The Great Debate - atheism versus theism - OR naturalist religion versus supernaturalist religion.

THE DEBATE:

 

Ron Harris (atheist)

Stated in common sense, plain language, the salvation story is pure nonsense.

________________________________________________

7tenths (atheist)

Well said...pure man-made fiction...by ignorant men.

________________________________________________

budderflyman (atheist)

I was actually told by a priest who later became an archbishop that the Church believes Mary was 12 when she became impregnated. Now, either Joseph, God, or the angel Gabriel was a child molester. Or, more likely, the whole story was made up.

_______________________________________________

Truth in science (theist)

Atheism revealed as false- why God MUST exist

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15818838060

_______________________________________________

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

How can atheism be revealed as "false"? Atheism is very much real. It is a belief in the non existence of any gods. It is a true belief system.

 

Where is your evidence for a prime mover?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

 

Logic, natural law and fundamental principles of science prove that atheism is false.

 

The law of cause and effect (which is the premier law, basic to all science and applicable to all natural entities) demonstrates that God (the supernatural first cause) must exist. That law alone exposes atheism as false, illogical nonsense.

 

Consider this simple, short chain of causes and effects:

A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.

 

‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference.

Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause ‘A’. Why?

Because ‘A’ is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn't rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without ‘A’. They are entirely dependent on ‘A’.

The causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas ‘A’ is not an effect, only a cause. So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We can also say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D & E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We must also say that ‘A’ is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.

Why?

Because if ‘A’ came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being, which would mean ‘A’ was not the first cause (‘A’ could not create ‘A’). The something that brought ‘A’ into being would be the first cause. In which case, ‘A’ would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We also have to say that ‘A’ has to be adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence.

E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.

The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on ‘A’ for their existence and for all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to ‘A’ whether singly or combined.

‘A’ had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E, including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

 

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe. Because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

 

Conclusion… A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than anything that exists).

Natural law and fundamental principles of science tell us; that NO ‘natural’ entity can possibly have those attributes.

That is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist - and atheism is revealed as false.

 

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

How is causality a "chain"? At best you can trace back some necessary conditions for a given event that seems chainlike. Without a chain of causes you cannot have "superior" causes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

 

The law of cause and effect, which is the fundamental principle behind scientific research, tells us that every natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause.

 

Therefore we must be able to trace every effect and its cause/s back through time (however long the chain of causes and effects) to an original first cause.

 

If you believe in the big bang, for example, the initial explosion would have caused the expansion of matter, which was subsequently caused (presumably by gravity) to coalesce into cosmic bodies, and so on through numerous other causes - one or more causes leading to other cause/s in a chain right up to the origin of the Earth and first life - and (if you believe in evolution) then through a chain of causes right up to human life. Whether there is one or more chains of causes happening at the same time, or even causes that combine or overlap, doesn't make any difference. At some stage they all originate from an original, first cause, and science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

So the first cause has to embody everything we see in the universe, all properties, powers, qualities and potentialities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

An "adequate" cause? Do you mean the cause must be sufficient for its effect? If so, that has nothing to do with tracing back along a chain of necessary conditions to the earliest necessary condition.

 

"The effect cannot be greater than the cause. So the first cause has to embody everything we see in the universe, all properties, powers, qualities and potentialities."

 

What do you mean by the effect not being greater than its cause? In what respect must a cause be greater than any of its effects? Must a cause be greater than any of its effects in every way? What about those ways that are not comparable? Have you taken into account "emergence"? For example, the momentum of the particles of a gas colliding with the walls of its container generates (causes) pressure. So is the momentum of the particles greater than the pressure they generate in all important respects? These are incommensurable properties: how can you compare them for this lesser/greater relation?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

You wrote:

What do you mean by the effect not being greater than its cause? In what respect must a cause be greater than any of its effects?

 

I didn't say a cause must be greater than its effects. It is the other way round. An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

 

Most effects we see today, are not due to a single cause, they have a combination of several causes. Included in those causes are the inherent properties of the entity involved, which are described by natural laws.

If an apple falls off a tree, for example, there are many causes, some are inherent properties of the tree and of matter. The causes range from the tree growing from an original seed which has landed on the ground, being watered and nourished by rain and soil, its flowers being pollinated, forming a fruit (apple) and when ripe, being caused by gravity to fall to the ground.

 

Probably a better example would be the act of striking a match and causing a forest fire.

It could be said that the effect, i.e. the forest fire is far greater than the act of striking a match. But, of course, it isn't that simple, because the match is not the only cause.

The inflammable material has been formed over many years of the trees growing and building up a store of energy from the Sun and soil. The match is simply a trigger which causes the energy stored in all the trees to be released in a forest fire.

