Christians of Moddb
Hobbies & Interests
This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.
Bottom paragraph moved to top because atheists seem to be missing this part:
Now before any smart-ass steps in and says that this doesn't prove that Christianity is true I'd like to remind them that this image is simply a JOKE. It's retaliation against the atheist logic where they keep promoting the scientists on their side as though it proves that atheism is true. Well Christianity (as do most religions) has scientists too and many of them have been influential and have contributed greatly to science. Isaac Newton is just one of the many Christian scientists that have walked this earth and continue to do so today.
---
Is Christianity correct or true or is atheism?
Christianity has Isaac Newton who is considered to be the greatest scientist of all time.
Atheism destroyed.
End of two cents.
Isaac Newton on atheism:
Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.
---
Just thought that I'd add this. Forget Chuck Norris. We've got the most influential scientist of all time on our side. Atheists are so keen on promoting who they have on their side in the atheist group but most of the people they have are sad old comedians. Meanwhile their scientists aren't scientists who set the grounding and foundation of modern science. Sure there are some great atheist scientists but all the foundations were set by believers.
René Descartes.
Blaise Pascal.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
Galileo Galilei (Called the father of modern science).
Antoine Lavoisier (Called the father of modern chemistry).
Max Planck.
William Thomson Kelvin.
All these scientists believed in God and these same scientists set the foundation for modern science. None of them were atheists. Two of them (Max Plank and René Descartes) have been called deists with all the others being Christian. Many even argued that science brought them closer to God or that religion doesn't contradict science.
I got nothing against Isaac newton. He's by far the physicist which I admire the most. He definitely was the scientist who had the greatest impact of all. But the following statement has startled me:
"Atheists are so keen on promoting who they have on their side in the atheist group but most of the people they have are sad old comedians and minor scientists who haven't contributed anything of worth to science."
That's quite an irrational statement, even by your standards. Again, you claim to know everything, but you are unable to recognize when you are simply wrong. A few notable atheist and agnostic scientist:
-Philip W. Anderson
-James Chadwick
-Albert Einstein
-Paul Dirac
-Richard Dawkins
-Steven Hawking
-Marie and Pierre Curie
-Thomas Edison
-J. Robert Oppenheimer
-Linus Pauling
-Enrico Fermi
-Max Planck
-John Forbes Nash, Jr.
-Carl Sagan
-Neils Bohr
-Arguably, Nicolas Tesla. We do not have any conclusive evidence that he was religious or not religious. He was spiritual but also he rejected religion on certain aspect too. On the other hand, he somewhat became mad at the end of his life. Anyways, I digress.
And many more....
Hence, your ridiculous claim is debunked. In fact the trend seems to be that most major scientist in 20th century and some of the late 19th century were atheist or agnostic...
I got nothing against christian, but I do have a problem with people like yourself who claim to know everything. No need to debate this further, you were wrong(once again).
@CommanderDG
And what have these scientists contributed that has been of any worth? Nothing. Only Hawking has contributed most to science out of your list. Dawkins has done nothing and Carl Sagan is only known for his attacks against religion and God along with SETI which isn't really isn't a great contribution to science as it hasn't even discovered other life yet.
Half of the people you listed were AGNOSTIC which is DIFFERENT from atheism. Einstein EXPLICITLY DENIED atheism. You're wrong again and you're reading and quoting out of context as usual.
Try againCommanderDG.
*sigh*
I will reply to this later...
If they had contributed something great you would be able to tell me from memory. Small achievements and awards are nothing because most scientists get that today. Call me back when one of them has discovered a complete cure for cancer which is 100% guaranteed to save any cancer patient. Call me back when they start discovering more about DNA and what "junk" DNA does (because we still don't know much about the DNA code). Call me back when one of them creates a robot that is actually intelligent and can think by itself. Call me back when they actually contribute something great to science instead of just working on things already discovered or on nuclear weapons.
James Chadwick discovered the neutron in the atomic nucleus and later went on to develop nuclear weapons and we all know what happened there. Dirac contributed to quantum mechanics. Pierre and Marie Currie discovered radium and polonium. Save for the last two, the others didn't discover anything.
