Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

11 SiIlly Things That Some Atheists Say
Historical Jesus Studies ^ | Feb 27, 2015 | James Bishop

Posted on 02/28/2015 8:40:57 AM PST by Heartlander

11 silly things that some atheists say.

February 27, 2015 · by · in Articles, Atheism. ·

Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 5.49.23 PM

Introduction:

The atheist that this blog article is briefly referring to is the fundamentalist head-in-the-sand, fingers-in-their-ears type, which contrary to atheism makes up the majority of the religion hating New Atheists. My last point, point 11, addresses Stephen Hawking but I want to make it clear that I do not view him as a fundamentalist atheist like Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris would be. Although I, alongside many, disagree with Hawking and his conclusions, I don’t take anything away from his brilliant intellect, or his skillset. By head-in-the-sand atheist I mean the ones that prove irrational, close-minded, and hyper critical by demanding ridiculous evidential experiences (such as God writing his name on the moon or in the clouds, and then having him appear to them in their bedrooms to convince them, for instance).

This article also by no means suggests that all atheists are this irrational, I think atheists have good arguments, and I think the studious atheists are intelligent people, I just think the theistic arguments are better, that’s all. Nevertheless, in future blog articles I will address more silly things some atheists say, but these 11 will suffice for now.

1) That Jesus never existed.

The evidence for Jesus’ existence as a 1st century person is very convincing, if you are willing to view this evidence I have detailed it here, and here. I also outline 41 reasons why scholars know for certain that Jesus existed (here). In fact, we can know quite a lot about Jesus, and in this article I establish 23 historically certain things we can know about him. As Paul Maier, former Professor of Ancient History, remarks: “The total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

Are these atheists being the “shallowest of intellects”? They seem to be. Bart Ehrman, perhaps the leading sceptical scholar of our time compares those who deny Jesus ever existing to six-day creationists:

“These views are so extreme (that Jesus did not exist) and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

The most direct opinion comes from the non-Christian scholar Maurice Casey, a former prominent New Testament historian before his recent death. He hits the nail on the head when he says:

“This view [that Jesus didn’t exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice, which holds all the main primary sources, and Christian people, in contempt. …. Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent.”

Yes, indeed these atheists are “prejudice(ed)”, the “shallowest of intellects”, “unconvincing”, and “extraordinary incompetent.” In fact I will end this point on a quote from an atheist historian:

“After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does not mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.”

Tim O’Neill goes on to say: “All too often many atheists can be polemicists when dealing with the past, only crediting information or analysis that fits an argument against religion they are trying to make while downplaying, dismissing or ignoring evidence or analysis that does not fit their agenda”

2) That it doesn’t matter how many independent source we have on Jesus:

On writing one of my articles on the historical Jesus I was happy to engage an atheist on the matter in the comment section below. All of a sudden this atheist was implying that I had to provide evidence for Jesus ever existing, in other words he said that I had the burden of proof.

At one stage he even said, I quote: “What does it matter the more written texts we have on a person, what does that prove?”

With all due respect but the ignorance of this particular atheist is obvious. According to Wikipedia one of the methods on establishing the likeliness of an event in the past occurring is “If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.” Or as leading scholar Bruce Metzger comments:

“The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like.”

That is hardly revelatory information – I wouldn’t even have had to pick up a single history book to know that. That is what you learn in history 101 class.

But there is more to this as this particular atheist, brandishing his weapon of ignorance, believes that his opinion trumps the professional and expert opinions of just about every PhD scholar in the field who hold that Jesus certainly existed. So, he doesn’t even know what independent source are, or how they provide a higher degree of historical probability from history for the historian, but on top of it he is just downright arrogant. Ignorance and arrogance make for a terrible concoction.

