Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

Zachariah made the mistake of assuming that atheists have never read the bible.As Rrhain wrote:

quote:

---

You see, atheists are, by and large, raised by theists. They went to church, read the appropriate holy book, did all the rituals, and truly believed.

​

But it didn't take. They eventually came to realize that it was all a load of hooey. The book didn't provide insight, the rituals did nothing, and that "feeling inside" was nothing more than them convincing themselves that they were supposed to be feeling something even though it wasn't there.

---

That is my background. I've probably read more of the bible than the average Christian. I was baptised in high school. Although my feeling is that it isn't that religion "didn't take" but that I have spiritually matured beyond the need for a god. Just as when we mature we leave Santa Clause behind. We know reindeer really don't fly.As my offspring have matured and leave my home, so have I matured and no longer need the image of a being keeping me safe, punishing my transgressors, or guiding my steps.I know I am a part of the cycle of this world. I wasn't given dominion over this living world. I should respect the planet that sustains me. I know that civilizations come and go, our world continues to change whether in small increments or huge shifts, and this planet will continue without our help until the day it expires.There are people who need religion or faith in a specific god in their life. That fulfills their need, but don't assume that since I don't need that support that I need to be fixed.My challenge to a Christian would be to read the bible with a truly open mind as I defined it in my first post (Open to new ideas with no bias). Leave traditions and dogma behind. This does not go against any commandment.Proverbs 3:13 How happy is the person who finds wisdom and the person who gains understanding.Have an excellent summer!

Ditto, and I wanted to add my thoughts - I think maturity is when you find the ability within yourself to do those things.

As Sartre would have put it, acceptence of full and total responsibility over your actions and inactions.Its quite scary stuff, but i think that at times the concept of moral luck must play a role. But even so, still pretty scary.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

If I time this right, I can probably get the last word by posting before Adminniemooseus closes the thread... Part of my point is that it is an error to think in terms of mathematical proof when we discuss scientific models. Scientists do offer up proof of various results, based on empirical observation. For example, the solar neutrino problem relates to a shortfall in the number of neutrinos observed from the Sun, by comparison with theoretical predictions based on our knowledge of the fusion processes involved. One hypothesis, which has been around for a long time, is that neutrinos have a very small mass, and can as a result change quantum states en route to Earth from the Sun.This was proved correct recently, in a set of careful observations. The matter of why we get fewer neutrinos observed than originally expected is now resolved. There is more to learn about the details, but there is now a good scientific empirical proof of the hypothesis of neutrino state changes. It's not a mathematical proof, but we don't generally use mathematical proofs in science; except occasionally for proving an auxiliary result relating to a scientific model that can be expressed mathematically.Evolution is a proven theory, in just this empirical sense. The relatedness of diverse living things has been confirmed by genetic studies. This is a perfectly good proof, in the scientific sense of the word.Of course, empirical science can never get at final truth; but we do nevertheless learn and discover things about the world, and it is quite normal to refer to scientific empirical proofs in relation to things we confirm by careful observation and testing.By the way, I am unsure who you mean when you speak of degrees in mathematics. Do you mean me, or yourself? Just asking out of interest; it is fun to hear a bit more about the background of people in the forum.Cheers -- Sylas

Sylas you wrote

quote:

---

It's not a mathematical proof, but we don't generally use mathematical proofs in science; except occasionally for proving an auxiliary result relating to a scientific model that can be expressed mathematically.

​

Evolution is a proven theory, in just this empirical sense. The relatedness of diverse living things has been confirmed by genetic studies. This is a perfectly good proof

---

Are you saying that if using some recombination genetic rule (on the relation between markers and genes and the genetic map)in analogy (of space to time)IN TIME in macrothermodynamics and one DEDUCES some aspect by the method of pure math proof this would be a priori AGAINST your view? I guess Wolfram MIGHT? have such a position but is it yours too?

Goodnight topic.Adminnemooseus

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads