Atheist Ideolgoy: Deniel of the "Science Only" Viewpoint

no atheist ideology?

I posted this about culture clash on CARM in thinking about the reasons atheists can't accept God arguments.

I think a lot of this stuff, the war between atheists and theists, is really just the result of different cultural expectations. Cultural change is coming at a frantic rate, the mazeways are shifting too fast for a lot of people to get their bearings. That doesn't just mean conservative theists. A lot of atheist might be atheist becuase they can't grasp anything solid n the shifting sands of cultural constructs.

Atheists have this ideology that tells them to deny it's an ideology, but it tells them there's one form of knowledge; scinece. Basically atheism is about replacing God with science worship. its' still a clash two different religions it's just God of the bible vs scinece. One thing that angers me the most is that becuase they only accept one form of knowledge they wont accept answers that don't come from that form of knowledge.

Somewhere along the way atheists shifted from cultural relativists to totalitarians. They went form liberal to librarian and became narrow minded. In refusing to accept any other form of knowledge you are just stipulating that only your views will do, that's ideology. That's exactly what ideology is.

Take for example the question "where did God come form." We basically have two answer. the primary answer is "God didn't come from anywhere. God is eternal." Yet in saying that we are actually saying a bit more. we are saying that there is some eternal basis of existence that's primordial. Then we have several logcial ideas about what that would be, and the most engaging one is mind.

There's nothing illogical about it certain atheist go ape becuase it's so removed from the approved received for of knowledge that the priesthood of knowledge (science) authorizes. Search yourselves honestly and you will have to realize that you are just reacting against things that aren't part of your world view.

hsmithson says "strawman," then adds.

That's a pretty bold claim. I challenge you to point out just ONE of my posts that says science is the only form of knowledge or that we should worship science. Otherwise, please retract your assertion that every post I make has those characteristics.

1337

Which atheists are you talking about? Is this yet another case of you assuming what your opposition thinks and arguing a position that you made up?

It certainly does seem like a strawman.

problem: I am always seeing statements by atheist that imply that science is the only form of knowledge and the only way to think about things and that this is the major reason why they can't accept God arguments; becasue they write out of reality any kind of evidence that doesn't' support their conclusion.

then when I point it out they go "O we don't say that. what's wrong with you can't you can't quote me saying that."

Examples:

Brainw on an old thread started me "Atheist Contradiction: fortress of facts vs mutliverse."



post 2

I know you are going to agree with what he says. That's not the issue. The issue is this statement shows exactly the fortress of facts and the kind of thinking I'm discussing.

God apparently does exist only in minds.

And theoretical physics has a long history of predicting things using pure mathematics that are later verified by experiment.

Theology has no such track record.

That's not true, it does. That's the beside the point right now. The point is that saying this is exactly perfectly a statement of what I'm talking about; that is the fortress of facts. "we have the only way to know things." that's just what he's saying.

they are saying "only our method is valid, your method isn't worth anything even though we don't know anything about it."

Therefore we can put more confidence in the predictions of theoretical physics than the unsubstantiated claims about what different people feel inside their brains alone.

You lose.

It's not about truth its about we are going to get you. we are better than you. its not about truth it's about revenge. but look at his statement! he says we have the only way to really know stuff. that's a perfect example of teh fortress of facts.

Of course I can show theologies ways of knowing stuff I can show contradictions to this and disproof of it but you just write them off without reading a single study becuase it's not part of the ideology.

atheists have a dictum: we will NOT Accept anything that counts against our view.

(1) science the only knowledge

(2) the only scinece agrees with us.

Proof: I've talked about 200 studies for five years no one has read a single one. they lied about it, they confused articles with studies but the never read an actual study, (maybe in the last six months someone read one, but after five years of bitching about it) they still don't make valid methodology attacks.


Example 2:


Liza” public opinion expressed by commenter on blog “Apple Eaters,” no date given. UTL: visited 8/26/2010

"The question of God’s existence is incredibly loaded because, if God doesn’t exist, the majority of people in the world derive meaning in their lives from a lie. For this reason, the capacity for natural science to explain why things happen without appeal to the supernatural is threatening to religion and to religious believers. After all, if we can explain everything without appeal to God’s intervention, why introduce Him into the equation at all?"

This is an anecdotal example of how deeply ingrained the scientistic view point is at the popular level. Again from the popular level, a website called God is Imaginary:

Website God is Imaginary . URL http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm visited 8/26/2010

"There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)
• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)
• The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)
• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)

• Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
• And so on…
Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.
If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:
1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
2. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
3. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary."

this is part of the idea they are saying if there isn't any scientific evdience then no reason to believe it. that means there is no other kind of of evidence that matters. that has to mean scinece is the only from of knowledge.

