Let us do some weeding out here. Please, everyone who reads this, speak up and be honest. Three questions (1). Who here believes that the Universe was designed by some intelligence ? (2). Who here believes in unguided evolution by natural selection ? (3). Who here relies on the power of reason and the efficacy of science and rejects faith in any higher, intelligent, guiding power ? Think of this sort of like John Carpenter's "The Thing', or it's 2011 prequel..we're trying to figure out who the alien is that is pretending to be one of us.

I'll start things off. (1). I do not believe the Universe was designed by some intelligence.

                             (2). I believe in unguided evolution through natural selection.

                             (3). I reject faith whole heartedly. It is nothing but belief without evidence, or belief            

                                   contrary to evidence. I rely on reason and the efficacy of science. 

Tags: Faith, Reason, Science

Views: 428

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

All of these replies are well put, and Pat's is also funny. I got a laugh out of that.

I'm in agreement with you, Anthony, on all three of your points, with the addition of what Dennis mentioned about paranormal and physic beliefs.

A little side story:  I was in total shock and disbelief just the other day at work when a coworker mentioned that her best friend watched a segment on the Dr. Oz TV show about spirit angels and healing.  Her friend was now interested in finding a "spiritual adviser" to help her connect with any angels and finding out if her deceased mother was possibly one of them.  I said rather bluntly, Dr. Oz is a complete and utter quack and the idea that angels exist is complete bullshit.  My coworker seemed rather surprised at both of my statements.  Our conversation then ended rather abruptly and she walked away.  I'm telling you, I just can't let ridiculous statements like that go unanswered.  People need to be called out about such claims.  If they are willing to bring it up in a conversation, they better be willing to hear what others have to say in response.   


I know exactly what you mean about Dr. OZ. I've heard and read a few things about him. Yes, he is a quack. I also feel the same about Dr. Phil. I'm wondering if they might have gotten their credentials from a diploma mill.

Anthony, I don't know where Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil got their diplomas. But, I do agree with the sentiment expressed by Bill Maher when referring to Dr. Phil (and by extension, Dr. OZ). "Who made that fat f&@k America's psychologist?" The answer for both is - Oprah.

It's not just Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch who can shovel nonsensical crap down Americans throats.

I agree that dr. OZ is a quack, and can't stand to listen to dr. Phil long enough to determine what he is.  I also think "The Doctors" are often too easy on ideas that quack.

Right Idaho.  And who's the nut on Fox who calls themself a dr.  Ablov? Ablow??

FA, Good for you!!!!!  I'm glad you called her out on that bullshit.  Exactly right, she brought it up, so it's fair game.  I never watch Dr. Oz, but WOW!  Angels?!!! When I was little I was sure my dolls and stuffed animals came to life when I was asleep.  I used to tell them they could trust me, I wouldn't tell anyone.  They never trusted me. LOL

Let me add one other thing, a clarification. By my mentioning the efficacy of science, what I mean is science's ability to get to the truth, whereas faith never can and never will. I believe that with time science will learn the truth of everything (if we have time enough before something, or we ourselves, destroy ourselves). This is not to say necessarily that science will ever be able to solve all of our problems, after all, science is a two edged sword. But, given enough time, it will learn all the secrets of the universe.

my mentioning the efficacy of science, what I mean is science's ability to get to the truth

When it can.  "Relying on" is ambiguous. 

It's a stereotype of atheists that they think reason solves all problems, but not a stereotype I believe. 

given enough time, it will learn all the secrets of the universe.

Why do you think so?


"given enough time, it will learn all the secrets of the universe.

Why do you think so?"

I would have to agree with you. My position was mistaken. I am a great fan of Carl Sagan, who said:

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic  approaches to the truth ----never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key".

So I must revise my view on science. It may never learn the truth of everything, but it will bring us a vast store of knowledge about how the universe works. Science has already discovered much, and it will learn much, much more.

You are correct that I was stereotyping. So I thank you for the question, it has pointed out to me an error in my thinking, and therefore it was enlightening and helpful to me. None of us knows everything, including me. So thank you for pointing it out.

You are correct that I was stereotyping.

I didn't mean you were stereotyping, I tried not to imply that. I've heard that stereotype of atheists from religious people.  I was reacting as if you were expressing that stereotype.  But it's a stereotype that makes us into something less than human, and we are human and know that :)

Oh, sorry Luara. My bad. I apologize for mistaking your meaning. But don't take my previous reply as sarcasm, it wasn't meant that way.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service