Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

I enjoy trying to understand the perspectives of different posters. I don't enjoy when posters won't actually answer questions posed because they don't have an actual response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

I don't want to convince anyone, or dunk on the religious, or own the believers. I've enjoyed reading here -- very informative, lots of different points of view, expressed safely, on an anonymous message board.

Makes me wonder if you feel dunked on or owned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

One would hope that decision makers and politicians would weigh competing interests and attempt to strike a compromise. On abortion, this could look like: first trimester - no restrictions; second trimester - little to limited restrictions; third trimester - restrictions.

When governments try to impose strict restrictions starting in the first trimester, then those decision makers are imposing their "beliefs" on me. Consequentially, the health and lives of many women are being affected, even those that ideologically are opposed to abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

Believers saying show me proof there is not god is not a valid point. As has been pointed out numerous times, its not possible to disprove. However, the inability to disprove something does not also make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion and science are not in conflict unless someone is trying to use supernatural forces to explain things in the natural world.

Every single thing you have ever observed in the natural world is not the result of supernatural forces. According to science.

Correct. Observations of the natural world are not the result of supernatural forces. Let's call those observations data.

It is the interpretation of that data in terms of what it means and how it may be applied where the conflict arises. There are plenty of examples of decisionmakers (law, policy, government, etc) that do not separate their beliefs from how data is utilized. Therefore, there is conflict between science and religion.

Yup. There are no supernatural forces behind any observations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

If your beliefs are driven by the stories and culture around supernatural forces then that is a conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

Believers saying show me proof there is not god is not a valid point. As has been pointed out numerous times, its not possible to disprove. However, the inability to disprove something does not also make it true.

This is right. Scientifically, you can neither prove nor can you disprove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

It's more fun than the eldercare forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

Believers saying show me proof there is not god is not a valid point. As has been pointed out numerous times, its not possible to disprove. However, the inability to disprove something does not also make it true.

It's actually that you can't prove a metaphysical, not that you can't disprove a negative.

Can you prove that love exists... no.
Can you prove that love doesn't exist... no.

Not because they do or don't but because it's not physical.

[Anonymous]

Ok believers. None of you have yet to actually answer some of the questions raised. Come on. Let's see what you've got. Surely if you kneel and pray on it strongly enough, the holy spirit will move through you to type out such a profound point that you will assuredly convert at least one atheist on here. Or, at the very minimum, at least make a logical argument why your fellow believers get to impose those beliefs on others through law, policy, court decisions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

Believers saying show me proof there is not god is not a valid point. As has been pointed out numerous times, its not possible to disprove. However, the inability to disprove something does not also make it true.

It's actually that you can't prove a metaphysical, not that you can't disprove a negative.

Can you prove that love exists... no.
Can you prove that love doesn't exist... no.

Not because they do or don't but because it's not physical.

Love increases dopamine levels and activates certain portions of the brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok believers. None of you have yet to actually answer some of the questions raised. Come on. Let's see what you've got. Surely if you kneel and pray on it strongly enough, the holy spirit will move through you to type out such a profound point that you will assuredly convert at least one atheist on here. Or, at the very minimum, at least make a logical argument why your fellow believers get to impose those beliefs on others through law, policy, court decisions, etc.

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[b] to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I finally figured out why this entire thread - starting with post 2, not the OP - feels so odd.

The goal on the part of the atheist poster(s) is not to convince anyone. It's to dunk on the religious. It's "own the believers," the nasty culture of our politics come out to play in what should be a philosophical discussion.

Is this really fun for anyone?

IDK,

I'm Catholic, many times people will say Christian's believe X and Ill say not Catholics. Or a Catholic will say the pope says Y and Ill say the pope is fallible, he isn't creating doctrine. It's nice he said that but okay, I can disagree with the pope.

I'm not dumping on anyone, I'm just pointing out something that is not correct.

Atheists do the same thing. It's not dumping to say "that is not correct". Just like believers say show me proof there is not god... that's a valid point not dumping.

I also think most people can have a conversation they have points and counter points and are not open to learning.

Believers saying show me proof there is not god is not a valid point. As has been pointed out numerous times, its not possible to disprove. However, the inability to disprove something does not also make it true.

It's actually that you can't prove a metaphysical, not that you can't disprove a negative.

Can you prove that love exists... no.
Can you prove that love doesn't exist... no.

Not because they do or don't but because it's not physical.

Love increases dopamine levels and activates certain portions of the brain.

1 Corinthians 13.1-13

The Gift of Love

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok believers. None of you have yet to actually answer some of the questions raised. Come on. Let's see what you've got. Surely if you kneel and pray on it strongly enough, the holy spirit will move through you to type out such a profound point that you will assuredly convert at least one atheist on here. Or, at the very minimum, at least make a logical argument why your fellow believers get to impose those beliefs on others through law, policy, court decisions, etc.

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[b] to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

The above scripture supports why I believe in separation of church and state. I don’t think Christians should Impose their beliefs on anyone and they should be law abiding, tax paying citizens (which Trump does not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.

Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin

Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.

Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.

That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.

The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.

Just because some scientists hold religious beliefs, does not add evidence for belief in religion. Science and religion are at odds, especially when it comes to the effects of Abrahamic beliefs on things like the science of reproduction, research into fields affecting ontogeny, end of life decision making, etc.

Does not need to. Epistemologists and a large majority of scientists hold religious and scientific knowledge to pertain to different domaines. Religious beliefs and practices are ontological and cultural - they cannot be validated via scientific method.

Except it does. Especially when a research proposal goes before an ethics review board. Those religious beliefs are definitely impacting their decision making. And, as pointed out previously and you have addressed, it also impacts lawmakers when making laws.

And judges when deciding cases.

Which is why the separation of church and state is so important.

We don't want to make decisions for the natural world based on supernatural beliefs.

This is something I genuinely don't understand about this argument: how do you respond to an atheist who holds those same positions on something like abortion or euthanasia deciding a court case? Because when you talk about court decisions and politics, you're not talking about religious beliefs like "Jesus is God" you're talking about ethical beliefs, mostly about abortion. A decent number of religious "nones" think abortion should be generally illegal. Are they allowed to vote, be legislators, and make court decisions based on that belief or not?

-DP

Easy general rule of thumb. Decisions that affect only yourself should be left only to oneself to make once someone reaches an age where their mind has developed cognitively enough. My body, my choice - not yours, or anyone else who wants to impose their beliefs on me.

Everyone agrees to this. The question is if a fetus is a self deserving of protection of personhood; and the contradictions it involves. Many people seem to think a fetus is a person when a woman who is 7 months pregnant is murdered and the fetus dies too; but not when a poor woman aborts her 7 month old fetus because she is poor.