The Emptiness of Atheism

[Physicist]

Please return to the topic as the discussion is going in the direction of a topic that should be discussed in the science forum.
thanks all

Noted. My apologies. A vice of old professors is that we sometimes tend to ramble off topic if the subject looks interesting.

 

[Rick W]

I'm sure if the topic got off on electronics engineering I'd most likely do the same thing. But your profession is more apt to be brought up.

Thank you

 

[Cornelius]

LOL apologies from my side too. My brain runs around when I see something interesting and off I go.


Physicist , you could perhaps think of a suitable thread to open in the Science forum, along the lines we were talking about ? I am no science expert at all, but I see something in the Bible that certainly can be called science, even if it is not yet called so.

I also like the spirit in which you post.

C

 

[Hugo]

Atheists will often claim there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a specific deity.

There is also evidence against it.

Atheists will point to Darwinism, a fairy tail ripe with gaps and contradictions, as some kind of partial explanation for the origin of certain species.

If you reject worldwide scientific consensus because of an ancient scribe, you aren't applying critical thinking skills.

But when you dig deep into the core of the atheist philosophy, you will find it is a position that totally lacks any coherent explanation for real mysteries of life.

I have finally learned to embrace the mystery of life and the universe, instead of trying to insert a deity or any other religious belief to explain it.

 

[Physicist]

Physicist, have you ever considered how the writers of the Bible knew these facts, all from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth"
Isaiah knew the earth was round

Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing"
Job knew the earth is suspended

Job 26:8 "He wraps up the waters in His clouds and the cloud does not burst under them"
water in the clouds

Psalm 8:8 "and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas."
currents

Ecc 1:7 "Ecclesiastes 1:7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
water cycle and evaporation

I think we have to realize that the OT writers were more poet than scientist and we need take their language in the figurative, rather than literal, sense. Thus Job speaks about the earth hanging on nothing while at the same time talking about the pillars that hold it up ( Job, Chapter 38). Isaiah, in several places, uses the Babylonian three-tiered Universe (heaven above, earth, and gehenna below) to make his spiritual points.

What you will not find in the Bible is a description of the earth as a sphere (dur in Hebrew). In fact, the author of Matthew mistakenly thinks that if you go up to a high enough mountain, you can see all the cities of the earth. True for a flat earth but false for a spherical planet. Does this decrease any moral guidance found in the text? Only if you insist on using the Bible as a science book.

the Bible is not a science book, yet it does compliment science. as a scientist, you must realize the huge number to the nth power of life just happening by chance to occur on a planet that just happens to be in the perfect locale in the universe. the number is astronomical.

Astronomical is the number of stars and planets in the Universe. Yes, it's unlikely that we are here but it is not unlikely that life would appear somewhere. Consider the lottery. It is unlikely that a particular person wins, but not unlikely that someone, somewhere, will win.

However, Rick W. would remind us that we are getting off topic, which is atheism.

Best Regards,

Physicist

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Atheists will often claim there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a specific deity.

There is also evidence against it.

Atheists will point to Darwinism, a fairy tail ripe with gaps and contradictions, as some kind of partial explanation for the origin of certain species.

If you reject worldwide scientific consensus because of an ancient scribe, you aren't applying critical thinking skills.

But when you dig deep into the core of the atheist philosophy, you will find it is a position that totally lacks any coherent explanation for real mysteries of life.

I have finally learned to embrace the mystery of life and the universe, instead of trying to insert a deity or any other religious belief to explain it.

A couple of thoughts...

- I would like to see the evidence that you reference that prooves a God does not exist.

- Very similar to atheists demanding proof of a God, many Christians would demand proof of evolution. Personally, I think evolution is true however, this in no way contradicts the existence of a creator.

- I find your quote below interesting...

I have finally learned to embrace the mystery of life and the universe, instead of trying to insert a deity or any other religious belief to explain it.

You imply that your version of truth through "learning" to embrace it is the only truth. I would like to remind you that you are embracing a concept of only one truth of realizing and experiencing the world very similar to how Christians experience the world with our one truth. I wanted to point out the similarity and also to inquire if you find your adamant rejection of one truth in an effort to embrace your version of the truth to be somewhat ironic?

 

[Orion]

Aero, . . . he [or anyone else] cannot "prove the non-existance of god", anymore then one could disprove the existance of Allah, Thor, Odin, Isis, etc.

It is on the claimer to prove the evidence of it. . . . . . and for a person to deny a claim that has no evidence doesn't mean that they also need to disprove the original claimer.

As for this thead, I've seen Atheist who seem to live a full life.

 

[Hugo]

A couple of thoughts...

- I would like to see the evidence that you reference that prooves a God does not exist.

First of all, lack of evidence is evidence against a theistic god. Theism makes claims of which there is no evidence.

The plurality of gods. The fact that there are competing gods is evidence, which is why it is cited so often by skeptics. Do you believe in a Hindu god?

The fact that religions have no supporting evidence for their plethora of supernatural claims. This leaves you with deism at most.

There's a myriad of psychological, cultural, empirical, scientific evidences against the existence of deities.

- Very similar to atheists demanding proof of a God, many Christians would demand proof of evolution. Personally, I think evolution is true however, this in no way contradicts the existence of a creator.

Yeah I agree, but that view does not follow Occam's razor. Why bend over backwards to make scripture fit reality, when the much more likely explanation is that it's just like any other ancient text?

You imply that your version of truth through "learning" to embrace it is the only truth. I would like to remind you that you are embracing a concept of only one truth of realizing and experiencing the world very similar to how Christians experience the world with our one truth. I wanted to point out the similarity and also to inquire if you find your adamant rejection of one truth in an effort to embrace your version of the truth to be somewhat ironic?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The truth is that we do not know. It is rational (and humble) to concede that we do not know an answer.

 

[azlan88]

Hugo, for you to say that the Bible is just like any other ancient text shows that you don't know what's in the Bible nor understand it. The Bible is the only text that commands people to "test everything."(1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus is the only god who made claims and said, "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does(John 10:37). the Bible is the only ancient text that gives a logical account of creation based on the scientific method. It is the only ancient text that has a personal God who strives to bring his creations into his family, and God is the only god who doesn't have human weaknesses. Zeus cheated on his wife and raped a woman, Artemis was hateful and sexist, Aphrodite destroyed a woman's life because her parents said that she was more beautiful than the goddess, and Odin had a split personality. But God has been faithful and just throughout the Biblical text. The Bible is far different from any other ancient text or pagan god, and our God is great.

 

[Orion]

It is the only ancient text that gives a logical account of creation based on the scientific method?

 

[azlan88]

yes, although proving the existence of God is not something that I can do, the Creation account can be tested to see if light came first (energy), then this, then that. My point was that all other theistic texts don't give an ideally descriptive outline of creation, and they often sound silly and even contradictory.

 

[Hugo]

azlan, I do see your point. I do know what's in the bible and I understand it, but I did not use the best wording in my previous post. I actually thought about changing it, but figured that people would know what I meant.

I do, however, disagree with most of what you've said regarding the bible's uniqueness (Jehovah wasn't hateful?), but I'm not going to get into that here.

What I really meant to say is that it is much more likely that Genesis is not divinely inspired, just like no other ancient text is divinely inspired. There is no extraordinary evidence to support any of them, so why do this fancy footwork to make it resonate with evolution?

 

[azlan88]

I don't want to this to turn into a debate about evolution. But how can you say that there is no extraordinary evidence to support Genises? The text books outline the origin of the universe, the earth, and life in it the same way as the Bible. The big bang was like an explosion, indicating that the universe can be traced back to a beginning. In this explosion, there was an immense amount of superheated energy. Again, we come back to light. We can continue on with this and see a match. It may not prove that God exists, but it does come to show that Genesis does not contradict established science.
Now I would like to get back to something you said. How can you say that God is hateful? Can you please provide an example as evidence?

 

[Hugo]

azlan88, I haven't found any evidence to suspect that the first part of Genesis is any more than what it is, mostly myth and folklore. Even if you could demonstrate that the bible is the best religious text of all, that's still far from demonstrating divine inspiration and veracity.

I thought it was pretty clear that Genesis contradicts modern science, which is why you see mostly allegorical interpretations by educated Christians.

Jehovah was quite a bad character. Which makes sense, since he's simply a reflection of the morality of that culture (it wasn't so bad to kill heathen people of other nations). And I am intimately familiar with all of the attempts to "smooth over" these barbaric portions of scripture. Muslims do the same thing.

 

[azlan88]

You have not given me any evidence that the Genesis creation account is contradicts modern science, nor have you given me specific examples of God's supposed unjust character.

 

[Orion]

Azlan, . . . even if you could suggest some sort of time line that meshes with science, . . . you still have the sun, moon, and stars being created after plant life.

 

[azlan88]

Let's examine that:

after God made grass and herb in Genesis 1:11, he said in Gen 1:14-16,

"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also."

How is this contradictory to science?

 

[Orion]

So that ties in with science? Of course not. Also, the moon isn't a light.

A star is necessary for planets to begin their formation in an orbital session. The earth being created before the stars . . .is completely unscientific.

 

[azlan88]

Are you going to nit pick about the tiny details? The moon was called a light so that the primitive Hebrew tribes could understand it. And it is in fact, in effect, a light when the sun moves behind it, so to speak.

As for the stars, I do know that the moon keeps the earth in orbit, and according to Apollo lunar rock samples, the moon is only 4.25 billion years old compared to earth's 4.59 billion years. If that's not enough info to suit you, then I'm sure that the dellemna can be scientifically resolved. I can call an astronomy hotline that I know of, but I'll have to wait until 5pm. If you are patient, I can give you an answer after that time, but until then we will have to put it off.

 

[Orion]

Are you going to nit pick about the tiny details? The moon was called a light so that the primitive Hebrew tribes could understand it. And it is in fact, in effect, a light when the sun moves behind it, so to speak.

Yes, I am going to be that nit picky. If it were true scientific information, it would have said, "a great light for the day, and a heavenly body to reflect it at night." . . . .or something along those lines.

As for the stars, I do know that the moon keeps the earth in orbit. If that's not enough info to suit you, then I'm sure that the dellemna can be scientifically resolved. I can call an astronomy hotline that I know of, but I'll have to wait until 5pm. If you are patient, I can give you an answer after that time, but until then we will have to put it off.

The earth does not orbit the sun "because of the moon". The earth orbits the sun because of the sun's emmence gravity. Without it there, there would be nothing holding the earth in any orbital pattern.

Regardless, having the sun, moon, AND stars being created AFTER the earth is completely unscientific.