Why do atheists think they're smarter than most people?

[OTHstrong]

Bro everything we believe in is a theory. In the absence of a theory, all you have is a bunch of facts. A theory stiches them together into something coherent, it creates a concept out of facts.

yes I agree theories serve a purpose but they get replaced often with better ones, such is the case with evolution, the time will come where it gets replaced and scientist will say we did not have a common ancestor with monkeys. 

[haider]

yes I agree theories serve a purpose but they get replaced often with better ones, such is the case with evolution, the time will come where it gets replaced and scientist will say we did not have a common ancestor with monkeys. 

well that's a better stance than outright rejection.

[Borracho]

[OTHstrong]

loloolllll love it 

[Borracho]

loloolllll love it 

"I don't know he created a reasonable doubt, he makes me sound like a stupid science bitch"

 

[Radical Plato]

Theories don't need to be exact to enable science to utilize it.  Case in point, they just recently revised the theory of lift regarding how planes fly (we knew what was happening, just as it turned out, unsure WHY?).  Even though the original theories were slightly off, it hasn't prevented humanity building machines that actually fly.  Just because a theory isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean the whole theory is useless.  Theories aren't so much replaced but revised and updated.  Ironically, it's amazing how many religious people put their FAITH in these "ridiculous" scientific theories every time they fly on a plane.

[SF1900]

yes I agree theories serve a purpose but they get replaced often with better ones, such is the case with evolution, the time will come where it gets replaced and scientist will say we did not have a common ancestor with monkeys. 

We share 98% of our DNA with monkeys. Are you saying we share no common ancestry? Seriously? 

[SF1900]

Theories don't need to be exact to enable science to utilize it.  Case in point, they just recently revised the theory of lift regarding how planes fly.  Even though the original theories were slightly off, it hasn't prevented humanity building machines that actually fly.  Just because a theory isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean the whole theory is useless.  Theories aren't so much replaced but revised and updated.  Ironically, it's amazing how many religious people put their FAITH in these "ridiculous" scientific theories every time they fly on a plane.

That is the sad part is that people do not realize that science is about progress. And as you stated, most theories are revised, updated and built upon. For example, when evolution continues to gather evidence and change, it doesnt mean it was initially wrong, just that they made improvements. I do not understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

[Radical Plato]

That is the sad part is that people do not realize that science is about progress. And as you stated, most theories are revised, updated and built upon. For example, when evolution continues to gather evidence and change, it doesnt mean it was initially wrong, just that they made improvements. I do not understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

Theoretically, it's called cognitive dissonance, the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.  When you have convinced yourself a comforting illusion is real, to actually change that point of view for one that is less comforting (albeit real) creates a strong uncomfortable emotional reaction.

Evolution and essentially reality is cold and indifferent to individual life forms, it doesn't consider an individual as special or loved or needed or wanted for that matter, you're just another insignificant cog in the wheel of life, and that fact is utterly disturbing to the average narcissistic westerner who wants to believe they are somehow a divine creation who is cared for and protected.  Most people can't handle cold hard reality, the comfort of make believe is there only salvation.

[Primemuscle]

We share 98% of our DNA with monkeys. Are you saying we share no common ancestry? Seriously? 

I thought about responding to Onetimehard, but decided against it because I thought it would be a waste of my time and energy. It will be interesting to see if he has any comeback to your post.

I am just baffled how there are still people who believe as he does. Clearly some people have still not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 2:4-3:24 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.  And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

[The Ugly]

I thought about responding to Onetimehard, but decided against it because I thought it would be a waste of my time and energy. It will be interesting to see if he has any comeback to your post.

I am just baffled how there are still people who believe as he does. Clearly some people have still not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 2:4-3:24 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.  And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

He gives us the brain, but insists we don't use it. Lord God the Mindfuck.

[galeniko]

the scientist cant tell what was before big bang,the creation moment, yet they say theres no god(creating force)


have read a book recently from an atheist professor, hes not agnostic,he says straight up atheist, his views on religion were hilarious to read.

but how can we know or not know for sure?

[Primemuscle]

the scientist cant tell what was before big bang,the creation moment, yet they say theres no god(creating force)


have read a book recently from an atheist professor, hes not agnostic,he says straight up atheist, his views on religion were hilarious to read.

but how can we know or not know for sure?

That's the point, you can't know or not know for sure what is true and what is folklore. Ever play the game telephone? It only take a couple of people to completely convolute the truth. Imagine how stories told by the elders to their offspring for many generations get altered and you have some idea how far off the Bible could be from the actual facts of any situation. Even after something gets documented in written form as happened with the Bible, it changes with each rewrite and there have been many of those with this good book.

[The Ugly]

the scientist cant tell what was before big bang,the creation moment, yet they say theres no god(creating force)

It remains a mystery, though they certainly have theories regarding it. Why simply chalk it up to God because it isn't yet (assuming it will ever be) understood? They do a pretty good job at explaining most everything else, certainly more convincingly than Creationists do.

[Radical Plato]

It remains a mystery, though they certainly have theories regarding it. Why simply chalk it up to God because it isn't yet (assuming it will ever be) understood? They do a pretty good job at explaining most everything else, certainly more convincingly than Creationists do.