Thomas Edison was a deist. Therefore your claim is inaccurate.
J. Robert Oppenheimer's religion is unknown. It's not known whether he believed or disbelieved but he was clearly fascinated by eastern religions, specifically Hinduism which is why he quoted from it.
Linus Pauling worked on quantum chemistry and mechanics. Again nothing life changing and nothing he discovered.
Enrico Fermi was agnostic.
Carl Sagan was agnostic.
Tesla was a theist and believed in some sort of creating force. He also praised Christianity and called it scientific.
Rubbish! Could you please do your research properly next time?
Besides I clearly stated "A few notable atheist and agnostic scientist". Also, I can tell from memory the discoveries that many of them have done, I simply do not have 3 hours to burn each day on your rants against atheist. While I do not consider myself one, dismissing some scientist contribution to science for their mere "beliefs" is prejudice and insensate.
Here, a few clarifications:
-Philip W. Anderson(Atheist):Nobel prize winner in physics for works on Q.E.D.
-James Chadwick(Atheist): Nobel prize for Discovery of the neutron, worked on the Manhattan project.
-Albert Einstein(Agnostic):Special relativity, General relativity, discovery of the photoelectric effect. Amongst other things.
-Paul Dirac(Atheist): Won the Nobel prize for his equation describing fermions, predicted antimatter.
-Richard Dawkins(recently converted to agnosticism apparently): published few academic papers on evolution, I do not know the real significance of them to be honest. However, he has his own foundation dedicated to research, that alone makes him a relevant scientist.
-Steven Hawking(Atheist): Hawking radiation and his
Singularity theorems.
-Marie and Pierre Curie(Atheist): Discovery of radium and polonium, isotope extraction method, radioactivity theory.
-Thomas Edison(full blown atheist, where did you took deism from? Pantheist is a possibility but still unlikely): invented the light-bulb, the tin foil phonograph and has patented over 1000 inventions.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer(agnostic, or, undeclared follower of Hinduism): works on the theory of electrons and positrons, the Oppenheimer–Phillips process in nuclear fusion, and the first prediction of quantum tunneling. Amongst other things.
-Linus Pauling(Atheist): Published several papers and won a Nobel prize for his works on the structure of proteins(including the alpha helix structure)
-Enrico Fermi(agnostic): Transmutation by neutron irradiation, Theory of beta decay, Nobel prize for his work on induced radioactivity. Amongst many others
-Max Planck(Agnostic): Black body radiation theory, plank constant and the plank's law. Amongst others
-John Forbes Nash, Jr.(*assumed* agnostic):Won the Nobel economic prize, works in partial differential equation, works in Algebraic geometry, and game theory.
-Carl Sagan(Agnostic): Mostly known for his works on extraterrestrial life and production of amino acid from basic by radiation.
-Neils Bohr(Atheist): Borh-Rutherford model of the Atom for which he won the Nobel prize of physics, participated in the making of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
-Nicola Tesla(spiritual, but not religious. Quote or link to prove he was a theist? I got plenty who says otherwise): The radio,even thought it has been popularized as a invention by Marconi, alternating current distribution, remote control, the first AC electric motor, amongst many others.
I presume that it was a quick search... And half of the list are agnostics? Not to my knowledge no. 10 vs 6 and one still unknown(tesla).
About Carl Sagan:
He has done more for me than religion has so far. That is, seeking proof. SETI might not find life, but at least, whether it is in 10 years, a century, or in a millennium, it will eventually have a definite answer to whether there is extraterrestrial life or not. Religion can not offer me that luxury as to whether there is a god or not, no matter how long I wait.
Einstein views on religion:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
He declared himself agnostic because he believe that the problem was too complex for our "simple minds". That a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate atheism. Nor does it erase from history the progress that atheists (and agnostic) have brought to humanity.
