When will religion be overteken by logic?

Your point being...?

Never mind that they reproduce asexually...

...one can certainly appreciate the rhetorical convenience for an atheist of dumbing down the creation process. Nevertheless, given the task of building a cardboard box, I will employ more creativity than any two people who "create" a child - and that's if you spot me the cardboard.

 

The pretense is that reason refutes religion. It does nothing of the sort. To the contrary, reason refutes atheism.
The TITLE of the thread poses a fatuous question, in the process PRESUMING that religion will be "taken over by reason." Atheists are as anti-scientific as they are anti-common sense. Their strong suit is arrogant, condescending, pretentious rhetoric.

 

All life has a blueprint.

touche

No not dumbing it down, Atheists almost universally agree that increasing our understanding of life and our own existence is best pursued by analyzing and describing the creation processes themselves. Its rather a major motivation in biology and the physical sciences.

But I get how theist "creativity" has provided emotional and intellectually satisfying answers to life's fundamental questions.

When I consider the immensity of the universe and the inconsequential home of humanity within it, I think our anthropocentricity is the ultimate sapient conceit. IOW, I don't think humans are all that special to anyone other than ourselves, let alone any creation entity that may or may not exist.

 

Stop the presses.

Yes, dumbing it down...

...by picking it apart into pieces small enough for a human mind to grasp, so that ideally you end up with nothing to stand under, and therefore nothing to threaten your ego.

Sure, I get it: as C.S. Lewis put it, you "bow down before bigness", and revel in your "glib munificence of ciphers" and your "clownish amazement that different things should be of different sizes"; and of course people who think like that are a despot's delight, as they can always be depended on to value power over principle.

 

So the universe being so big, the only way to grasp it is to assume some all powerful being made it and us according to some grand plan where everybody who dies can kiss his butt all day long? Nah that's not threat to YOUR ego, except of course that whole "burn in eternal damnation" thing.

I see you share Lewis' love waxing poetical nonsense.

 

Only the egotistically inclined attempt that. Which is pretty much the point.

I see you can't find anything wrong with any of it.

 

Which was my point. Your ego is perfectly fine with assigning all you can't grasp to "god". Classic god of the gaps.

Apart from the psuedo intellectual presumptive nonsense? Nope not a thing.

 

No it wasn't, trust me.

The problem being, obviously, that there's nothing egotistical about that.

If stereotypical atheists weren't so egotistical, they'd be in mortal danger of realizing scientists haye yet to fill a single gap.

Exactly.

 

I'll pass.

Sure faith has nothing to do with ego and purpose through the submission of the word of god. Its not a conceit, but it is egocentric by definition.

Sorry they've filled in a ton of gaps and created a rather compelling narrative of the evolution of both the universe, our sun, our planet and life, including us. Like how natural disasters and droughts and relieving rains, had no need of a god to explain it at all, and yet these kinds of god miracles are embedded in religion as proof of god's existence - go figger.

 

Then you pass on getting the point. Safer that way, I guess.

That makes one of us.

Specify one you think they've filled and I'll tell you why you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, all it's very compelling to the egotistically inclined, who find it rather more comforting to contemplate their imagined superiority to generations past than to attend to the devolution they undergo on an individual level.

 

No I'll pass on trusting you to tell me what I think or feel.
Course its much easier and safer to simply presumptively dismiss in the certainty of ignorance .

Gaps filled - eclipses, earthquakes, floods, droughts, and all the natural events that have attributed to conscious emotional reactions of the big guy in the sky to dastardly sinful behavior of his playthings.

Yes it does seem very compelling to you. Comes when the certainty of faith is used to protect the insecurity of self awareness. As for superiority, it would appear you who look down in dismissal of those who do not believe as you do in gods, prayer and dogmatic ritual in order to make sense of your life.

 

News flash: they're not mutually exclusive.

 

require, among other things, massive objects and light, both of which are made, at least in part, of subatomic particles which both spin constantly and behave "probabilistically", neither of which behaviors has been scientifically accounted for, and both of which underlie ever physical phenomenon - which means underneath it all, it's nothing but gap as far as the eye can see and then some.

You're welcome.

 

hahahahahahahah! Yep nothing but a gap for as far as the eye can see and the brain can think.

 

Well at least I've gotten you to testify to the truth, even though you didn't understand a word of it.

 

I believe that is called the "twisted pretzel" move in mental gymnastics.

 

In reality it's called the truth.

 

"In YOUR reality its called truth".

Fixed it for you. Now that is a true statement in everyone's reality.

 

Perhaps not mutually exclusive.

So, where do Christians stand on health care?

 

There isn't any reality in which it isn't true...

...and you bloody well know it, which is why you can't find substantive fault with it to save your life.

 

Substantive fault with what exactly? I'm pretty sure if it was to save my life, I'd be able to find substantive fault with just about any philosophical perception of "reality". Scientific fact is a different story all together.

 

Post #963. You're welcome.

 

Seriously? I see taking the semantic argument to the quantum level actually seems relevant to you.

You can't possibly think that the gaps we are talking about - "god in his wrath caused the earth to shake" - is equivalent to the calling the space between quantum particles "gaps". That is NONSENSE.

 

We are not talking about that. If we are talking about anything, it's the allegedly filled gap relating to eclipses.

More to the point, how the hell you got anything like that out of #963 is a complete mystery.

 

I see that all that stuff in the bible for instance of god expressing his wrath, displeasure or pleasure at the behavior of his playthings by initiating natural disasters. allegedly? the gap about eclipses has been filled in completely.

As for #963, I did misread it what you were saying using quantum physics as an example of a knowledge gap.

The difference is in science there is no attribution to some version of god - the response is "don't know, but we'll find out if it is important, relevant or interesting enough".

Just look at all the natural world occurences that the bible uses to "prove" the existence of your god. That attribution arises wholly from the profound ignorance of the authors.