Faitheists, and their beliefs
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3207-atheists-and-their-beliefs
(slang, neologism, derogatory) An atheist who takes the nonexistence of gods on faith.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faitheist
Atheists commonly claim that they have reason and science on their side, compared to a Skydaddy, magic, religion, talking snakes and monkeys, and fiction.
Some also claim that their views are based on evidence, not faith, so they self-describe themselves as apistevists. ( they lack faith).
But suddenly, when it comes to putting the propositions on the table, and each side to show the cards that they have to play, it seems that the picture changes. Those that are more courageous, and don't hide behind the " I don't know" canard, claiming that they make no claims, and therefore, the burden of proof is all on us, those that describe themselves as strong atheists, and try to portray a worldview without God, resort to:
Multiverses, bubble universe, parallel worlds, string "theory", Virtual particles, oscillating universes, an eternal universe, a universe from nothing, the formation of stars through accretion, abiogenesis, a last universal common ancestor, a tree of life, macroevolution by unguided means, billions of years, transitional fossils, convergent evolution, consciousness, intelligence, and language as an emergent product and property of the brain, and subjective morality. Ought to be's are sufficiently reinforced by man to become binding.
They believe power and energy came from no power and no energy. No space created space. No mind created the mind. No consciousness created consciousness. No morality created moral values. No intention and will created intentional states, and will from jiggling electrons.
All propositions that they take ON FAITH, without a shred of empirical demonstrable scientifically based evidence. They reject theism because Gods existence cannot be empirically verified by our senses, but accept by default that the No-God proposition is true until shown otherwise, because all that their senses perceive, is natural, completely disconsidering that what we can observe in our world, is just a fraction of what we know to exist.
But it's the atheist's position that is supposedly perfectly rational, science-based, on credible peer-review, scientific consensus, logical, plausible, probable, and rational, and the scientific establishment is on their side. After all, 97% of biologists believe in evolution, therefore, it must be true.
On top of that, they truly believe that this unfathomably complex world came about solely by chance. Random luck. Natural selection by no mechanism with foresight, intent, goals, imagination, and intelligence.
How does that make sense ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3207-atheists-and-their-beliefs
(slang, neologism, derogatory) An atheist who takes the nonexistence of gods on faith.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faitheist
Atheists commonly claim that they have reason and science on their side, compared to a Skydaddy, magic, religion, talking snakes and monkeys, and fiction.
Some also claim that their views are based on evidence, not faith, so they self-describe themselves as apistevists. ( they lack faith).
But suddenly, when it comes to putting the propositions on the table, and each side to show the cards that they have to play, it seems that the picture changes. Those that are more courageous, and don't hide behind the " I don't know" canard, claiming that they make no claims, and therefore, the burden of proof is all on us, those that describe themselves as strong atheists, and try to portray a worldview without God, resort to:
Multiverses, bubble universe, parallel worlds, string "theory", Virtual particles, oscillating universes, an eternal universe, a universe from nothing, the formation of stars through accretion, abiogenesis, a last universal common ancestor, a tree of life, macroevolution by unguided means, billions of years, transitional fossils, convergent evolution, consciousness, intelligence, and language as an emergent product and property of the brain, and subjective morality. Ought to be's are sufficiently reinforced by man to become binding.
They believe power and energy came from no power and no energy. No space created space. No mind created the mind. No consciousness created consciousness. No morality created moral values. No intention and will created intentional states, and will from jiggling electrons.
All propositions that they take ON FAITH, without a shred of empirical demonstrable scientifically based evidence. They reject theism because Gods existence cannot be empirically verified by our senses, but accept by default that the No-God proposition is true until shown otherwise, because all that their senses perceive, is natural, completely disconsidering that what we can observe in our world, is just a fraction of what we know to exist.
But it's the atheist's position that is supposedly perfectly rational, science-based, on credible peer-review, scientific consensus, logical, plausible, probable, and rational, and the scientific establishment is on their side. After all, 97% of biologists believe in evolution, therefore, it must be true.
On top of that, they truly believe that this unfathomably complex world came about solely by chance. Random luck. Natural selection by no mechanism with foresight, intent, goals, imagination, and intelligence.
How does that make sense ?