Finally, in regards to Richard Dawkins:
To my knowledge he hasn't opposed the concept of religion as much as he lead a crusade against those who praised the the theories of creationism an intelligent design and thereby discarding Darwinian evolution. He advocate atheism with enthusiasms no doubt, but attacking religion I believe is incorrect. However, I admit that I only seen a few of his debate(maybe around 6, in length, about hour each),so I may be wrong. He may not have written anything groundbreaking to date, but he has influence as a evolutionary biologist and that alone makes him someone important, whether you agree with him or not, is irrelevant. Aristotle was also wrong, it doesn't mean he was a bad or an unimportant scientist.
"And what have these scientists contributed that has been of any worth? Nothing."
That's an absurd conclusion. It doesn't mean that because you do not understand their works or the implications that they did not contributed anything. It simply demonstrate your ignorance.
I won't ask to "Try Again" because I do not think it will be productive. You are wrong once again and you are splitting hairs. I did not reach out of context, however you infer things that will satisfy your theories.
My point stands, your claim was foolish. Stop making outrageous claims and I will stop proving you wrong.
"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt"-Samuel Langhorne Clemens (A.K.A. Mark Twain)
Absolute lies (again and as usual). I already mentioned James Chadwick, Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Marie and Pierre Curie AND Thomas Edison. Why are you mentioning them and their achievements again?
Thomas Edison was a deist. Now I know that you're getting your information from some random atheist site which simply misquotes and sprouts lies much like yourself.
Einstein was agnostic so again, why mention it? He wasn't atheist and I wasn't attacking agnosticism which is different from atheism.
Here's what Edison said on God:
"Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions."
"You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made."
--- Edison in a reply to being called an atheist. This clearly shows he was not.
Here's what Einstein said on God:
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
Here's what he said on atheists:
"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres."
He wasn't an atheist and didn't deny a god existing. Why bring him up? Never once did I attack agnosticism in this image, so now you're creating a straw-man argument (as usual).
But again, the FEW scientists atheism does have haven't contributed anything of worth to the world or humanity. You have brought forth AGNOSTICS who have done that. The only influential atheist scientist out there is Stephan Hawkings and perhaps a few others. Meanwhile scientists who believed in God (or a god) and who were INFLUENTIAL to science and set the grounding for it were believers.
We talked about Plato before didn't we? He is considered the one who laid the foundations for western science. Plato attacked atheism numerous times.
Yes there are some atheist scientists who made great discoveries in science but none of them laid the foundations and made the same discoveries that believers have. Likewise, it was Muslims who laid the foundations for modern maths and once, it was Muslims who contributed greatly to science in huge abundance.
So stop bringing up agnostics and deists as they HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. You clearly don't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I find it hard to believe that you're agnostic if you don't even know what it is.
To my knowledge is no lies here, only lack of understanding. Unless, you are admitting your sins of course. In fact, the only lie is that "atheist contributed nothing". Hey, those are your words, so don't beat me up with that stick. Though,I see you changed the description. You know what that is? It's called hypocrisy.
In any case, I am mentioning them because:
Firstly - They all believed organized religions to be corrupt in some way or another.
Secondly- You haven't mentioned neither Marie and Pierre curie.
Thirdly- You forgot some of their achievements.
Finally- At the very least, Dirac, Chadwick and Marrie and Pierre Currie were atheist. I admit there is a possibility that Edison was agnostic.
I mentioned Einstein because I share his belief. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God. As I aforementioned, it was a list of both atheist and agnostic scientist.
About Edison. Wow, getting cranky are we? I haven't made anything up but as our debates progress, I am starting to doubt the legitimacy of your own "knowledge". You can find many different claims on the same thing on the Web. However, some are more reliable source than others. without further ado, prove this wrong:
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [Thomas Alva Edison, Columbian Magazine]"
"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk. [Thomas Edison]"
I may have taken it to an extreme, but if this isn't at least an agnostic speaking, well then, I guess you can consider me a deist too. He didn't believed in a God, period.
The quote is correct, your reasoning is not. I did not bring him up because I thought he was atheist. I listed scientist which were not religious, and that the tendency is that, since the end of the 19th century, most of the greatest scientists were not religious.
Hereby, it contradicts your argument that only religious scientist had influence on humanity's progress.
Scientist before that were religious only because it was the norm, not because it's logical. It's not a fallacy if you consider all of the arguments in the debate and not the original proposition.
It is not my scheme to write straw man arguments, it is you who deemed them as such in order to cover your lack of a proper counter. If anything, you used straw man argument since I begun to debate with you.
Few is relative, and anything worth to humanity is either a lie, or another misconception of yours. Read the revised list again. They are only few because religion used to threat and oppress scientist and thus they learned to keep their mouth shut. Taking Newton and hailing him as the best Scientist is fine, I agree with that perception.
But, religion doesn't makes him a better scientist and if he would live in our century, I am confident he would have been agnostic, because it's the most logical thing to do. His feelings for atheist are not proof of the invalidity of their "belief" or method. If we take any observations as proof for any theory there is, then, UFO encounters, people with godly powers, ghost and other supernatural phenomena must be true, they are not. The fact is, they have to be supported by logic, mathematical model and empirical evidence.
Something must be proven in order to be scientifically accepted. God is not proven, Miracle are not proven, and to our knowledge Jesus was an ordinary man. Logic tell us that something needs a cause, there if no god there is no "miracle". There is a reason why it's called faith.
Additionally, you seem to misunderstand the difference between most known and influential. Besides, I gave a small list but it doesn't mean that they are that few. Wikipedia seem to have their own, I am not sure what the reliability of it though.
"Plato attacked atheism numerous times."
You are committing a fallacy. The fact that he was religious didn't make him a great scientist. Nor his attack on atheism. He lived in the past. By your logic, we should also believe that everything is made up of the 4 elements described by Aristotle because he layed the foundation to Western philosophy too. Your argument is ridiculous.
You cannot lay foundation if it has already been done. If anything, atheism is progress over religion because, it doesn't take " God hypothesis" as facts, it automatically dismiss them for lack of evidence.
"once, it was Muslims who contributed greatly to science"
It's irrelevant. Their religious affiliation doesn't stop them from being great scientist. The fact remains, modern great scientist are mostly agnostic or atheist because they now follow the scientific method in order to prove or dismiss evidence including to what relates to any religion.
To conclude, atheist, despite your refusal of admitting your mistake, have made great contribution to science in the last century and a half. I did mentioned some agnostic, but no deist unless you can prove it otherwise. You claimed that atheist didn't done anything of worth and that the most important scientist was religious and thus, religion is correct and atheism wrong. As I have already mentioned, that's a fallacy.
I showed a list of the scientist which I knew and which are amongst the greatest, which include both atheist and agnostic, to prove that religious affiliation of a scientist doesn't validate a particular belief. Proof and only proof will. I don't think atheism to be correct, however I do think that it's better than religion.
I know perfectly what agnosticism is, but you still do not know what a proof is and you are simply unable to admit your mistakes. Atheist had a relevant impact, period. I do not need to agree to their philosophy to acknowledge this.
There are lies here because you were claiming that agnostics and deists were atheists which simply wasn't true. So I corrected you on that claim. The description has been changed to better reflect my original meaning and that doesn't show any hypocrisy (a word you clearly don't know the meaning of) in any possible way.
1: Nope. Not all of them. The atheists did (however, even some of them respected religion) but not the agnostics.
2. Yes, I did mention Marie and Pierre Currie, once again you lie or you've proven that you've only read my comments in anger and thus missed out important parts. Look eight comments above your one and you'll see that I mentioned them.
3: No, I didn't. I couldn't be bothered listing them all.
4: I know but Edison was a deist.
Again, agnostics and deists have nothing to do with this debate and I never brought them up. You've created a strawman argument.
As for Edison, he actually said this:
Nature is what we know. We do not know the gods of religions. And nature is not kind, or merciful, or loving. If God made me — the fabled God of the three qualities of which I spoke: mercy, kindness, love — He also made the fish I catch and eat. And where do His mercy, kindness, and love for that fish come in? No; nature made us — nature did it all — not the gods of the religions.
