5 ms·

A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience. Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased)

A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience. Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims: "Science is not compatible with religion." Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently. "Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable." But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better. "There is no evidence of a god." But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe? More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith. Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god. Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution). But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being. So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god. The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons. What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.

magashna 7y ago
Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)
Starwatcher2001 7y ago
"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god" Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend. "What's your best atheist argument?" I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we? As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.
- lorriman 7y ago
  "Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism." Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God". Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse. But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers. Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist): Either you: 1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way. Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate. We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'? Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.

magashna 7y ago

Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.

zzo38computer 7y ago
That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)

Starwatcher2001 7y ago

"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god" Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend. "What's your best atheist argument?" I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we? As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.

lorriman 7y ago
"Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism." Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God". Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse. But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers. Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist): Either you: 1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way. Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate. We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'? Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.