 

When we talk about the very first cause, that is a completely different matter, because it is a single cause that is solely responsible for every effect that follows it..

It is the cause of everything, even the inherent properties of natural entities, such as natural laws, which can eventually act as contributing causes themselves.

So nothing in the universe can ever be greater than the first cause, because it is the only cause responsible for the whole universe. The cause of its properties, its structure, its laws, its qualities, its powers, its potentialities and even of time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

"When we talk about the very first cause, that is a completely different matter, because it is a single cause that is solely responsible for every effect that follows it..

It is the cause of everything, even the inherent properties of natural entities, such as natural laws, which can eventually act as causes themselves."

 

Pure speculation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

 

It is not speculation it is a logical conclusion.

If you don't agree that the first cause is responsible for everything it causes.

Then tell me why you don't agree with it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

But you are making an exception by claiming that there is a first cause and that that first cause is different from other causes. How do you know that there is a first cause and that it is different from other causes? If all you use is the cosmological argument, you are still making an exception of the first cause.

 

Regarding that argument, you wrote earlier: "At some stage they all originate from an original, first cause, and science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it. The effect cannot be greater than the cause."

 

I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

 

You asked:

"How do you know that there is a first cause and that it is different from other causes?"

 

Because everything in the natural realm is contingent. Every natural entity/event/effect has to have an adequate or sufficient cause. Contingency is an inherent property of ALL natural things.

It is summed up in the law of cause and effect which is the fundamental principle of the scientific method.

There is no such thing as an autonomous, non-contingent natural entity, to suggest that goes against scientific principles.

So, obviously, as all natural entities are contingent (they all rely on causes), if we trace back all causes in the universe we must eventually reach a first cause, however long the chain of causes, it must have a beginning, at some stage, in a very first cause.

The very fist cause cannot be contingent, it has no cause, if it did it wouldn't be the first cause. So it is uncaused, and therefore cannot be a natural entity. It has to be unique, there is no other cause like it, It is autonomous and is not dependant on any cause for its existence. Thus we can say it is self-existent and has always existed.

 

You wrote:

"I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation."

 

An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method also summed up in the law of cause and effect.

The very first cause is the cause of everything in the natural world, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of producing everything in the natural world. So nothing in the natural world can be greater or superior to that initial cause of everything. If it was, it would be a violation of the law of cause and effect and a fundamental principle of science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

You wrote: "There is no such thing as an autonomous, non-contingent natural entity, to suggest that goes against scientific principles."

 

What scientific principles?

 

By "autonomous" do you mean that the being is able to function wholly independent of the rest of the universe? Or do you mean something more limited?

 

"So, obviously, as all natural entities are contingent (they all rely on causes), if we trace back all causes in the universe we must eventually reach a first cause..."

 

Something is "contingent" simply because it is caused? Why? Because the cause need not have been? So the return of Hailey's comet in 2061 or thereabouts is not fully determined by forces external to it because those forces need not operate?

 

From your last paragraph:

"An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method also summed up in the law of cause and effect."

 

In response to that paragraph, I repeat what I wrote before: I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

I wrote:

"There is no such thing as an autonomous, non-contingent natural entity, to suggest that goes against scientific principles."

You asked?

"What scientific principles?"

 

The fundamental principle of science is the law of cause and effect. All scientific research depends on it.

The modus operandi of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for EVERY natural occurrence.

An autonomous or non-contingent, natural entity violates that principle. All natural entities, effects and events rely on a preceding cause or causes.

Which means a non-contingent natural entity is impossible as far as science is concerned.

To suggest an autonomous or non-contingent natural entity or occurrence is like harking back to pre-scientific (pagan) times, when people believed in the vagaries of nature. The belief that natural things could simply act autonomously and independently without any apparent preceding cause or causes.

 

You wrote:

"By "autonomous" do you mean that the being is able to function wholly independent of the rest of the universe? Or do you mean something more limited?"

 

Natural entities cannot be autonomous because they limited by natural laws that are based on their respective, inherent properties. And being contingent they are entirely dependent on that which causes them.

 

I wrote:

"So, obviously, as all natural entities are contingent (they all rely on causes), if we trace back all causes in the universe we must eventually reach a first cause..."

You answered :

"Something is "contingent" simply because it is caused? Why? Because the cause need not have been? So the return of Hailey's comet in 2061 or thereabouts is not fully determined by forces external to it because those forces need not operate?"

 

I don’t understand what you mean by that. The velocity and trajectory of Haley’s comet is entirely subject to causes, it doesn’t act independently or autonomously.