And when called an atheist, he said this:
"You have misunderstood the whole article, because you jumped to the conclusion that it denies the existence of God. There is no such denial, what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter. All the article states is that it is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made."
I guess you don't know what a personal God is. Einstein denied a personal God but he wasn't an atheist.
Wrong. I actually said that many religious scientists had contributed to science more-so than any atheist scientists and the ones who set the foundation for modern science with Christian. You've created a straw man argument by saying religious scientists. Even before I edited the image, it was "scientists who believed" and not religious. Try to keep up to date instead of lying all the time...
Religion never threatened and oppressed scientists or science. This is another lie of yours supported by no evidence. Galileo (another Christian) was oppressed but only because he challenged the Church's view of the world. The Church didn't suppress anything that was improving technology and medicine.
"But, religion doesn't makes him a better scientist and if he would live in our century, I am confident he would have been agnostic, because it's the most logical thing to do"
Empty assumptions. He knew of atheism. He denied it. Why would being in this century be any different considering atheism still has zero evidence?
"By your logic, we should also believe that everything is made up of the 4 elements described by Aristotle because he layed the foundation to Western philosophy too."
Quote me where I said that. Another straw man argument...
As for you saying that God isn't proven and that miracles aren't either, that's true but we have eye-witness accounts of both throughout history and logic supports God more than atheism. Seems you're just changing the topic though and trying to make this debate into a debate about theism and atheism which you're losing elsewhere. No need to bring it into this debate...
Atheism bases itself on unfounded assumptions and blind faith more-so than any religion. It's a giant step-backward and is far from being scientific. Even Scientology makes more sense than atheism.
"It's irrelevant. Their religious affiliation doesn't stop them from being great scientist."
Which is what I say in the image. You still haven't understood the image's point have you? It's an attack on all the images in the atheist group but your hypocrisy here amuses me. You attack me for one image but ignorantly ignore their attacks. You're just attacking this image (intended as a joke image which it seems I'm going to have to make more clearer for you) because it's an attack against atheism. You're bias and you lean to the side of atheism despite your claims of having Einstein's stance on God (who didn't lean towards atheism).
"The fact remains, modern great scientist are mostly agnostic or atheist because they now follow the scientific method in order to prove or dismiss evidence including to what relates to any religion."
This is untrue.
Livescience.com
Msnbc.msn.com
Articles.latimes.com
Curious.astro.cornell.edu
Bitesizebio.com
All from non-bias sites which aren't linked to any religions or beliefs.
Seems you're wrong again.
"You claimed that atheist didn't done anything of worth and that the most important scientist was religious and thus, religion is correct and atheism wrong."
More lies. Don't you get what a joke image is? I still stand by my statement that atheist scientists haven't done as much as scientists who have believed in God (my opinion here but it's factual that modern science's foundation was laid by believers and not atheists) and the sites above seem to state that many modern scientists believe in God but I never said that atheism is destroyed because of the religious scientists who have been Christian. That was a joke and it was a response to the Chuck Norris image on here and to the atheist images on the atheist group.
I'm sorry you took it seriously but it seems you have double standards. Mayhap you should head over to the atheist group and start attacking them for using the same logic. Hell, you're using it yourself:
"The fact remains, modern great scientist are mostly agnostic or atheist because they now follow the scientific method in order to prove or dismiss evidence including to what relates to any religion."
Just different words. Here you've created an argument based on no evidence whatsoever.
Once again, this image is retaliation again the common atheist argument of "most scientists are atheists and therefore God can't be real because smart and educated people don't believe in him." Well as the sites above prove, many scientists today still believe and many scientists in the past have been believers. Therefore - according to the atheist logic - atheism is debunked.
This image was simply meant to expose that logic and nothing more. You've turned it into an entirely different argument based on my opinion about Christian scientists doing more in science than atheist scientists. It's factual though that the foundations were laid by believers and not by atheists and I challenge you to prove me wrong. Articles and non-bias sources I shall accept.