# A Noted Agnostics Concise View of Reality



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 22, 2013)

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

“The attack on traditional religious thought,” writes David Berlinski in The Devil’s Delusion, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community’s cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Militant atheism is on the rise.


Maybe this is caused by a rise of religious finactics. They can be annoying. 


> Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.


Not really militant. 



> Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
> Not even close.


 Don't have to. If I am asked to believe something, I want proof. I don't have to prove it doesn't exist before I believe. Just the way things are. 



> Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
> Not even close.


 Don't care. Let them try. Lot's of things we don't know. I don't have a problem with, "I DON"T KNOW."



> "Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
> Not even close."


 Our universe? Lost me on that one. They have explained why our planet, and possibly millions of others are 'fine-tuned' for life. 



> Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
> Close enough.


 Anything? That's a stretch. Is the tooth fairy a religious figure?



> Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
> Not close enough.


 Don't know if it was rationalism in moral thought that provided it but, we have a good understanding of right and wrong without religion.



> Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
> Not even close to being close.


 Still don't understand how a non-belief in a God equates to a force for anything. Good or bad. "I smite thee in the name of...something?"



> Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
> Close enough.


 You mean do they have to follow certain laws of physics and logic, etc.? Yes. People that can imagine supernatural stuff might find that oppressive.



> Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
> Not even ballpark.


 Rational is personal. Irrational to me is obviously not irrational to you. Saying that something is not rational in someone else's world is, irrational. Logic led us to different conclusions.



> Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
> Dead on.


 Scientific atheism?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 22, 2013)

He's trolling with bare hooks, Griz.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 22, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He's trolling with bare hooks, Griz.



I tried not to bite. I really did. 
Lunch break. Bored. Updates being applied to my other computing device.


----------



## pnome (Nov 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Militant atheism is on the rise.



Really?  I must have missed all those RPG toting college professors.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 22, 2013)

660griz said:


> I tried not to bite. I really did.
> Lunch break. Bored. Updates being applied to my other computing device.



There's a convenient button that will make sure you absolutely want to see what he posts that will remind you why he made the list in the first place, thus giving you a gating mechanism for responding. 

(Ignore list)

That moment of pause allows me to recognize it for what it is.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Nov 22, 2013)

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.


This has been explained.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 22, 2013)

660,

Have you ever seen $1,000,000.00?


----------



## Joe of Dirt (Nov 23, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He's trolling with bare hooks, Griz.



Gee - how often do those of us capable of thinking for ourselves go trolling and picking arguments in the religious sub-forum?  Not very often, as we would be "tarred and feathered" and "run out of town on rails" by the so-called "Christ-like" people.

And for the trollers that infect this sub-forum:  Would Jesus do such a thing?  Would he go starting arguments, starting trouble, and raising hackles, whether to "sway people his way"...or more likely just to get his jollies?

Methinks not.  Then again, most "Christians" don't resemble a single thing about "their" Jesus.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 24, 2013)

Joe of Dirt said:


> Gee - how often do those of us capable of thinking for ourselves go trolling and picking arguments in the religious sub-forum?  Not very often, as we would be "tarred and feathered" and "run out of town on rails" by the so-called "Christ-like" people.
> 
> And for the trollers that infect this sub-forum:  Would Jesus do such a thing?  Would he go starting arguments, starting trouble, and raising hackles, whether to "sway people his way"...or more likely just to get his jollies?
> 
> Methinks not.  Then again, most "Christians" don't resemble a single thing about "their" Jesus.



Maybe you should look up the term Apologetic as in Atheist/Agnostic/Apologetic sub-forum and comprehend the definition prior to suggesting I'm posting in the wrong forum.  I'm sure if you are half as capable of thinking for yourself as you purport you will figure it out.   

As to trolling in the wrong sub-forum, do you mean like when you posted this



> Good move, Mr. or Mrs. moderator (on moving this). Oh, I'm sure lots of us who think for ourselves frequently visit the Religious sub-forum (if merely to get other viewpoints and *search* for some sort of proof that the Biblical God is, or may be real). Such those of use the brains we were born with, and refuse to be sheep, *blindly* accepting printed or spoken words as "gospel".
> We have brains, and we use them.
> And, those of us who do think for ourselves generally do not "invade" the religious sub-forum to express our views there, or try to sway folks there to see things in our own minds.
> Gee, some of us think that an omipotent and omniscient being would have just a wee bit more power to spread "His word" than a stack of papers translated and compiled over millenium (and the final version compiled under the direction of a purported homosexual and possible pedophile King Jimmy). Oh, and His Ten Commandments "carved in stone" that have yet to be found.
> ...



AFTER the thread had been moved to the Spiritual Discussion and Study sub-forum?  


You have posted a total of 6 times .........ever.  Of those, 1 was posted as an obvious troll in the wrong sub forum.  That's 16.66666666%.  Most would call that statistically significant.  

As for me posting here in the appropriate sub forum, Me thinks you are uncomfortable having your world view challenged, but again, even if ever Christian on the face of the earth disappeared, you still can't make yourself keep down the lie you have swallowed.


----------



## vowell462 (Nov 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe you should look up the term Apologetic as in Atheist/Agnostic/Apologetic sub-forum and comprehend the definition prior to suggesting I'm posting in the wrong forum.  I'm sure if you are half as capable of thinking for yourself as you purport you will figure it out.
> 
> As to trolling in the wrong sub-forum, do you mean like when you posted this
> 
> ...


Just an fyi. I look at the AAA forum daily. But hardly ever post. And have been doing so for several years.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe you should look up the term Apologetic as in Atheist/Agnostic/Apologetic sub-forum and comprehend the definition prior to suggesting I'm posting in the wrong forum.  I'm sure if you are half as capable of thinking for yourself as you purport you will figure it out.
> 
> As to trolling in the wrong sub-forum, do you mean like when you posted this
> 
> ...



And people still wonder why others RUN away from organized religion.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> 660,
> 
> Have you ever seen $1,000,000.00?



Yes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yes.



In singles, or pennies? Benjies don't count.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In singles, or pennies? Benjies don't count.



It was a smile.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

vowell462 said:


> Just an fyi. I look at the AAA forum daily. But hardly ever post. And have been doing so for several years.



Are you the same poster as Joe of Dirt, because that is the only way I can make sense of this post.  Why do you need two different user accounts?  Something smells fishy here.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you the same poster as Joe of Dirt, because that is the only way I can make sense of this post.  Why do you need two different user accounts?  Something smells fishy here.



Vowell462 has been on here for a long time and used to post regularly but now not so much even though he still reads the posts regularly.
THAT is what his post means.

If you got out of his post that he is Joe Dirt and uses two accounts then you make it very clear on why you are led to post things like you do.


----------



## vowell462 (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you the same poster as Joe of Dirt, because that is the only way I can make sense of this post.  Why do you need two different user accounts?  Something smells fishy here.



No. Im not Joe of Dirt. The point I was making is that I frequent the forum alot but do not post as much. Meaning, some may visit and not post often. Thats all. I think you are looking way too deep into it.

Thanks Bullet


----------