 

I wrote:

"An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method also summed up in the law of cause and effect."

You answered:

"In response to that paragraph, I repeat what I wrote before: I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation."

 

An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

That is an absolutely fundamental principle of science.

The very first cause is responsible for EVERY cause and effect that follows it. So it is obvious that no effect, arising anywhere in the chain of causes and effects that follows the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than that which ultimately caused it and the rest of the chain of causes and effects.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

You have no idea what happens when a star implodes, for example. We don't know if the known laws of physics apply to black holes or to other universes. You have no evidence at all for any god, gods, or other entities being the "very first" cause of anything. BTW, "very first" is redundant. It's either the first or it isn't. And there is no reason to believe there has to have been a first cause. There may always have been something, as I have said before. You cannot prove me wrong about this.

 

It's been a pleasant three weeks without reading your B.S.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

 

Oh! you're back with your mumbo jumbo and pseudoscience.

 

You wrote:

"We don't know if the known laws of physics apply to black holes or to other universes"

 

There you go again, challenging natural laws, because they don't suit your ideology.

What we definitely DO KNOW - is that science only operates by looking for ADEQUATE CAUSES for EVERY natural occurrence. Science can't look for NON-CAUSES or INADEQUATE CAUSES which is precisely what your naturalistic ideology requires.

 

You wrote:

"BTW, "very first" is redundant. It's either the first or it isn't. And there is no reason to believe there has to have been a first cause"

 

I said 'VERY' first, because it seems atheists don't understand what 'FIRST' actually means. They keep on asking the same old, stupid question - what caused the first cause? They obviously think something has to precede something which is FIRST.

The word 'VERY' is there to emphasise the fact that if something is First nothing can precede it - I use it for the sake of atheists, who apparently find simple concepts such as the word FIRST actually meaning FIRST, rather difficult to grasp. So if you have an issue with the term 'very first' you need to discuss what 'first' actually means with your fellow atheists. When atheists stop asking the ridiculous question of what caused the first cause? Then I will stop using the term 'very' first.

 

You wrote:

"There may always have been something, as I have said before"

 

You're right, there was always something.

The first cause, by virtue of being VERY first, had no preceding cause and therefore has always existed, It is eternally self-existent and NON-CONTINGENT.

Which means the first cause (or whatever you like to call that which has always existed) cannot be something NATURAL, because ALL natural entities are CONTINGENT ...

That is not according to ME - it is according to SCIENCE, which you choose to dispute.

So your dispute is with the fundamental principles of science, not with me.

 

There probably are no atheists - So choose your god?

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15875116723

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

All you write is "mumbo jumbo". And please stop inserting those hideous posters or whatever the hell they are. They interrupt the flow of this page, a page, btw, which does NOT belong to YOU. I would write on YOUR Flickr pages, but you have me blocked from doing so.

 

Look, you can rant all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that your god was the first cause of everything. Your god was invented by Jewish rabbis about 6,000 years ago. They got together and wrote the Old Testament. They did the best they could to account for the creation of the world. We are now in the year 2015. We realize the OT is filled with stories with little if any science.

 

If I had a colorful banner that said "Creationists are Ignorant of Science" I would place it here, but, unfortunately, I don't childishly keep such things around the house.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

You wrote:

"If I had a colorful banner that said "Creationists are Ignorant of Science" I would place it here,"

 

You are the one who disputes natural laws and basic scientific principles - you have no defence for that.

Your only defence is to rant about the Bible.

I am sorry, but as I said before, your dispute is with natural laws and scientific principles, not with me, not with the Bible, not with creationists. You simply target those things to divert attention from the fact that you and your atheist cult are anti-science.

Atheism is simply the naturalist religion (which was debunked centuries ago) re-invented. You can try all you like to give it a 21st century gloss, but it is still the unscientific nonsense it always was.

I support natural laws and scientific principles, you denigrate them, and then masquerade as a champion of science. Atheism is based on lies and deceit, not science. You don't like my images because (with the description attached) they expose the lies, hypocrisy and unscientific nature of atheism.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

You are hilarious. Typical right wing creationist trying to put a spin on science in his favor, yet is anti-science. Anyone who believes in sky hooks and sky fairies could not possibly know much about science.

