How come 99% of atheists do not understand the theories they believe in?

Question

I'd say 80% of atheists cannot even pronounce the theories they claim they believe in, so how can these people be taken seriously? How do they hope to gain converts to their new religion if their followers are mindless sheep that merely take the word of richard dawkins as the gospel?

zhukov, i apologize. next time i will phrase my question in the form of a haku to please you.

haiku hanna, it was a typo. how come nobody wrote about spaghetti yet??

Answer 1

The bible answers the question perfectly: Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' ."

- They are fools.

Answer 2

How come wild statistics are flourished with gay abandon with no validity to them, as if merely writing something down makes it true. As if writing a story 2000-plus years ago makes it true. Same thing?
I can certainly pronounce most everything correctly AND spell it correctly. I may not understand the intricacies of nuclear fission so as to explain it to my daughter (she did ask me!) but I believe that it is a fact, unlike the existence of a paranormal and invisible and silent and powerless entity that no-one can prove exists. NO - not one shred of evidence, other than the scribblings of an archaic group of deluded men some long time ago.
Atheism, a state of mind that I have adhered to for 53 years now, is NOT a religion, let alone a new one. Atheism existed way before any bible was cobbled together. Additionally, I have not read Mr Dawkins' words. Maybe I will sometime but my best guess is that the content will make far more sense than the gobbledegook written by ... what IS his name? ... the tile is 'The Purpose-Driven Life' I believe. That book is an insult to anyone's intelligence. Ah! Rick Warren. The man should be severely chastised for planting that garbage into the minds of the gullible.
If there is one thing that I am definitely NOT is a 'mindless sheep'. That description applies to those who simply believe what they are told and accept what they read as being factual, even though all of it is totally illogical and all without asking searching questions about such dogma.

Just because the god concept is a nice idea and it provides comfort for the weak-minded, provides hope for those who are afraid of most everything, is insufficient to make it real.
In all our history, mankind has had a need for protection and help from an imaginary being and, many years ago, such a being was the easy answer to simple things that they didn't understand or even feared. This is 2007, we now know the answers to why the weather does what it does and why natural disasters occur. An earthquake is not a message from a god but that's how it was construed many years ago.
Surely, the time has come for all those who CAN accept reality to do so and to dump the concept of there being anything supernatural that has any bearing at all on our lives - as there plainly isn't such a force. It's all in the mind of the foolish.
Finally, don't accuse ME of being anything other than well-educated, of superior intellect and a realist. You don't know me - and you never will.

Answer 3

Since you are a person of "Faith" I do not have an expectation of logic from your questions.

That said, expressing your opinion in the form of a question is fruitless.

If you are going to attack (something Jesus was famous for), you need to have a rudimentary understanding of those you are attacking.

Atheism is not a religion.

It is merely the absence of belief in gods.

from the Latin "A", meaning "without"
and "theism", meaning belief in god

Atheists are not seeking to make "converts".

There is no "Church of Atheism".

It is painfully obvious that you have never read Richard Dawkins, so to question why someone might agree with his scientific arguments is simply ignorant, especially when you use the metaphor of "mindless sheep" following the gospel.

If you are truly curious as to why atheists don't believe in your god, check out the following links.

Otherwise, save your self-righteous diatribe for your fellow cool-aid drinkers.

Answer 4

The thing about us Atheists is that if someone presents us with valid evidence of something different to what we think, we are willing to discuss and perhaps even change our minds.
However most religious people, and I will use Christians here as they are the most prevalent (can you say that word), are basing there entire belief system on a book written 1600 years ago. And are unwilling to consider anything against what they are taught, regardless if it is right or wrong.

Now your homework for tonight is to look up the meaning of the following words, and to practice saying them:

Rationalist
Super-anthropomorphic God
Evidence
Philosophically Unsound
Irrelevance
Paradoxes

And maybe you should also consider what a belief system actually is.

Answer 5

I am supposing that you are pulling that number out of thin air. Demonstrate the truth of your generalization. What theories are you referring to that the vast majority of atheists subscribe to, but apparently cannot understand? Please, do tell.

I think you are merely making a groundless assertion, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. So prove your point.

As far as people adhering to things they don’t understand, Christians, and religious laity in general are just as guilty of this as you say atheists are, if not more so. Ask most Christians to give you a coherent definition of the Trinity, a doctrine central to mainline orthodoxy, and I can almost guarantee you most cannot, nor can they make sense of the theological formulations that lead to the Trinitarian doctrine that were created by the Church fathers in the 1st century.

Ask the rank and file Christian to elaborate on such concepts so seminal to their theology like eschatology, dispensationalism, transubstantiation, and Armenian vs. Calvinistic thoughts on freewill and predestination, and most will look dumbfounded.

The truth is if many atheists are blindly subscribing to views they know little about, you rightly should recriminate them for it. However, as your own Jesus would stated: “Why look at the speck in your brother’s eye, and not the beam in your own”. For many of your own Christian brethren are just as guilty or more so of adhering to views, some quite preposterous, without truly thinking it through, or even knowing what they believe in.

Answer 6

properly, i'm not a biologist, yet numerous issues ensue to me as I examine your question. -The Cambrian replaced into not "a pair million years." information looks to place the era at probable as long as 70 to ninety million years...this is infrequently the blink of an eye fixed. -I comprehend that specific chemical markers point out that the ambience replaced extensively on the initiating of the Cambrian, so it form of feels that there would have been a mass extinction of pre-Cambrian organisms, which might fairly supply a huge style of environmental niches to fill - encouraging diversification of species. -some information shows that there would have been numerous precursor species from which Cambrian organisms stepped forward. Your argument on the topic of the unlikelihood of DNA "randomly and by twist of fate" evolving into humanity looks to have the technique backwards - issues do not evolve in direction of some pre-desperate variety. to declare that this disproves evolution is stupid. this is not not likely that organisms randomly and by twist of fate stepped forward into people - this is completely probably, because that's what occurred. Your "ninety 9.999998% of each and all of the evolution on the planet" discern is basically ridiculous - what's your source for this wild exaggeration? have you ever examine something different than creationist materials on your "analyze"?

Answer 7

Hurling insults again. Nothing more intelligent to say? (AS USUAL)
You do nothing but come on here, and post question after question that does nothing but call atheists stupid in every way you can think of. And you just make stuff up. Completely random stuff! That's intelligence for you.
"I'd say 80% of atheists cannot even pronounce the theories they claim they believe in..." Oooooo...you really burned us there.

Answer 8

I reject your premise. Either you're making things up or you're meeting all the wrong atheists.

Most of the atheists I know are well versed in the theories they believe in.

Still, and this is a big "still", one does not have to completely understand something to be aware that it is accepted by those who do. It was years before I fully understood the laws of thermodynamics, but I was still fully aware that a perpetual motion machine was impossible. Mind you, I couldn't tell you WHY that was, but I was aware that it was so, most particularly because 99.9999% of the scientific community said it was so.

Copy and paste for various other crackpot theories, like cold fusion.

Answer 9

I was an atheist long before I even heard of Richard Dawkins. During my studies in biology I only heard of him for his book on sociobiology. It is only much later I heard he was fighting creationists. I didn't read his book though.

Answer 10

I think its because Atheists trust scientists. By the way Atheist ism isn't a religion.