Evidence for God from Science

I've read some of Dawkins and I've also been over to that forum, although I don't believe I've ever posted there.

Dawkins is a pretty clear example of a militant atheist and they do indeed tend to be the most vocal, especially on sites where they can create controversy. I also know some Christians who can be pretty militant, vocal and controversial as well. Frankly, at times I think there's some striking similarities between the extremes in both camps.

I'm not defending atheism. I just don't see what value there is in attempting to stereotype and lump people all into one group and make blanket statements. On one hand, it's just not accurate and on another, it looses sight of the fact that many who today describe themselves as atheists may just be waiting for a patient and loving Christian who respects them enough to discuss issues and explain how they have come to Christ and found him to be both relational and rational.

That's really one of the purposes of this board; to encourage that dialogue with unbelievers who are open to the discussion. Stereotyping and deciding before you even have a conversation with an individual who they are and how they think, isn't a very effective way to have that kind of conversation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I've read some of Dawkins and I've also been over to that forum, although I don't believe I've ever posted there.

Dawkins is a pretty clear example of a militant atheist and they do indeed tend to be the most vocal, especially on sites where they can create controversy. I also know some Christians who can be pretty militant, vocal and controversial as well. Frankly, at times I think there's some striking similarities between the extremes in both camps.

I'm not defending atheism. I just don't see what value there is in attempting to stereotype and lump people all into one group and make blanket statements. On one hand, it's just not accurate and on another, it looses sight of the fact that many who today describe themselves as atheists may just be waiting for a patient and loving Christian who respects them enough to discuss issues and explain how they have come to Christ and found him to be both relational and rational.

That's really one of the purposes of this board; to encourage that dialogue with unbelievers who are open to the discussion. Stereotyping and deciding before you even have a conversation with an individual who they are and how they think, isn't a very effective way to have that kind of conversation.

Hi Bart, could you please tell me how I go about "talking behind the scenes" with you as I'd really like to make my position clear and to apologise if I seem brusque. I'd like to get this nonsense straight so I can proceed and perhaps change my ways if I'm really being so offensive…

Dan

Hi Dan,

When you click on a person's board ID you should be taken to their profile. On the left hand side you should be able to locate the options to PM (Personal Message someone on the Board, or, if they've enabled it, to email them directly.

If you look above in the forums, you should see a User Control Panel. It will tell you if you have new personal messages.

Let me know if that doesn't help. If you would like, I can send you an email, if you've allowed it to be seen, and discuss anything you need there.

Hope that helps,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:I've read some of Dawkins and I've also been over to that forum, although I don't believe I've ever posted there.

Dawkins is a pretty clear example of a militant atheist and they do indeed tend to be the most vocal, especially on sites where they can create controversy. I also know some Christians who can be pretty militant, vocal and controversial as well. Frankly, at times I think there's some striking similarities between the extremes in both camps.

I totally agree Bart, and sometimes it is so hard to differintiate the truth from lies. But we have been warned that it would be like that!

Kindly.

Zebulon

i kind of agree with bart but all i have to say is that ive talked to a lot of athiests one of my friends was a satanist and all of them sounded just alike you act like we're throwing them all in one group but the thing is we're not in this forum by posting this im trying to use it as aguidline to make it easier to witness to athiests if anything mainly to expose the weak points in wich to hit so that they can come to jesus because i feel like my lifes purpose revolves around debate but not just ordinary debate i feel lit evolves around debating with athiests so it plants the seeds for the stat of a new life style for them and ive discovered over the years my debating has made them think about how they themselves sound and really think about the inconsistencies in their thoeries yes granted they all have different ideas but im focusing on the most common among them that none of them believe in god and in this forum we're discussing why and what ultamitley is holding them back and i think you misunderstood that and you need to look at this forum in a positive light

treeschanna510 wrote:...talked to a lot of athiests one of my friends was a satanist...

Is it possible to be a Satanist and Atheist?
To believe in one, you must believe in the other...no? Just wondering.
.
.

