Ask an Atheist Anything

Who is talking about being close-minded?

Now, tell me, what evidence for the existence of God has the scientific community ignored?

Tell me, oh Please tell me, if there is an evidence for the existence of God, any scientist would jump on it and present it to the world and be considered as the Greatest Scientist ever in history, imagine the prestige, the honor it would bring. Why no one has done it yet? Because such evidence cannot be found yet.

And if a time comes Science does prove the existence of a Personal God, I will be the first one to believe it.

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

nanox wrote: Atheism requires the same faith in one's own certainty about the universe that theism does.

This is what I actually said. I realize that the subtleties of sense and reference are lost on you, but don't put words in my mouth.

Your certainty of being right about things you cannot possibly know is faith based thinking. And the level of knowledge you claim to possess is near omniscient.

Not all Atheists are like you (thankfully). Most of them are rationalists who rely on the scientific method to learn about their universe (as do many of us agnostics). But no true scientist claims to possess The Truth (that is the role of faith based thinking and a claim you have made often).

A true scientist is a dialectical thinker who realizes that theories have to be open to change based on new information as it is discovered. The search for such discovery never ends and a closed mind discovers nothing.

A scientist doesn't seek information to confirm his beliefs, he searches to disprove them.

You, boy, are no scientist. You're a charlatan.

Who is talking about certainty?

Even Richard Dawkins who is the most known and celebrated atheist in the world right now, that when pushed, he would say he is 90 percent atheist, 10 percent agnostic. That is what it means, that it is more likely that a god exist than otherwise.

I cannot be as gracious as him, I give it 99-1 chance. And that 10 percent Dawkins has for the existence of god, is reserved for the indifferent god, the deistic view, a personal god, would score much lower I am sure for him.

One need only read your sermons to see the certainty and truth you claim.

Science =/= Atheism

Science may be a priori in some respects, but I never once claimed it was faith based.

nanox wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

nanox wrote: Atheism requires the same faith in one's own certainty about the universe that theism does.

This is what I actually said. I realize that the subtleties of sense and reference are lost on you, but don't put words in my mouth.

Your certainty of being right about things you cannot possibly know is faith based thinking. And the level of knowledge you claim to possess is near omniscient.

Not all Atheists are like you (thankfully). Most of them are rationalists who rely on the scientific method to learn about their universe (as do many of us agnostics). But no true scientist claims to possess The Truth (that is the role of faith based thinking and a claim you have made often).

A true scientist is a dialectical thinker who realizes that theories have to be open to change based on new information as it is discovered. The search for such discovery never ends and a closed mind discovers nothing.

A scientist doesn't seek information to confirm his beliefs, he searches to disprove them.

You, boy, are no scientist. You're a charlatan.

Who is talking about certainty?

Even Richard Dawkins who is the most known and celebrated atheist in the world right now, that when pushed, he would say he is 90 percent atheist, 10 percent agnostic. That is what it means, that it is more likely that a god exist than otherwise.

I cannot be as gracious as him, I give it 99-1 chance. And that 10 percent Dawkins has for the existence of god, is reserved for the indifferent god, the deistic view, a personal god, would score much lower I am sure for him.

One need only read your sermons to see the certainty and truth you claim.

Science =/= Atheism

Science may be a priori in some respects, but I never once claimed it was faith based.

The sermons you think when I defend reason are the Sermons the Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins and all the other atheist scientists have used. Most of their arguments I have borrowed and improved on.

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

UltimateContrarian wrote:

nanox wrote:

nanox wrote: Atheism requires the same faith in one's own certainty about the universe that theism does.

This is what I actually said. I realize that the subtleties of sense and reference are lost on you, but don't put words in my mouth.

Your certainty of being right about things you cannot possibly know is faith based thinking. And the level of knowledge you claim to possess is near omniscient.

Not all Atheists are like you (thankfully). Most of them are rationalists who rely on the scientific method to learn about their universe (as do many of us agnostics). But no true scientist claims to possess The Truth (that is the role of faith based thinking and a claim you have made often).

A true scientist is a dialectical thinker who realizes that theories have to be open to change based on new information as it is discovered. The search for such discovery never ends and a closed mind discovers nothing.

A scientist doesn't seek information to confirm his beliefs, he searches to disprove them.

You, boy, are no scientist. You're a charlatan.

Who is talking about certainty?

Even Richard Dawkins who is the most known and celebrated atheist in the world right now, that when pushed, he would say he is 90 percent atheist, 10 percent agnostic. That is what it means, that it is more likely that a god exist than otherwise.

I cannot be as gracious as him, I give it 99-1 chance. And that 10 percent Dawkins has for the existence of god, is reserved for the indifferent god, the deistic view, a personal god, would score much lower I am sure for him.

One need only read your sermons to see the certainty and truth you claim.

Science =/= Atheism

Science may be a priori in some respects, but I never once claimed it was faith based.

The sermons you think when I defend reason are the Sermons the Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins and all the other atheist scientists have used. Most of their arguments I have borrowed and improved on.

Yeah, you're clearly their intellectual superior.

Stop, I'm gonna pee.

That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach.

Do not exaggerate it for your own purpose.

And yes, there are many religious scientists. There are also religious people who share atheistic views, though, didn't care about. Most religious people actually have seen through the bullshit of their holy books and have managed to ignore the barbaric parts and have just incorporated the good parts to their overall moral philosophy.

I am attacking the Idea of a God, since the concept of a God has been made accountable for the things we do not understand yet, or maybe never will should humanity sabotages itself. The religious ingeniously created there God to be always defended by any criticism and against all reason, by putting God outside the realms of the natural universe. And anybody who claims to know beyond this natural universe, is talking bullshit.

And also because, God itself needs an explanation, if a question on how such thing began or came to be, and if someone tells you God did it, it doesn't answer the question, it doesn't explain anything. You are still left with the sack you are holding on.

And if one should be satisfied with that answer, then the questioning, the adventure of discovering, the joys of understanding has stopped.

Sofronitsky wrote: That first Dawkins bumper sticker is hilarious. This is what y'all are dazzled by? Read Hegel and Kierkegaard and listen to Bach. And that's just the beginning.

"Satisfied with not understanding the world" my a**.

I quite enjoy Kierkegaard and you are the second person to suggest Hegel in this forum. I honestly have no good excuse for not having read him.

And be mindful that dear Aaron has only made it up to Rand so far. He has a long way to go.