 

Atheism is not a form of the ancient religion known as naturalism. Atheism has no belief system in anything religious or theistic. It's that simple. Most atheists tend to support science. I am sure there must be some out there who do not, but it has nothing to do with religion. I get tired of having to repeat myself, but the point is, we simply do not know what happened before the Big Bang. There is no evidence for any gods, however. And that is where my argument with you and the Bible rests. There is no evidence that your god said "Let there be light" or any other words in any other language. It is convenient to make up creation stories, just as some Hindus believe that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle and that turtle sits on another world, and there is another turtle beneath that world, ad infinitum. It's conjecture, story telling, fable, myth, call it what you like, but do not call it "truth" because it is not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

You wrote:

"It is convenient to make up creation stories, just as some Hindus believe that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle and that turtle sits on another world, and there is another turtle beneath that world, ad infinitum. It's conjecture, story telling, fable, myth, call it what you like, but do not call it "truth" because it is not."

 

It is you who believes in unscientific fables and creation stories -such as: a universe creating itself from nothing, or a universe being created by "eternal, non-contingent alien species", or a universe which can rewind itself, or the spontaneous generation of life, or an uncaused natural first cause, or natural laws that magically don't apply, or an infinite number of universes, etc. There is not one scrap of evidence for any of your made-up creation stories, they are all unscientific nonsense, they are not only nonsense, they are ridiculous and ludicrous anti-science nonsense. They are every bit as ludicrous and unscientific as the giant turtle creation story.

 

You wrote:

"Atheism is not a form of the ancient religion known as naturalism"

 

Oh, so you deny that you believe in a natural, origin scenario for everything that exists, do you?

A natural origins scenario that defies natural laws and scientific principles is the essence of pagan naturalism.

That is what atheists believe in. But they think they can hoodwink the public by claiming that discredited idea is scientific.

Sorry to have to inform you, but the atheist tactic of resurrecting pagan naturalism in a different guise, has been sussed.

There is nothing 'scientific' about naturalism, it remains as it always was, illogical and unscientific nonsense.

 

You wrote:

"Anyone who believes in sky hooks and sky fairies could not possibly know much about science."

 

I see you are referring to your old, worn, dog-eared and well distressed, 'atheist responses handbook' again, you know the one that says: When the going gets tough, either rant about the Bible or use the good old standby of the sky fairy jibe. Not much originality there then!

BTW - could you please explain what a sky fairy is?

Because I don't know of any theist who believes in either sky fairies or sky hooks, or who even knows what they are supposed to be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

The Sky Fairy is how most Christians describe their god. A fairy is a mythical creature, such as an angel or god, who floats around "the heavens" and somehow keeps it eye on everyone and everything in the world (yet apparently allows evil, disease, accidents, early death, etc to occur despite heavy prayer on the part of the victims and their families and friends). The sky hook is just what it is, some invisible hook that keeps the fairies and angels suspended.

 

All I wrote was that most atheists do not believe in the age old religion of naturalism, which is the truth. Atheists have no religion. I know that it must be difficult for you to wrap your washed brain around this concept.

 

Your B.S. is old and worn. You are the one who makes extraordinary claims about a creator god, not I. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you or anyone else has yet to present any.

 

Now, go back under your bridge, troll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

You wrote:

"All I wrote was that most atheists do not believe in the age old religion of naturalism, which is the truth. Atheists have no religion. I know that it must be difficult for you to wrap your washed brain around this concept."

 

Yes, that is what you would like everyone to believe, anything to avoid having to justify your illogical belief in naturalism. Unfortunately for you, that little ruse has been exposed as bogus.

Naturalism = your belief, and that of the atheist cult, that 'nature' is responsible for the existence of everything - i.e. that nature (or Mother Nature) is a non-contingent, autonomous, all powerful entity - it is a belief that credits nature with all the attributes of a god.

Atheist naturalism is no different from pagan naturalism, naturalism per se IS a religious belief.

You can dress it up all you like, but the Emperor is revealed to have no clothes.

If you believe that nature created everything - and has the non-contingent, autonomous, eternally self-existent qualities that are attributed to a supernatural first cause - you effectively deify nature and matter.

Furthermore, because such beliefs demand that you disregard natural laws and scientific principles, they are based entirely on blind faith.

 

You wrote

"Your B.S. is old and worn. You are the one who makes extraordinary claims about a creator god, not I. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you or anyone else has yet to present any."

 

You make the extraordinary claim that laws of nature and scientific principles did not apply to your naturalist version of the origin of the universe. That is an extraordinary claim par excellence.

You have presented no evidence whatsoever for that claim, it is all complete hogwash. All you can keep repeating is that it is the scientific viewpoint, which is absolute rubbish. It is the opposite of a scientific view, to dispute natural laws and scientific principles is ANTI-SCIENCE.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you or anyone else has yet to present any."

Where then, is your evidence for the extraordinary claim that natural laws and fundamental principles of science didn't apply to the origin of the universe?