There is a distinction to be made between a Satanist, as in one who worships Satan, and a Satanist as in a member or follower of the Church of Satan as founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in the 60's. The former is theistic the latter is atheistic.

Here's an an interview with Peter H Gilmore, the High Priest of the Church of Satan explaining their position. In short as Satan is set in opposition to God the label Satanism was chosen to show that one is in opposition to anything vaguely religious or spiritual.

In contrast we have Theistic Satanism.

Lavey's thoughts are best known through the publication of the Satanic Bible. From the one member of the Church of Satan I'm in contact with theistic satanists are seen just as delusional as the average Christian, or more like stupid kids sacrificing animals and the media having a field day with it and talking about their record collection.

I'm not trying to advocate either position, just clarify differences within Satanism.

DannyM wrote:I was told by an atheist once the Oxford is wrong, while telling me the Wikipedia is right…I kid you not!

Whilst I wouldn't claim that wikipedia is right the definition given certainly allows for more scope. This does remind me a little of a post made by Jerry McDonald I read a while back, can't recall where, where he took issue with the Merriam Webster definition of faith and was of the opinion that Christian faith should be defined through the Bible and not through the modern dictionary. I would be wary of forcing the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism upon atheists, the dictionary definition is not set in stone and may well see a change in coming editions.

We must pause to laugh and relish in the decline of this weird, confused worldview. It is a joy to behold.

I'd rather not get in to a stats war but I was under the impression the general consensus was that atheism was very much on the rise as opposed to decline.
On another note, and I know I've said this a few times here, but the above quote is pretty much exactly the way many atheists react to the decline of Christianity or theism in general. I don't find that taking time to pause and laugh at people a particularly useful approach to the world at large, saying that I do have the odd chuckle when checking in at failblog.

I would always hesistate to call what we consider lost souls as a joy to behold. Call it tragic, sad, but never a joy.

a good number of scientists I have met over the years have been earnest in their skepticism. They can be just as kind, just as sincere, and very warm. whether they would be true atheists we can certainly quibble about, but I was humbled by their earnest desire to learn more about creation.

I have had encounters with rabid Chrstians with poor scholarship and rabid atheists with poor scholarship. Both are entirely distasteful, but I know which group has the least defense for being so!

lol well of course they arent the same thing but i mean one set of my friends were athiests and the other were satanists my main ones were christian but i loved them all the same

now maybe we should get back on topic >_>

Proinsias wrote:Whilst I wouldn't claim that wikipedia is right the definition given certainly allows for more scope. This does remind me a little of a post made by Jerry McDonald I read a while back, can't recall where, where he took issue with the Merriam Webster definition of faith and was of the opinion that Christian faith should be defined through the Bible and not through the modern dictionary. I would be wary of forcing the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism upon atheists, the dictionary definition is not set in stone and may well see a change in coming editions. .

Oh of course. But the point I am making is that the atheist said Oxford is wrong and in the same breath that Wikipedia is right. I mean, you couldn't write this kind of stuff. I understand your point about relying on a single dictionary definition; I know what atheism means in spite of Oxford, but I cited Oxford be cause I had a pack of atheists begging for a source.

Proinsias wrote:I'd rather not get in to a stats war but I was under the impression the general consensus was that atheism was very much on the rise as opposed to decline.
On another note, and I know I've said this a few times here, but the above quote is pretty much exactly the way many atheists react to the decline of Christianity or theism in general. I don't find that taking time to pause and laugh at people a particularly useful approach to the world at large, saying that I do have the odd chuckle when checking in at failblog.

Well, I'll let you do the checking, but the last time I looked atheism made up 2.4% of the world's population. And this is indeed down on modern figures. The post-modern age has indeed awoken to the vacuity of the atheist/secular worldview. Christianity is actually on the rise — Asia/South America/etc…Look it up. There's a book been out about a year not (I think) called The Case For God by Karen Armstrong (hope I got that name right) and it details the rise in Christianity in massive depth. So the atheists would once again be lying to themselves and each other. Now, I don't know about you, but I could never lie to myself and be comfortable with it…Yet these people can.

