Why Atheism Is A Bag of Hot Air
Atheism is decidedly unscientific, and anti-empirical, because it dogmatically asserts a claim that it cannot possibly prove or even empirically support. If they were truly empirical, or truly scientific, they would at least be agnostic. But they are neither empirical nor scientific. Besides that, and more importantly, atheism is the rantings of the venomously frustrated and disillusioned, based, in every case and example I know of, in a supreme lack of scholarship or erudition. I have yet to encounter a single self-proclaimed atheist who has done any serious study of world religions, world mythology, religious philosophy, or any philosophical inquiry in any real depth, and nor, clearly, have they ever plumbed or delved in any real depth into the philosophy of science, or into modern physics. They are an anti-intellectual bunch, essentially, passing themselves off as scientific, well-read, and well-informed. They are anything but.
JTR,
February 23, 2021
Writings of J. Todd Ring 
February 24, 2021 at 12:22 pm
Bang on
Sent from Rogers Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 5:22 pm
One person, a strident and dogmatic materialist, “critiqued” my short musing on atheism by saying that 91% of scientists in the US are atheists. I am very skeptical about such a figure, but it is irrelevant in any case. Reality is not a matter of an opinion poll. Truth is not determined by an opinion poll. Remember that virtually 100% of people, including the scientists and scholars, were absolutely certain that the Earth was the centre of the universe, until Galileo and Copernicus proved that the scientists and academics, and everyone else, were entirely and completely wrong.
But in case some people are still over-awed by what we falsely label as science, but which is in practice almost universally scientism, or the worship of quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific dogma – and sadly, far too many people are dumbed down by their belief in the infallibility of the pseudo-scientific clergy that we call scientists – we should note this. In Europe, only 25% of people call themselves atheists, and most of them are luke-warm and uncertain about that. Only a tiny minority are staunch atheists. And among scientists and engineers, half of them are religious. If the scientists in the US are more delusional than most scientists in the world, that would not be surprising, but we should remember that most scientists now are not Americans, and they are not even Westerners. Most scientists today are Asians, and they may pay lip service to the dying mechanistic-materialist-dualist paradigm and world view during their day jobs, but when they go home, they abandon it, and revert to being Hindus, or Buddhists, or Muslims or Jains, Christians, Jews, Confucianists or Taoists – which are all categorically at polar odds with the crude and dying ideology of mechanistic materialism.
So, if you want to cite opinion polls among scientists, which even in the best of cases only shows what the rank and file think, or misunderstand, then you should at least be honest and rational about it, which means global in thinking – and the results are in: the mechanistic, dualistic, atheist materialist world view is dying fast. May it pass swiftly, and may it rest in peace.
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 5:23 pm
In homage to the dying ideology of materialism: rest in peace, our most dearly beloved dogma of the past
LikeLike
April 22, 2021 at 5:54 pm
Einstein himself, who was the greatest scientist of the past 100 years, and one of the two or three greatest scientists of all Western history, said that if we were to be religious, he would be a Buddhist. And he said that he believed in Spinoza’s God. (Spinoza famously said that there is only one substance in existence, and you can call it nature or you can call it God). I challenge any Dawkinite or rabid materialist-atheist to call Einstein pseudo-scientific. The fact is, the old dogma is dying, and the high priests are not happy about it. But the real scientists move with the empirical evidence – and that is flatly contradicting the old paradigm of Newtonian-Cartesian dualism, mechanism and materialism.
LikeLike