3) That the burden of proof is never on them:

I beg to differ. For example, the head-in-the-sand atheist has often told me that I need to “prove” that Jesus existed. No, I don’t and I wont as the vast majority of scholarship in the field from historians, classical scholars, New Testament and Biblical scholars accept, based off historical method and evidence, that Jesus did exist. As Bart Ehrman notes:

“…none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. …The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.”

So, it is the head-in-the-sand atheist that needs to provide evidence to the contrary, and abominably inaccurate and deceitful films like Zeitgeist, or the Da Vinci Code do not count as evidence.

Secondly, some atheists think they are self-entitled in thinking that the burden of proof never lies with them but on the shoulders of the theist to provide evidence that God exists. No, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, including the atheist. If you make the claim then you need to back it up.

4) That the Bible is not historical:

The Bible is history as it is a library (66 books) of historical texts that provide us with information. It is written over a 1500-year period, by over 40 authors, on three different continents, and in three different languages. Regarding the New Testament (which is part of the Bible, by the way) Bart Ehrman explains:

“If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple.”

So, according to one leading historian the Biblical narratives can be used for “historical reasons, pure and simple.”

Richard Burridge, a scholar on Biblical exegesis, notes: “According to The Gospels have to be judged by the criteria of the 1st century and I think they are pretty reliable documents. They share essentially the same story of Jesus’ public ministry, his teaching, his preaching, his activity, his healing and the events of the week leading to his death – and the fact that something very odd happened afterwards.”

It is also commonly hold that the Gospels are biographical in nature, which means that they constitute history based on a historical figure. As Graham Stanton in his book ‘Jesus and Gospel’ writes:

“The gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies”

David Aune, specialist in ancient genres, also comments: “Thus while the [Gospel writers] clearly had an important theological agenda, the very fact that they chose to adapt Greco-Roman biographical conventions to tell the story of Jesus indicated that they were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really happened.”

Craig Keener, another prominent New Testament scholar, pronounces: “In recent decades, as scholars have examined the best ancient analogies for the Gospels, it has become increasingly clear that the Gospels were designed as biographies—though as ancient rather than modern ones.”

The Biblical narratives, Old Testament too, are historical sources. How reliable they are is another question altogether, but it is obvious that they are historical sources from which data can be gathered. The sceptic may have a different opinion to what scholars believe, but that opinion does not constitute fact.

5) That atheism is not a belief:

By common sense, and the ability to just see with your own two eyes, this statement is refuted. I walk into the bookstore and head to my favourite sections: religion, atheism, philosophy. I will see a pile of atheist books, oh but wait! These books are nothing, according to some atheists, but some author’s writing on the “lack of a belief” in God. That doesn’t make sense, I wouldn’t write a book on my “lack of belief” in unicorns, I write a book because I believe unicorns don’t exist, and I provide arguments to back that up.
It is also obvious that in these atheist books, and in their debates, they make arguments that they “believe” (big emphasis) prove that God does not exist, or that he likely does not exist.

It’s kind of like saying I don’t have any beliefs myself even though I believe your belief is wrong. It falls foul to the law of self-contradiction. In fact, John Lennox an Oxford mathematician and philosopher of science in an interview, on this very subject, opines:

“The atheists claim that they don’t have faith. Oh yes they do, in their science, in the rational intelligibility of the universe.”

When you have faith, you have a belief – the atheist isn’t the exception. William Lane Craig, a leading philosopher, comments:

“If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.”

On this redefinition of atheism even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists. In fact, a cat or a dog, even a rat, counts as an atheist on this definition. One needs to be brave enough to back up why they believe what they do, not simply redefine the title of their worldview.

6) You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist.

