evobulgarevo

Alright, my attention to detail certainly has room for improvement. No argument there. Yes, the free expression of opinion is something that your average atheist is not very fond of. - evobulgarevo, on 15 Nov 2015 - 12:32 PM

Might be irrelevant to '(modern) science', but it's definitely relevant to the fear of expressing findings that contradict established understandings within the scientific community. Ted talks. Ok, so you see time as linear. Much like the thought patterns of your average atheist. Nothing to see here but paint by numbers. Lol. There IT is. The atheist ego. Science is open to the possibilities, yes. Scientists refrain from making statements as bold as the average citizen atheist who has little to no knowledge of science. Perhaps it is you who should read more carefully? Anyone making bold statements within any area of study should be well versed in the subject matter. You're just talking because your ego feels that your self worth has been put to question. And due to an inability to distance yourself from linear thought patterns, you prefer to dismiss discussions rather than engage in them. So to the question asking if atheists are closed minded, I guess the answer is.. most seem to be far from being open minded?

He can't censor me directly, he's not a moderator. I'm referring to him quoting me out of context by censoring parts of what I've said in order to present a different idea. Yes, the free expression of opinion is something that your average atheist is not very fond of. Agreed. Keeping an open mind is key. Hehe a 'resident expert' moderator of the forum makes it personal. No surprise though, this just corroborates my observations on atheist demeanor.

Well, not in those words. I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. Those are the conclusions of Albert Einstein, I just happen to agree with that. I'm not criticizing science, I've merely expressed criticism toward the scientific community. There's a difference. Science requires proof to believe. God requires belief to provide proof. I don't claim to "understand". I thought we are just having a discussion, expressing our thoughts. Conversing, this and that. Keeping an open mind. Well, we're not really discussing science per se. It's certainly a part of the discussion though.

Socrates was all about questioning commonly accepted "truths". As a result he was sentenced to death for "poisoning young minds". Did you know that? So then science deals with the 'natural'? And while dealing with the 'natural', we have been made well aware by the scientific community that science doesn't have all the answers. Modern day science is not about questioning or seeking truth, modern day science is about maintaining age long understandings because there are reputations on the line. But then again, this probably doesn't apply to modern day science alone. This was the case since the beginning of time. Science is cool, and should be studying to its fullest. The proponents of science, however, may sometimes be an impediment to the evolution of the discipline. Science has its roots in the belief of what you refer to as the 'supernatural'. Aristotle's unmoved mover is likely the same as Thomas Aquinas' God. In more recent times, some of the biggest names in science, the 'founding fathers of modern day science' if you will.. were all believers in God to some degree. Science had its origins in what the modern day atheist deems as scientific blasphemy. Good ol' Albert told us that time is cyclical. What if this is the case with our ability to comprehend that which seems so incomprehensible? What if all this searching simply leads us back to the very reason for the foundation of science? Then Aristotle's unmoved mover would truly be unmoved. According to you. According to Einstein, your thoughts on religion and science are lame. Why don't we remain unbiased and open minded to the possibilities? The scientific community has not put out a single unified definitive answer, why should we be so arrogant and talk as if they did!? Ok, so you don't think that science should question things. A regressive view, but then again, that's why we have threads wondering if atheists are closed minded. Respectable scientists who choose to discuss any such matters would need to be well versed in this area of study because if they're not, they would just be your average Joe atheist expressing a one-sided opinion. And one sided opinions cannot be deemed as respectable science.

Hey man, listen.. I didn't mean to offend you or anything like that.

What's crackin' homie G's. My name is Evo. I like science, philosophy, and God. I also like long walks on the beach, no joke. And as some may have already noticed, I tend to make flat jokes from time to time. I like you, do you like me?

What is it with you and censorship? I guess if you were a moderator, you'd be doing that to the text in the posts. If I didn't know better, I'd say you work for CNN. Buddhism is about overcoming ones ego. In my observations atheists derive conclusions primarily based on ego.

Come on now, daily? I doubt that. This is my second attempt at a joke that is a little less flat than the first, if I say so myself. I haven't set out to change 'that'. I think evolution is a real thing. No argument there. Though history shows us that science theories come and go. No matter how you cut it, we are all the same. We all come from the same place. Different people have different interpretations of it all. And I think it's possible for an answer to be both true and false at the same time.

