A Giant Leap of Faith

Value Proposition for Faith & Atheism

12 min · 29 de nov de 2019
Portada del episodio Value Proposition for Faith & Atheism

Descripción

This is part of the series: A Giant Leap of Faith. It discusses the value proposition for atheism and faith. The links for the studies mentioned in the video follows: American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 187, Issue 11, November 2018, Pages 2355–2364, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy142 [https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy142] https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel.. [https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel..]. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank.. [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank..].

Comentarios

0

Sé la primera persona en comentar

¡Regístrate ahora y únete a la comunidad de A Giant Leap of Faith!

Prueba gratis

Empieza 7 días de prueba

$99 / mes después de la prueba. · Cancela cuando quieras.

  • Podcasts solo en Podimo
  • 20 horas de audiolibros al mes
  • Podcast gratuitos

Todos los episodios

17 episodios

episode Contradictions in Atheism artwork

Contradictions in Atheism

Regardless of anyone's particular beliefs, all atheists share some from of denial for a Creator and Designer. This denial leads to many contradictions: Believing there is no design necessarily means believing in chance and randomness, which leads to adopting fantastical unproven hypothesis to explain order without a designer, rationality and intelligence from dumb irrational processes, life from dead matter, free choice for a creature with no purpose. Once you deny God you start treating universal laws selectively (e.g. yes to gravity, no to causation), adopting a stolen concept fallacy when you use causation to practice any empirical science but deny causation in the creation of the Universe and us. You cannot deny God, which is also denial of an objective source for morality, yet assume a higher moral ground and attack the morals of religious figures. To explain the fine-tuning which most scientists agree on, atheists need to practice self-deceit and non-scientific bias by attributing God-like creative qualities to dumb physical processes, such as natural selection, mother nature, gravity, etc. with no empirical evidence (what Lewontin and Gould call “just so” stories.)

29 de nov de 20194 min