HRG on carm basically lets the cat out of the bag by admitting scinece is the only valid form of knowledge.
Originally Posted by Occam

By empiricist standards, I doubt that you have evidence that anything causes anything, let alone that the brain causes the mind.

HRG:

We have evidence that it makes it highly likely - just like we have evidence that it is highly likely that sufficiently heated carbon compounds cause combustion.

Apparently many people still suffer from Plato's view - that only 100% knowledge is knowledge.

Hes' saying that all knowledge isn't really important. only scientific knowledge matters. so all the time time they say "we don't say scinece is the only form of knowledge they really means 'it's the only valid form."

Blondie adds to it:

It has nothing to do with science. Science is the best way we have of figuring stuff out simply because it is objective.

That's just what I said. When they deny that they think science is the only knowledge they are really thinking (it's not the only kind but it's all that works).

what do the cowards say to this? they refuse to read it. see the admission by Aussie guy:

Originally Posted by Aussieguy

No, we don't. We atheists by definition do not believe in God. How therefore can we believe he wrote any of the bible? It would be like believing that Bilbo Baggins actually wrote The Hobbit, despite not believing in Hobbits.

I have no idea what the rest of your post was about, but it didn't appear to have anything to do with what I said.

Blondie:

There is magic in mythology. Do you think mythology is a way of acquiring knowledge? How about poetry?

ibid:

So the new meme among apologists is that atheists are into "scientism." I would agree that scientists are particularly lionized in the new atheist movement, but so what? Science is just a method of figuring things out. It is the best one that I am aware of. We need to turn this argument aroung and get the theists to admit they are really arguing for the validity of revealed "truth" and gut feelings. What other methods are there of acquiring knowledge? Are any of these better than science?

In saying this he's already excluded any kind of knowledge that's not scientific. Of course the arts are a kind of knowledge. The arts have their own magisteria, they are a discipline in their own right, this guy doesn't value them. "Science is a method of figuring thing out," we see from the things he says in the thread they give no credence ot any other form of figuring things out.


Ibid

That is the point of this thread. To flesh this out. You are communicating with other people and are certainly gathering knowledge. So what we really need is a way of gathering correct or truthful knowledge.I could tell you I am 12 feet tall.

ibid

Science can't answer things outside its domain. No kidding. Science can't tell me which movie to go see at the matinee. How about a truth claim that science can't tackle? One that doesn't involve meaningless words or value judgements.

like that's the only form of knowledge aside from scinece, just little matters of entertainment and personal tastes. so ethics and meaning in life and the search for why we are here all of that is just BS to them becasue they have accepted an ideology that answers that stuff for them.If I was not a believer in God I would stil oppose this totalitarian nonsense with all my will and all my heart. If I didn't believe I would be a social Christian just to thwart this fascistic movement.

Of course you don't becuase you are scared to death to read proof that disproves your position. you research with your eyes closed.

the quote you quote from is misconstrued and taken out of context. I didn't say "o they don't hu" to "Atheists don't believe God put it in the Bible." Obviously I know that. I said that to "we don't think science is the only form of knowledge."

the quotes I quoted, which you are afraid to read, are examples of atheists saying "science is the only form of knowledge." what Blondie says about "it's correct or trutful knoweldge" makes this clear. Other forms of knowledge aren't truth. They can deny believing that it's the only form of knowledge when in reality they do believe that, they just rationalize it by saying "it's not the only one just the only one that's truthful."


Originally Posted by shunyadragon

I disagree that history and historical methods 'are' science, they use the objective methods of science in historical methodology. They are not better, just another source of knowledge about the world we live in.

Poetry is not a way to acquire knowledge, it is medium ot express and share knowledge.

BrainW takes the prise for stupidity:
post 33

Which still has it's basis in observation, the collection and analysis of forensic evidence..etc It's not a bunch of weirdos sitting around making stuff up, like theologians.

A bunch of "wirdies?" The atheists expelled form CARM who formed AARM were into everything form gay bondage to rapping dolls and yet it's theologians who are "wiredies!" why? Obviously becuase they are not brian washed by the ideology, they are not on template and they don't point the rhetoric or the slogans. This guy has read no theology, he's saying this about theologians becuase they not part of the ideology he serves. Throughout this thread and the whole board in general they are constantly shooting their mouths off about things of which they are totally ignorant.


Originally Posted by Occam

I think this discussion needs to begin with a definition of "science." I know "science" is a really hard word to define, though, so maybe you could just describe it or something.

Keith (ibid) observes:

Agreed. Because what I have observed is that when someone offers X as another form of knowledge, the response is "Well X is actually science". So what is science? Or a better question is what isn't science (according to some atheists)?

That's a good observation. They are so stuck in thinking only in scientific terms that when an alternative is presented all they do is try and compere it to scinece. the only valid form of thought is scientific.


Apologetics, Atheist ideology, science as only form of knoweldge