DannyM wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I'd rather not get in to a stats war but I was under the impression the general consensus was that atheism was very much on the rise as opposed to decline.
On another note, and I know I've said this a few times here, but the above quote is pretty much exactly the way many atheists react to the decline of Christianity or theism in general. I don't find that taking time to pause and laugh at people a particularly useful approach to the world at large, saying that I do have the odd chuckle when checking in at failblog.

Well, I'll let you do the checking, but the last time I looked atheism made up 2.4% of the world's population. And this is indeed down on modern figures. The post-modern age has indeed awoken to the vacuity of the atheist/secular worldview. Christianity is actually on the rise — Asia/South America/etc…Look it up. There's a book been out about a year not (I think) called The Case For God by Karen Armstrong (hope I got that name right) and it details the rise in Christianity in massive depth. So the atheists would once again be lying to themselves and each other. Now, I don't know about you, but I could never lie to myself and be comfortable with it…Yet these people can.

Yeah, I wasn't really thinking about Asia/South America etc. It wouldn't surprise me if Christianity is on the rise when we look at the whole world. I was more thinking about US/UK and whatnot.

The post modern age may have awoken to the vacuity of the atheist/secular worldview but the British public have responded to this awakening by going to church far less than they used to and generally practicing less religion than before the awakening.

How we determine Christian is also worth thinking about, the UK census for 2001 claims the UK 71.8% Christian. I get the feeling that if the God and Science forum could to talk to all of that 71.8% a good deal would not be thought of as Christian, I'd be keen to know how many have read the bible.

I do worry about the accuracy of worldwide stats regarding religious beliefs, it's a very personal thing and in many places either religion or atheism is still relatively taboo.

Proinsias wrote: Yeah, I wasn't really thinking about Asia/South America etc. It wouldn't surprise me if Christianity is on the rise when we look at the whole world. I was more thinking about US/UK and whatnot. The post modern age may have awoken to the vacuity of the atheist/secular worldview but the British public have responded to this awakening by going to church far less than they used to and generally practicing less religion than before the awakening. How we determine Christian is also worth thinking about, the UK census for 2001 claims the UK 71.8% Christian. I get the feeling that if the God and Science forum could to talk to all of that 71.8% a good deal would not be thought of as Christian, I'd be keen to know how many have read the bible. I do worry about the accuracy of worldwide stats regarding religious beliefs, it's a very personal thing and in many places either religion or atheism is still relatively taboo.

Hmm. I know what the UK stats say, but we have to remember that a drop in congregations does not = a drop in Christians. Church politics/ethics/liberalism is an issue very close to my heart, Proinsias, so sound the bell and I'll give it to you from the hip, but I'd hate to rant away with a disinterested sparring partner...

I also believe the US to be a lot more Christian than the UK, or perhaps I should say a lot less secular. In the UK we are certainly largely Christian, but the chattering classes and liberalised institutions are becoming more and more secular; not only secular, but anti-religion and specifically Christianity. I'm happy with this to an extent, but not so happy for this to be portrayed as some sort of a proof of a decline in the Christian home/family. I certainly see a drop, but not a very significant drop.

Dan

zoegirl wrote:I would always hesistate to call what we consider lost souls as a joy to behold. Call it tragic, sad, but never a joy.

a good number of scientists I have met over the years have been earnest in their skepticism. They can be just as kind, just as sincere, and very warm. whether they would be true atheists we can certainly quibble about, but I was humbled by their earnest desire to learn more about creation.

I have had encounters with rabid Chrstians with poor scholarship and rabid atheists with poor scholarship. Both are entirely distasteful, but I know which group has the least defense for being so!

I missed this, Zoe - I do agree with you, and I freely acknowledge my language can sometimes border on the side of unattractice gloating. I do want you to know, though, that my pleasure is taken purely from the decline of what I consider to be a repulsive and vacuous worldview; I'm not taking any pleasure in the decline of a person, and *would* never, but rather this repugnant movement.

I'm not getting defensive, Zoe, but I felt I wanted you to know that I know how I can sometimes come across.

no problem