My bad. I mis-attributed the question. My fault entirely. No dodging though. That was not what I set out to do. Just another human with your everyday standard humanoid flaws. Sorry. What science can probably prove is that Santa Clause doesn't go out delivering presents 'round Christmas time while flying on a sled pulled by flying reindeer. Though the character Santa Clause is quite real. And as I already mentioned in my earlier reply, I've seen him at the mall. I believe in God, the God from the Bible. Science is what got me interested in God, and it is only after I got into science that I ever read the Bible. Before I knew science, I could not say or write 'I believe in God' as firmly as I have done here.

From what I understand, the will of God, is for man to do as he pleases. Hence why we have free will. There is a Santa Claus. In fact, there's more than one. I've seen 'em at the mall.

Well, what is evolution? Are you a supporter of the Darwinian concept of it? Science and religion. Different sides of the same coin. Do scientists progress science by closing doors? Is science not about questioning everything? Are yesterday's scientists crackpots because today's bright minds have proven them wrong?

Are you a real engineer, or do you just have difficulty reading posts in context? Science needs to be well versed in everything it addresses, otherwise it's not science.

What are you on about fella!? I'm sharing observations based on discussions I've had with people who identify as atheists. So you prefer a doctored, made up, completely fake "opinion" rather than a truthful expression of findings based on a multitude of discussions on this topic. Case in point.

Ok dear sir, ask it again. In simpler words this time and I promise there shan't be any dodging. This a new Apple product or what?

All of the above. Questions are not responsible for misery. People are responsible for everything. People make choices, other people make other choices, and then you've got the aftermath.

True words rarely come across "nicely". Ahh it would appear I've touched a nerve. Sorry. Don't mean to hurt your feelings or anything like that. But I should say that another observation I've made about your average atheist is that he's quite sensitive. Another finding is that your average atheist is very presumptuous. Notice that here I'm not talking about you, for how could I? I don't know you. Just sharing what I've observed. And the next step in how this type of discussion usually unfolds is your average atheist becomes blatantly arrogant, normally because of the frustration caused by his own ego, which tells him that his own self worth supersedes the worth of those who have a different opinion. What has basis in reality?

And how has that been for you? Are you happy with your choice?

Hehe I gotta admit, this made me laugh. But as far as I understand, the common Christian belief is that we looked as we look now when we were created.

Jesus is a person who is talked about in religious texts, most notably the Bible. It should be taken into consideration that the Bible itself is not a book (or rather, a compilation of books) to be taken literally. A large part of it is entirely symbolic. So then does it matter if Jesus was a 'real' person? Maybe he was merely a representation of a life pattern that one should follow or would need to go through in order to live a good life?

I think it depends on the reasoning behind their personal choice. In my experience, I find that most of the people who identify as atheists do so because they seem to think that science disproves God. But science has done no such thing. It seems that the average atheist doesn't do much thinking of his own, but rather waits to hear the popular "scientific" answer propagated in the mainstream. And history shows us that all those who have introduced paradigm shifts have gone against the mainstream understandings of their respective time period. These were dreamers. They expressed independent, original thought, which required them to use their imagination. Though, many seem to have been ridiculed throughout their lifetime and their contributions were only properly credited by the generations to follow. In fact, the whole discipline of science came about because of peoples belief in God or in an entity that is beyond our understanding of the material world.

I don't think that evolution and creation are separate. I think they go hand in hand, just like science and religion. I think there are points of convergence where the seemingly opposing areas of study complement one another quite nicely.. but for some reason, many of us choose to focus on the conflicting points. Even our brain is separated into two halves, one responsible for logical type thought and the other for creativity. But they are both part of the large whole, which is one and the same. I think that it's fine for those who believe in God to not delve into science, because logical knowledge does not seem to be a requirement. All that is needed is belief, that's it. Science, on the other hand, requires logical proof. And so I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology. It seems that these days we seem to forget that some of the biggest names in sciences, some of the 'founding fathers' of science if you will, were devout believers in God. In fact, it was their belief in God that drove them into science; seeking to better understand their creator.