• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?

smartcooky said:
But when you foist your faith and beliefs on others, or try to persuade others that there is a god, then you had better have evidence to back up your position if you don't want to be laughed off the stage.

I wonder why you and Fudbucker are even posting in this thread at all. The subject of the thread is

"Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

You are both obviously rampant god-botherers, so the question ynot has posed isn't even directed at you, and is one you cannot possibly answer.
Click to expand...

How else are they going to get attention?
 
The Big Dog said:
A friendly reminder. . .

The creator of a new thread does not get to declare who is welcome to comment in threads.

Thanks a bunch for making note of it.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
But when you foist your faith and beliefs on others, or try to persuade others that there is a god, then you had better have evidence to back up your position if you don't want to be laughed off the stage.

I wonder why you and Fudbucker are even posting in this thread at all. The subject of the thread is

"Is your atheism predominately a science success or a theism fail?"

You are both obviously rampant god-botherers, so the question ynot has posed isn't even directed at you, and is one you cannot possibly answer.
Click to expand...

While I certainly can understand the desire for a safe space for atheists to atheist, that is absolutely not how thing work around here.
 
Theists don’t seem to realise that the contest isn’t theism v science or theism v atheism, it’s simply theism v credibility.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
wait a minute, you delieberately deleted part of a sentence to make some kind of position statement. That is amazing.

Here was the whole sentence "There is no requirement that love, hope, beauty, empathy, good taste, hell political beliefs have evidence or verification."

You deleted part of it, THEN you slapped down a link to a tome without ever trying to explain what it meant, and now you are complaining that I have misrepresented your point which was based on you having deliberately deleted part of my sentence? Wow.

Seems like someone is getting hoisted by one's own petard.....
Click to expand...

I deleted part of the sentence because my criticism did not apply to everything you said. Of course political beliefs are beliefs. The other things you listed are not. If you don't actually bother reading what I wrote, that's your problem, not mine.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I deleted part of the sentence because my criticism did not apply to everything you said. Of course political beliefs are beliefs. The other things you listed are not. If you don't actually bother reading what I wrote, that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Your "criticism" was utterly specious as not only did it deliberately delete language, it ignored the entire context.

By the way, "If you don't actually bother reading what I wrote, that's your problem, not mine."

Yeah, deliberately deleting things I wrote is not something you "wrote" which is of course your problem not mine.
 
ynot said:
Theists don’t seem to realise that the contest isn’t theism v science or theism v atheism, it’s simply theism v credibility.
Click to expand...

Say, progress! The hilighted part was literally my point!

Progress!
 
The Big Dog said:
While I certainly can understand the desire for a safe space for atheists to atheist, that is absolutely not how thing work around here.
Click to expand...
Well, if you're off-topic, then yeah, that's exactly how it works around here.

I can see how a non-atheist could contribute to this thread, but so far, it hasn't happened; just a bunch of off-topic nonsense.

And speaking of which, my atheism was exactly a 'theism fail.' I was a nominal believer for most of my life, but during a chronic medical crisis, I started to do a lot of soul-searching (as it were) and serious asking of questions; I was raised Lutheran but I had also started reading a bunch of Catholic material as well and... it all failed. No answers were forthcoming, no god/God/GOD/gods spoke up; no nothing.

Been quite a bit happier ever since.
 
The Norseman said:
Well, if you're off-topic, then yeah, that's exactly how it works around here.
Click to expand...

Declaring that part of the community is not not permitted to comment and to point out things like:

The headline is a false dichotomy; science and theism are not mutually exclusive, etc

all of which are on topic and quintessence of critical thinking
 
The Big Dog said:
Declaring that part of the community is not not permitted to comment and to point out things like:

The headline is a false dichotomy; science and theism are not mutually exclusive, etc

all of which are on topic and quintessence of critical thinking
Click to expand...
As always, it's ultimately left to the mods to decide what is considered on-topic, so I guess we'll just see in this case.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear....

By the way, anyone else note that our correspondents are not actually weighing in on the topic at hand: that beliefs require evidence and verification
Click to expand...


Firstly you are using the argument that "others are doing this wrong thing so I can too", which is the poorest of justifications.

Secondly you are deliberately misrepresenting the "topic at hand". One part of the topic at hand is the issue of theism v credibility as ynot has patiently pointed out. Theism can fail in a spectacular way without evidence challenging beliefs. Theism fails when the beliefs just defy common sense and to put it bluntly are just plain stupid.

We need look no further than the flood story as an example here. An all powerful god, who can't manage a more elegant way to get rid of the bad guys, than to drown women and children as well as animals to accomplish it. You do not need evidence that this did not happen, (although such evidence abounds), to show it is just plain stupid and thus a "theism fail".
 
In the wacky world of theism, where belief and faith in non-credible magic and miracles rule supreme, credibility has no credibility. Beyond that it’s all fingers in ears and “La, la, la, la”.

Not only does theism have no need or interest in being credible, being “INCREDIBLE!” (aka non-credible) is the very allure of theism that induces some people to choose to become theists.

No amount of credible argument/evidence will have any effect on theists unless and until they choose to give credibility back at least some credibility.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Theists often defend their god beliefs by attacking science with silly comments like - “Science doesn’t know everything, Science isn’t always right, Science can’t explain love”, etc. My response is usually - “So what? I’m an atheist mainly because theism has failed to convince me any god exists. Take away science and I would still be an atheist. Don’t blame science for the failure of theism”.

As I’ve never had a god belief (or any paranormal belief) I’m wondering if others are atheists predominately because of the success of science or the failure of theism.
Click to expand...

Mine's a theism fail also. At age five or six, Sunday School.

We were talking about Heaven, and I asked "Where is heaven? Up in the sky?" while pointing upwards and sounding skeptical. The teacher kind of froze up. Later, my parents told me church was optional. I opted out...
 
To make this on-topic, I would say my rejection of strong-atheism is predominately due to science's failure to explain something as simple as the causal mechanism for conscious experience. Perhaps a model of reality that is more metaphysical is called for.
 
Fudbucker said:
To make this on-topic, I would say my rejection of strong-atheism is predominately due to science's failure to explain something as simple as the causal mechanism for conscious experience. Perhaps a model of reality that is more metaphysical is called for.
Click to expand...
Great stuff! You will remember to post the metaphysical explanation of something as simple as the causal mechanism for conscious experience when you find it I hope. (I won't be holding my breath). In the meantime, please post just one thing that metaphysical explains better than physical.

I'm happy if theists respond to the following sub-heading if they want to . . .

Is your theism predominately a metaphysical success or a science fail?

I put Fudbucker down as a "science fail".
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
To make this on-topic, I would say my rejection of strong-atheism is predominately due to science's failure to explain something as simple as the causal mechanism for conscious experience. Perhaps a model of reality that is more metaphysical is called for.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, the same old "God did it" argument thinly disguised.

You may not appreciate it Fudbucker, but some of us are comfortable with just saying "we don't know" at the present time, but hopeful that an explanation my be forthcoming in the future.

To fall back on the assumption that a metaphysical cause is a solution, and then dress that metaphysical explanation with a few frills and tinsel, doesn't get us anywhere.
 
I did not need science when I was five, when I did not believe in my parent's god.

I had no concept of science but only my constant questioning.

I remember dissing Easter in the toilet to a school mate when about I was about 6, only for it to be reported to the nuns. It was a strict catholic school.

In my teens, I sat, and jumped over both sides of the fence - I put this down to hormones.

Post teens, I found my side of the fence with science backing up my 5 year old reasoning.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom