scientist who lived a long time ago, Louis Pasteur, so not exactly up to date. It's also wrong and not well established as the creationist is stating. The latter is some religious woo.

While the second law of thermodynamics does exist, it is more damning against the very concept of an eternal god or after life. It does not stop complexity increasing locally at the expense of entropy increasing globally.

There's also a fuck ton of strawman arguments that are patently false.

That creationist is extremely dishonest.

The Second Law refers to a closed system.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
11-10-2016, 04:44 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
When an ID-iot brings up the second law of thermodynamics as an argument against life you can point at the sun and say "The sun! It is just over your head!"

Front row seats for the Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution Reunion Tour!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like chimp3's post
13-10-2016, 01:41 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
My idiotic creationist is continuing to be evasive. When I asked him to provide evidence that all atheists reject those dodgy "scientific laws" and that all christians accept them his reply was a combination of sidestepping and strawmen and ad hominems.

Quote:You wrote:
"Provide evidence that every Christian on the planet knows, understands and accepts these “scientific laws”."

I know you don't like answering questions about your atheist ideology, but is this childish argument the best you can come up with as a diversionary tactic?

It doesn't matter one iota whether EVERY Christian knows or understands natural laws, it is irrelevant to the argument. My point is that there is no reason whatsoever for any Christian to ever reject natural laws, by virtue of Christian belief. They can accept them all wholeheartedly, without reservation.

The complete opposite is the case for atheists. If you believe in atheist naturalism you are compelled to reject natural laws regarding the origin of the universe and life. Atheists have no option, because natural laws are fatal to atheist naturalism.

You wrote:
"So……….where is your evidence that all atheists do not accept scientific laws?"

The idea that atheism is nothing more than a rejection of deities is ludicrous.
I agree that you need to be pretty foolish to be an atheist, but for you to imply that atheists can reject a supernatural, first cause of the universe and not support the only other alternative ... a natural, first cause, makes them out to be complete idiots.
What does that say about yourself?

Atheists HAVE TO believe that everything came from nothing by natural processes, and that life originated by natural, processes, if they don't then they have to believe in a supernatural Creator (or some other supernatural deities).
It has to be one or the other .... NATURAL or SUPERNATURAL. Tell us which you believe in?
The natural laws I mentioned in my original post are fatal to the idea of a universe originating from nothing by natural processes (a natural, first cause).
So atheists have to either reject those laws, as they relate to origins, or cease being atheists.
If you wish to remain an atheist you have to reject those natural laws.

You have the opportunity to prove me wrong by giving an hypothetical example, of an origin of the universe from nothing by natural processes, that doesn't violate any natural laws or scientific principles?
But, as you don't like answering questions, because apparently, you are terrified of entering into a proper debate about atheist beliefs, I suspect you will try to sidestep it with more diversionary tactics.

BTW. I haven't forgotten the previous question you ducked out of answering, here it is again ...

If you think I am wrong, then please tell us (for example) whether, as an atheist, you fully accept the Law of Biogenesis with reference to the origin of life on Earth?
No ifs or buts, long-winded, beating about the bush, or copy and pastes.
It is a simple question, so there is no reason why you cannot just give a yes or no answer?
As a Christian, my answer to that question is an emphatic YES ... what is yours?

You wrote:
"I can see you’ve deleted your initial reply. Presumably you felt that it was rather incoherent."

I didn't delete it, I just edited and added to it.

He's a deeply dishonest individual.

I'll respond to him at some point but I've got more important things to do today, however any comments on his nonsense are more than welcome.

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
13-10-2016, 02:32 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2016 02:35 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
He is really a dishonest idiot. Remember:

He, the theist is the one with the claim, that everyhing in existence was created by a supernatural agent. Atheists, or better, naturalists, are ahdering to the view that everything that exists is there for natural reasons. At the end of his arhument its seems to be the opposite.

How does the dishonest dipshit try to do this:

1. Make up some bogus scientific laws, or use very questionable ones *
2. start by flat out lying and claim that theists/christians accept these laws (which they dont)
3. create an atheist/naturalist strawman, by explaining what he has to believe (contrary to what the atheist/naturalist actually does believe)
4. show that the strawman can not accep the bogus laws
5. voila present theists accepting science and atheist/naturalist having to reject science

Tell him that his god (if he exists) will not be amused. He/she/it can read every thought in that dishonest assholes mind, and knows when hes trying to lie for his pet belief

*law of biogenesis by Pasteur: commits the black swan fallacy. The fact that -so far- we have only been able to see life arise from life, doesnt mean it cant arise from non life. The fact that we have seen only white swans, doesnt mean there arent black ones.

Thermodynamics:
I have said this, and will repeat it again: The 1st law, it is most probably wrong.
Our best bet currently for the explanation of dark energy is vacuum energy of space. If so, then by spontaneously creating space and thus creating vacuum energy, the total energy of the univers is constantly increasing! (again: i can link a talk. It was Caltech or Fermilab, wahtever, people who are waaaaaay above the head of this creationist idiot).

Second law: I can look it up (at home), Sean Carroll has explained why creating local order (aka. creating life) by having availiable energy and entropy to work with, is possible not in the early state of the universe (high order, low entropy uniformly), nor in the late stage of the univese (low order, high entropy, uniformly), but in an intermediate state as it is now, by having a mix of high and low entropy in space. He made an excellent talk about debunking this thermodynamics BS. Ill look it up later today.

He is right in one thing:
Naturalists accept the notion that everything that exists was created by natural processes, he thinks by supernatural ones. ANd he has no evidence for his BS, none at all. He is -in a classic maneouver- trying to discredit the opposing position and thnks that strenghtens his own. The wiswash about these doubious scientific laws is only to make up some supporting evidence he actually doesnt have, at all.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 03:09 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
How come none of them can grasp the simple concept that assuming a deity (or the supernatural) adds an extra unexplained level of abstraction to everything, and is thus the very opposite of being scientific?

Not once in all of human history has 'god did it' been the best or simplest explanation to any scientific inquiry.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-10-2016, 04:40 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
(13-10-2016 03:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How come none of them can grasp the simple concept that assuming a deity (or the supernatural) adds an extra unexplained level of abstraction to everything, and is thus the very opposite of being scientific?

Not once in all of human history has 'god did it' been the best or simplest explanation to any scientific inquiry.

I often wonder how the monk, William of Occam, reconciled his razor with his belief in a supernatural deity.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
13-10-2016, 05:28 AM
RE: Christianity is "more scientific" than atheism
It's good that others will see the discussion, but you'll never change his particular mind. In his fundie evangelical culture, blasphemy is not the ultimate sin. Admitting to being wrong is. You'll still be beating that horse long after it turns to dust.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: