I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[Tcg]

Do theists (some that is perhaps not all) have any reason beyond this to mistrust atheists?




Tcg

[Tcg]

An important distinction here is that everything Hitler did violated the Christian mandate to love your neighbor as yourself...

Let's double check that:

Revelation 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." In 1938, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech.

https://amp.dispatch.com/amp/23656423007

These quotes are perfect bookends.

As to the 'truth' of atheism. I think the questions that have been answered have entirely been answered by the material/scientific rather than religion the claims of which have fallen one by one. Materialism/science by now has gained a little credit, wouldn't you agree?

Science has given us material answers, but theism and philosophy delve into the question of what underlies the phenomenon of material existence, which is beyond the scope of materialism.

And neither provide evidence that there is any "beyond the scope of materialism."



Tcg

[Difflugia]

That time those atheists drove Russia home, there was a pretty bad wreck.

As opposed to the way the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czars were driving things? That's just Russia. Haven't you seen the dashcam videos?

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists rely too heavily on atheism to be a kind of magical elixir which will somehow cleanse the human psyche of all negative tendencies. The realities of history have shown that it won't. Even to proclaim the "truth" of atheism by way of evidence is presumptuous, as there are more questions than mere cosmic materialism can answer.

It's no more of a "magical elixir" than sobriety. Not being drunk doesn't magically make someone conscientious or a clear thinker, but it is the absence of a condition that can mask those attributes in someone that otherwise has them.

Theists are more fun at parties, but everyone is much better off when the atheists drive them home.

That time those atheists drove Russia home, there was a pretty bad wreck.

The point is that you can't blame atheism for an authoritarian regime based not only on political dogma (because under Lenin there was a Lot of social and artistic freedom) but on the nature of Stalin who was a brutal dictator.

.......

Hitler (and never mind Godwin's law) used Christianity for his own ends, requiring it to dance to his tune and aside that many religious persons and organisations ran foul of him.Y ou cannot use a dictator to blame whatever Dogma he was using. The Dogma has to stand and fall on its' own merits.

An important distinction here is that everything Hitler did violated the Christian mandate to love your neighbor as yourself, while nothing Stalin did violated the atheistic position that there aren't any gods. Atheists can be loving and generous, but atheism doesn't require them to be so. Atheism itself, therefore, suffers a disconnection from empathy and can certainly be evaluated in that light.

As to the 'truth' of atheism. I think the questions that have been answered have entirely been answered by the material/scientific rather than religion the claims of which have fallen one by one. Materialism/science by now has gained a little credit, wouldn't you agree?

Science has given us material answers, but theism and philosophy delve into the question of what underlies the phenomenon of material existence, which is beyond the scope of materialism.

Theism and philosophy can at best cam put forward some suggestions or ideas which science has to verify. But I have seen science come up with verified wonders at the sub atomic scale and the macrocosmic, as well as the biological and historical that are way beyond anything that Theism or Philosophy has been able to come up with.

And I have also seen biological science come up with answers to questions that Philosophy struggled with and Theism flunked. Again I repeat, it is time that Theism and philosophy perhaps, gave science a lot more credit for explaining what they have not been able to.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53

Theism and philosophy can at best cam put forward some suggestions or ideas which science has to verify. But I have seen science come up with verified wonders at the sub atomic scale and the macrocosmic, as well as the biological and historical that are way beyond anything that Theism or Philosophy has been able to come up with.

And I have also seen biological science come up with answers to questions that Philosophy struggled with and Theism flunked. Again I repeat, it is time that Theism and philosophy perhaps, gave science a lot more credit for explaining what they have not been able to.

Physics can't be used to explain the existence of physics.

Electrons and black holes are wonders to behold, but their discovery tells us nothing about how to treat each other. The same power which can split an atom to bring virtually limitless energy to a city can reduce the same city to an ash heap. The same chemistry used to develop new medicines is used to develop chemical weapons. Knowledge is useful, but it doesn't civilize. You should never mistake technological progress for social progress. Science can verify the workings of the material world, but all the quantum fluctuations in the cosmos won't exhort you to feed a starving child.

Someone once said that science is a work horse and not a sacred cow, and that it should be fed rather than worshipped.

[Athetotheist]

That time those atheists drove Russia home, there was a pretty bad wreck.

As opposed to the way the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czars were driving things? That's just Russia. Haven't you seen the dashcam videos?

I didn't say that the ROC or the Czars were great drivers, but let's face it----the poor old Bolsheviks were really suckered by Stalin.

And I don't buy the notion that it's "just" Russia. If it can happen anywhere, it can happen anywhere else.

[Tcg]

Science can verify the workings of the material world, but all the quantum fluctuations in the cosmos won't exhort you to feed a starving child.

Why would it need to?

Someone once said that science is a work horse and not a sacred cow, and that it should be fed rather than worshipped.

Someone once said you can lead a horse to water, but you can't tie his shoes. I think it was Blaze Foley.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

Science can verify the workings of the material world, but all the quantum fluctuations in the cosmos won't exhort you to feed a starving child.

Why would it need to?

It would need to in order to match what theism and philosophy have come up with.

Someone once said that science is a work horse and not a sacred cow, and that it should be fed rather than worshipped.

Someone once said you can lead a horse to water, but you can't tie his shoes. I think it was Blaze Foley.

If that's the best you can come up with to counter the quote I mentioned, I'd say the original remains in pretty good standing.

[Tcg]

Science can verify the workings of the material world, but all the quantum fluctuations in the cosmos won't exhort you to feed a starving child.

Why would it need to?

It would need to in order to match what theism and philosophy have come up with.

Why would science need to match theism and philosophy?

Someone once said that science is a work horse and not a sacred cow, and that it should be fed rather than worshipped.

Someone once said you can lead a horse to water, but you can't tie his shoes. I think it was Blaze Foley.

If that's the best you can come up with to counter the quote I mentioned, I'd say the original remains in pretty good standing.

It can't be denied that it is much more amusing. RIP Blaze Foley.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #58

Why would science need to match theism and philosophy?

If it doesn't, it can hardly be considered nobler than they.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53

Theism and philosophy can at best cam put forward some suggestions or ideas which science has to verify. But I have seen science come up with verified wonders at the sub atomic scale and the macrocosmic, as well as the biological and historical that are way beyond anything that Theism or Philosophy has been able to come up with.

And I have also seen biological science come up with answers to questions that Philosophy struggled with and Theism flunked. Again I repeat, it is time that Theism and philosophy perhaps, gave science a lot more credit for explaining what they have not been able to.

Physics can't be used to explain the existence of physics.

Electrons and black holes are wonders to behold, but their discovery tells us nothing about how to treat each other. The same power which can split an atom to bring virtually limitless energy to a city can reduce the same city to an ash heap. The same chemistry used to develop new medicines is used to develop chemical weapons. Knowledge is useful, but it doesn't civilize. You should never mistake technological progress for social progress. Science can verify the workings of the material world, but all the quantum fluctuations in the cosmos won't exhort you to feed a starving child.

Someone once said that science is a work horse and not a sacred cow, and that it should be fed rather than worshipped.

Physics provides a better explanation for Physics than 'Goddunnit'.

Of course morals is a different matter, but understanding what drives human morality is better explained by biology than by religion.

And I agree that science is a work -horse and not a sacred cow. Only the religious talked of 'sciencism' and they refute themselves when they also say 'Science is always changing its' mind'. It's because science is a user -manual, not a Holy Book.