 

You wrote:

"The Sky Fairy is how most Christians describe their god. A fairy is a mythical creature, such as an angel or god, who floats around "the heavens" and somehow keeps it eye on everyone and everything in the world (yet apparently allows evil, disease, accidents, early death, etc to occur despite heavy prayer on the part of the victims and their families and friends). The sky hook is just what it is, some invisible hook that keeps the fairies and angels suspended. "

 

So the sky fairy and sky hook are both just more fantastical figments of the fertile, atheist imagination - based on their jaundiced and erroneous understanding of the supernatural first cause.

You wrote:

"A fairy is a mythical creature, such as an angel or god"

 

No, a fairy is a mythical creature based on so-called spirits of NATURE.

They are more akin to paganism and the naturalist religion which atheists subscribe to.

A modern version of the fairies myth, would be the (magical) mythological, non-contingent, alien species (space fairies?), which atheists believe could have created life on Earth.

Fairies have nothing to do with monotheism. In fact, belief in such things as nature spirits, is forbidden by most monotheistic religions, especially Judeo Christian monotheism.

 

chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

You're joking, right? Atheism is not a cult. It is simply the disbelief in any god or gods. I also disbelieve in unicorns. Does that make me a member of a cult?

 

Sorry, chum, but the whole concept of angels is connected to the belief in fairies. You see, it is called the belief in the supernatural. And you can add your devil to it, also, since he is supposedly a "fallen angel." It's all craziness. It's what the human mind conceived of to try to explain things it could not comprehend. Humans started belief systems and created mythical creatures. They do not exist, the same as the 700 pound green fart that floats over your head.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

You wrote:

"Atheism is not a cult. It is simply the disbelief in any god or gods. I also disbelieve in unicorns. Does that make me a member of a cult?"

 

Atheism effectively deifies nature by transferring the creative, godlike powers, properties and qualities (that theists attribute to God), to nature or matter.

So atheism makes a god of nature, which means it is similar to pagan, naturalist religions.

 

Theists attribute the creation of everything in the universe to a supernatural cause.

Atheists attribute the creation of everything in the universe to a natural cause.

So the theist God is a supernatural, causal entity or creator, and the atheist god is a natural, causal entity or creator.

They are both religious viewpoints.

 

Not believing in unicorns doesn't require any alternative belief, whereas not believing in a supernatural first cause, demands belief in a natural first cause. So the comparison with unicorns is stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

Nice try, but you are wrong (as usual). Atheism does not deify anything. That's the point. There are no deities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

 

Of course atheists aren't going to admit it.

 

But if you believe that nature or a natural first cause is the originator of everything, you credit nature (or matter) with a godlike status. You simply replace the Creator God of theism with Mother Nature or an all-powerful god of nature.

 

Religion really is based on worshipping that which is greater than ourselves - worshipping that which is the cause of our existence. If you believe that cause is nature, then you are a nature worshipper and naturalism is your religion.

It is all based on belief, because you cannot prove that nature is an all powerful creator.

In fact, the evidence from natural law and scientific principles rules it out.

So atheism is an entirely faith-based creed, it has nothing to do with science, logic or reason. It has all the hallmarks of a religion, and if we compare it to pagan naturalism, there is very little to distinguish it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

 

I like the way evangelists twist words and definitions to suit their needs. I also like the way they try to figure out the universe starting with the Bible. And then they attack science and nature and those who live their lives by science and nature (rather than by some weird interpretation of life that fits a religious point of view).

 

Stop trying to tell me how I think. I don't want some knuckle dragger interpreting my life for me, thank you. And don't tell me I am anti-science when it is you who cannot bring himself to admit that evolution is the cornerstone of biology.

 

I am finished playing your stupid games. Go troll someone else.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

You wrote:

"And then they attack science and nature and those who live their lives by science and nature"

 

I don't attack science I defend it against dogmatic atheists who undermine it with their anti-scientific fantasy of a natural, first cause. And I don't attack nature, I simply recognise its limitations defined by natural laws and scientific principles. In fact I support and defend the laws of nature against attacks on them by atheists, who see them as an obstacle to their ideology.

 

And atheists don't live their lives by science, they are quite willing to distort and pervert scientific principles simply to suit their ideological beliefs. There is no scientific evidence for the atheist cult. It is based purely on faith in the godlike powers of nature to do or create everything, regardless of the fact that logic, natural laws and science, all say the opposite.

 

You wrote:

"And don't tell me I am anti-science when it is you who cannot bring himself to admit that evolution is the cornerstone of biology."

 

Progressive evolution is the greatest mistake and greatest hoax in history, it is destined for the dustbin of history when the public finally realise how they have been hoodwinked and treated as fools.

SEE: The Great Mistake.

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15650423453

______________________________________________

Done