Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not against science as a whole. I am against the scientist who use their
bias of atheism when conducting science. I will admit that I have a Christian
bias in my world view just as you have a atheistic bias in your world view.
However, I do not consider myself any more irrational or illogical than any one
else I have had discussions with. I can no ...[text shortened]... of the possibility that
there could be sufficient evidence to convince me to become an atheist.
Well I realise that you don't consider yourself to be irrational but you clearly are.
Rationality has two components.
Component one is to try to have as accurate a world view as possible so as to have the best
and most accurate foundation for making decisions and choices which is component two.
Component two is to use logic and reason to deduce the optimal method for achieving your goals,
whatever they may be. (and you can use logic and reason to help determine appropriate goals)
You clearly fail component one, you believe in things based on blind faith, and wont accept evidence
that contradicts those beliefs which means that your world view is inaccurate and you have no mechanism
for fixing it.
I don't know if you fail component two, you might use reason and logic to try to deduce the optimal method
of achieving your goals, (although the evidence here is not encouraging) however given that you fail
component one the foundation you use for making these decisions is faulty and thus so are those decisions.
As for logic, that is even clearer, seldom do you make a post of any length that doesn't contain at least one
logical fallacy. You claim things as proof that are nothing of the sort, and make arguments that are totally flawed.
This means you are unequivocally illogical.
You are against science as a whole (although you don't see it that way due to your inaccurate world view)
because you oppose the scientific method. You hold beliefs based on faith despite the evidence rather than
believe in things based on the evidence.
You also hold beliefs that flatly contradict all the known laws of physics and and knowledge gained in every major
field of science.
There is literally no part of science that doesn't contradict your beliefs of a young earth creation by the biblical god in
some way or another.
Also, atheism is not a bias and is not [inherently] a belief.
Atheism is the default position you take until evidence arises that indicates that a god or gods of some sort exist.
Scientists (on the whole) are not scientists because they are atheists, they are scientists because they believe in
rationality and skeptical enquiry and that is also why they are atheists.
There atheism doesn't inform their science, their science informs their atheism.
When you claim that you can't think of any evidence that would convince you to become an atheist you are demonstrating that
you are anti science and irrational.
Rationality requires that you believe in only that which is justified by evidence.
Thus a god or gods should only be believed in when there is evidence to justify that belief.
Until such a time as that evidence is found then the default starting position you take in the face of a lack of evidence IS atheism.
You don't need evidence to be an atheist, you need evidence to justify stopping being an atheist and becoming a theist.
However let me ask you this.
If it were proved that we were simply the product of the physical workings of our brains.
And that we have no souls or spirit and thus there can be no afterlife.
Would that convince you that your god and religious beliefs were wrong?
(given that your belief system is contingent on the existence of an afterlife and souls/spirit)