The Trouble with Militant Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

No, I didn't misunderstand you. But I think you didn't get my point, due to your Christian concept. Religion does take faith. However, I don't believe in Creation; I don't need to believe in something I'm sure about. I don't believe in the existence of the wind. I know that it exists, because I can feel it. Believing is just a step.

And when I say that it takes faith to support BBT, it's because it does not explain anything. If it doesn't, it is, at least, incomplete. Assuming that something incomplete is completely true does take a lot of faith. For if you don't believe in it with all your mind and heart, you'll realise that it's not enough and that you're still ignorant about the universe in which you live.

Hmm actually u've help me clarify my own thoughts quite a bit. Thanks man.
The BBT explains the origin of the universe, but, as you've rightly mentioned, only with the finite amount of current knowledge we have. You're also right that it's incomplete: there could be some new discovery tomorrow that will disprove the whole thing.

But no scientific theory purports to explain everything (that's actually been proven to be impossible by a gentleman named Godel). For example: the Navier-Stokes equations are crucial in explaining how fluids move, but have inherent problems (existence and smoothness) as well. The current theory of gravity is still incomplete because nobody knows exactly what goes on inside blackholes, and because nobody is going to volunteer to go inside one to do experiments, we can only extrapolate from what we know. But this doesn't mean we throw the entire theory of gravitation away. Our knowledge of the universe is incomplete (duh), so logic is the best recourse to exploring the areas of science which are impossible for us to physically explore.



Yes, that is actual religious faith.
But no scientist will claim that some scientific theory is indubitably and immutably true for all time. As any student of elementary statistics will know, strictly speaking in science there's no such thing as "true", only "false" and "not false".

Yes, I definitely agree with you - again. Certainly no theory has the intention to explain everything or to be something that can't even be questioned. Because, as I mentioned here in some of the posts, it's a theory, and theory is speculation and observation. Due to our limitations, we can't go further. The example you gave about the theory of gravity is great.

And surely scientists (at least not all of them) don't claim their theories to be the definitive truth. What I'm saying here in this thread is more an answer to the atheists who actually do take the theories as unquestionable truths, with the only purpose of being against everything that can be related to religion. You've probably seen it yourself.

Does your fantasy explain what happened before "God created the heavens and earth"?


On the contrary, the Big Bang theory explains many things including our expanding universe, the cosmic microwave background, and the abundances of primordial elements heaver than hydrogen. Creationism explains nothing.


Ideas stand on their own merit, not on that of their originator. Either the theory is valid or it's not, regardless of who thought of it, even if, e.g., it can be shown that person was a raving lunatic in an asylum.


As creationists are so fond of asking, "were you there?"


I'm not a "true believer" in anything aside from the axioms of mathematics. If evidence ever invalidates the Big Bang theory it will die and a better one will take its place. No one will claim that evidence must either be misinterpreted by scientists or deliberately created by Satan to deceive us. No one will twist the rules to keep the Big Bang theory alive despite the new evidence.


Do you have a link to an article published by "some scientists" in a peer-reviewed journal where they unequivocally state that drinking coffee is bad for human health? It's rather more likely they said that coffee consumption is statistically correlated with health problems. In any case it's entirely possible for something to be simultaneously bad and good for one's health. An example of this phenomenon is moderate alcohol consumption which, amongst other things, increases the risk of various cancers while decreasing that of cardiovascular disease.

I haven't the faintest clue what any of this has to do with cosmology though.


Science is the best tool we have for understanding our universe.


Non sequitur. We can't currently observe every planet in every galaxy in the universe. It's highly unlikely we'll ever be able to do so. How do you expect science to definitively answer the question of whether there is intelligent life elsewhere?


Your views on this subject appear to be at odds with those of other believers in monotheistic religions. They generally claim humankind to be supremely relevant and even go so far as to say the entire cosmos was created just for us. In reality the concept of importance is rather arbitrary; nothing is intrinsically important.

Yes; but it's unclear to me how a hypothesis that wasn't grounded in observation could make any testable predictions.


Religion is also similar to drug use in the following way: only when it doesn't harm others should it be a matter of personal choice.

Last edited by dmm1010 on 02 Dec 2011, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

and so the age of smelly fish fighting came to its begnning.

I see Jesus has been here, over-fishing the Oceans, and trying to kill the last fish.

Tadzio

Different criticism. The two things I photo-commented on; these are great examples of how atheists make arses of themselves and frightfully hurting the claim that they have some sort of intelligence over the religious. A few simple tricks of logical fallacy, maybe combining two or three in smaller amounts rather than making one blatant where having it vulnerable to be torn down for what it is has shown to be undesirable, it looks like an epic battle of dogma on dogma. Definitionally I didn't think atheism was a religion but, I do see people - often - who make me wonder if many so-called atheists either don't know that, have forgotten, or maybe even abandoned that outlook.

Ironically, the problem with militant atheism is they become what they hate - dogmatic.

There are several competing hypothesis for what went on "before". The never ending expansion or "multiverse" theory is one of them. It is not that hard to understand that something simply exists, unless that is too much for one's mind to handle. The theory was put forward by a Catholic priest, so what? Plenty of scientists are Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu... it is irrelevant who gave the theory. It was later shown to be accurate through direct observation. As time has gone on and our ability to see into distant space has improved, many of the mathematical model's predictions have proven to be accurate.

Creation is a *fact*? How arrogant. You Creationists are amongst the most arrogant bunch in existence. You provide no evidence other than a bronze age book to support your illogical beliefs. Yet feel it deserves to be taught alongside science that has been steadily advancing despite everything your forerunners have done to try and stop it. Level "its just a theory" as if that is a criticism. I am almost sure you will not understand this, but "Creationism is not even wrong"- that is one of the most serious insults one can give to a viewpoint or hypothesis. And what was there before God? Was God created too? Since everything in your narrow view of the universe must have a purpose, so to would your Creator. And thus he would have had to have been created. It provides no more of an answer for what you ask than the Big Bang. It just makes you and your ilk feel warm and fuzzy inside because it requires zero thinking or questioning to validate for little minds



Your failure is showing again

Last edited by Vigilans on 02 Dec 2011, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ironically, all "militant" Atheists do is piss Religiots off on the internet and sometimes in person. And yet your kind act as if they are the greatest threat to Western civilization. It is truly hilarious

I might sound quite ignorant, but... What are militant atheists?

I'm asking because I was raised by atheists and my husband is one (though he often declares himself an agnostic). I also know many atheists. So I guess it would be nice to know how to recognize a militant one. (Carrying a keyboard around?)