I just finished reading a well-written article at the CMI site from April 2016, here:
http://creation.com/five-atheist-mir...ampaign=emails
It's about "Five Atheist Miracles". Years ago I had my own version of the same theme in which I explored more in-depth the first of these miracles - the one about the origin of the universe. [There's also the 'magical' origin of stars, but that will have to be another time]
In my own article I stated and defended the position that Materialists [which include Atheists, Humanists and even some "Christians"] are every bit as religious as any other (recognized) religious person*. In fact, if to identify the "religious" we use the criterion of "believing in something (1) in spite of not having any tangible evidence and/or, (2) that goes against demonstrable science and reason", then Materialists are as religious as, say, Snake Worshipers.
Simply and concisely, on the origin of the universe Materialists must believe that something came from absolute nothingness. This is a position that goes against demonstrable science and logic and for which they have not a single shred of tangible evidence. Yet, that is exactly what Materialists believe and they do so with a passion that may be equaled but not surpassed.
The question is thus begged, why do Materialists invoke the "our position is based on science while yours is based on religion" argument as often as they do? That too is a mystery.
*My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious.
Jorge
http://creation.com/five-atheist-mir...ampaign=emails
It's about "Five Atheist Miracles". Years ago I had my own version of the same theme in which I explored more in-depth the first of these miracles - the one about the origin of the universe. [There's also the 'magical' origin of stars, but that will have to be another time]
In my own article I stated and defended the position that Materialists [which include Atheists, Humanists and even some "Christians"] are every bit as religious as any other (recognized) religious person*. In fact, if to identify the "religious" we use the criterion of "believing in something (1) in spite of not having any tangible evidence and/or, (2) that goes against demonstrable science and reason", then Materialists are as religious as, say, Snake Worshipers.
Simply and concisely, on the origin of the universe Materialists must believe that something came from absolute nothingness. This is a position that goes against demonstrable science and logic and for which they have not a single shred of tangible evidence. Yet, that is exactly what Materialists believe and they do so with a passion that may be equaled but not surpassed.
The question is thus begged, why do Materialists invoke the "our position is based on science while yours is based on religion" argument as often as they do? That too is a mystery.
*My complete thesis is that everyone - bar none - is religious.
Jorge
Comment