Stephen Hawking hypothesized that time BEGAN at the big bang, therefore there was no time BEFORE the BIG BANG for GOD to exist in.  The Universe is the one exception to the rule stating every effect has a cause. There was no cause to the Universe. Because there is a LAW such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself.  Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

[The Ugly]

Stephen Hawking hypothesized that time BEGAN at the big bang, therefore there was no time BEFORE the BIG BANG for GOD to exist in.  The Universe is the one exception to the rule stating every effect has a cause.  Due to the initial present forces, the Universe created itself.  There was no cause to the Universe.

Is this mostly accepted by the scientific community, or still one man's hypothesis?

[Radical Plato]

Is this mostly accepted by the scientific community, or still one man's hypothesis?

I don't know the rest of the scientific community would be considered his peers, his conclusions are drawn from areas of research not widely studied.  A documentary was produced on his beliefs that showed some pretty compelling arguments.  Stephen has offered some brilliant ideas to build on and explore.

[cephissus]

knowing things "for sure"

[Radical Plato]

I just read this tyrannical diatribe utterly condemning the Theory that there was NO CAUSE to the Universes creation, the author makes statements such as "Obviously, something can't create itself" & "Thus, for something to create itself, the something would need to exist before it existed. This is clearly absurd." and the Author ends the piece with the following.  "Atheists often try to refute the Creation model by saying that if every effect needs a cause, then what caused God? But the question is nonsensical. God has no origin. He is eternal. God is not an effect. Therefore He needs no cause."   Oh BROTHER !!!

http://www.4thdayalliance.com/articles/big-bang/stephen-hawking-and-the-big-bang/

Sometimes I think Hawkings proposed the NO CAUSE to the UNIVERSE theory just to fuck with the Religious NUTJOBS who have claimed that GOD has no cause.  Give those zealots a taste of their own medicine.

[The Ugly]

I don't know the rest of the scientific community would be considered his peers, his conclusions are drawn from areas of research not widely studied.  A documentary was produced on his beliefs that showed some pretty compelling arguments.  Stephen has offered some brilliant ideas to build on and explore.

Oh, for sure. I read "A Brief History of Time" years back, and he had some mind-blowing assertions. About 5-10% of which, maybe, I could grasp. Brilliant dude, but not overly accessible to a layman like me.

[NordicNerd]

the scientist cant tell what was before big bang,the creation moment, yet they say theres no god(creating force)


have read a book recently from an atheist professor, hes not agnostic,he says straight up atheist, his views on religion were hilarious to read.

but how can we know or not know for sure?

We should just accept not knowing. We are frail, hairless monkeys on one of billons of planets with minds incapable of dealing with cosmic complexities.

NN

[Ropo]

lmao, evolution?..... fuck  ok buddy, Ya I am really going to believe we  evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys, you are dumb as a brick if you believe in evolution, no fucken evidence just a distorted perception of your arrogant ways

So, if you are the work of god, why you act like ape through your life? God make you as an image of himself, and you are butt fucking redneck gay whore? Sorry to say, but you are living proof that our ancestors were apes, with the exception that your behavior make the apes blush.

[SF1900]

lmao, evolution?..... fuck  ok buddy, Ya I am really going to believe we  evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys, you are dumb as a brick if you believe in evolution, no fucken evidence just a distorted perception of your arrogant ways

OTH, I hope youre trolling or youre dumb. We share over 98% of our DNA with chimps. Of course we share a common ancestry.

How can you argue DNA? 

[Ropo]

this is precisely the argument in the video, he is saying that we used to have 48 chromosome just like monkeys and somehow proving we lost two is suppose to mean something to ND, even if I accept his argument in that video what does that prove, why did ND use this video to prove to me that monkeys and us share a common ancestor. Enlighten me here, where is the evidence in this video?

I do not take the scriptures so literally, and religion and science do not conflict in my opinion by the real definition of science, not evolution gibberish that people like you classify as science when science is suppose to be observable and evolution takes place over millions of years, clearly observable right? ya OK

You have to be mentally ill to be that stupid. It is clear that you don't have the capacity to comprehend matters complicated as this, so your savior is religion, which you don't need to think at all. They say how you should feel about the things, what to do and how live your life. In real world there is tons of evidence about the evolution, and all you can do is deny them without any reasoning. You just deny these evidences, you don't even try to prove they are wrong, and that proves you are stupid. And what about the evidence for your bible, what proves it is word of god? Where is the evidence about the god, that he exists? How about this? In this video they prove ne of the vital part of your religion to be just illusion:

[Agnostic007]

You have to be mentally ill to be that stupid. It is clear that you don't have the capacity to comprehend matters complicated as this, so your savior is religion, which you don't need to think at all. They say how you should feel about the things, what to do and how live your life. In real world there is tons of evidence about the evolution, and all you can do is deny them without any reasoning. You just deny these evidences, you don't even try to prove they are wrong, and that proves you are stupid. And what about the evidence for your bible, what proves it is word of god? Where is the evidence about the god, that he exists? How about this? In this video they prove ne of the vital part of your religion to be just illusion:

Interesting to see the milk jug analogy. I've used the same argument using a doorknob for years..