One atheist during the Q&A period of a debate between William Lane Craig and naturalist John Shook claims that you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist (watch the 40 second clip here). Craig responds:

“That’s just silly, of course you can prove something does not exist. We can prove, for example, that there are no living tyrannosaurus Rex on the face of the Earth, we can prove that there are no Muslims of the United States senate, or as Dr. Shook’s says if you can show that something is a self-contradiction, that there are no married bachelors. So, this is an atheist line that you hear on a popular level all the time, but that the sophisticated atheists don’t take, because it is easy to prove that things don’t exist. “

7) That there is no purpose to life, then they contradict themselves:

In a debate between the Christian James White and the Christian apostate Dan Barker, Barker says:

“There is no purpose to life, and we should not want there to be a purpose to life because if there was that would cheapen life.”

When watching this debate it was a very odd thing to say on the part of Barker because the fact that he is even debating a topic (the topic was: ‘The triune God of scripture lives’) shows that he has purpose being there, to convince those in the audience. Dan believes that he had a purpose writing his book ‘Losing Faith in Faith’ and that people would pick it up and read it, and thus be convinced of his position. Dan believes that he served a purpose suing a privately owned restaurant for giving discounts to customers that voluntarily prayed before their meal. Dan Barker repeatedly believes that he has served a purpose all over the place, that is hardly consistent with his statement above, it is also hardly consistent with his atheistic naturalistic worldview.

To further see this lack of consistency illustrated by Richard Dawkins, please view point 10 in this article.

8) That science disproves miracles:

I’ve read, a few times, some atheists claiming that science has disproven the possibility of miracles. This only shows how ignorant such an atheist is on both science and miracles (especially the abundance of miracle testimonies). It is like saying that astrophysics disproves that there is a rock of land called South America. There is no such connection for one to deduce that, in the same way one cannot conclude that miracles are impossible because science disproves them. As the theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne notes:

“Science simply tells us that these events are against normal expectation. We knew this at the start. Science cannot exclude the possibility that, on particular occasions, God does particular, unprecedented things. After all, God is the ordainer of the laws of nature, not someone who is subject to them.”

Craig Keener in his two-volume book on miracles writes: “Since science works inductively from details to larger patterns, it looks for larger patterns and cannot address single anomalies like miracles.”

If God exists, and thus is the author of all creation (which also means science and natural laws) then he is free to act in any way he sees fit. Because he created it all he then cannot be subject to his creation, rather his creation is subject to him. This point is illustrated well by the philosopher Richard Swinburne:

“If there is no God, then the laws of nature are the ultimate determinants of what happens. But if there is a God, then whether and for how long and under what circumstances laws of nature operate depend on God.”

The atheist is simply wrong to suggest the impossibility of miracles due to science. In fact, I wholeheartedly urge everyone to grab a copy of Craig Keener’s book called ‘Miracles‘, and to watch his short presentation. I don’t see how after reading it someone will still be an atheist.

9) That science is the only way to truth:

According to this atheist science is the only way to know what is true or it is the only gate to discovering what is true reality, so forget philosophy, religion, and just about every other non-scientific faculty – it’s only science that counts. This condition has a name, we call it scientism – the proposition that science can explain all aspects of reality, when it actually can’t because it has its own limitations. Philosopher William Lane Craig defines it thusly:

“Scientism is the view that we should believe only what can be proven scientifically. In other words, science is the sole source of knowledge and the sole arbiter of truth.”

Such is simply not true as Fred Copleston, a philosopher of history, notes that “there are other levels of experience and knowledge than that represented by empirical science.”

Deborah Haarsma, an astrophysicist and former professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, being a hardcore scientist herself informs us of the limitations of science:

“Many questions related to morality, ethics, love and so on, are questions that science simply isn’t equipped to answer on its own. Science can provide some important context, but religious, historical, relational, legal, and other ways of knowing are needed.”

Scientism, the belief that science can explain everything, is self-refuting as science fails to explain moral/ethical truths, aesthetic truths, metaphysical truths, natural laws (it only describes them, but presupposes them), science also presupposes the laws of logic, and also cannot rule out the existence of God since God would have created natural uniformity of which science explains. For these reasons William Craig comments:

“…scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. It would, if adopted, compel us to abandon wide swaths of what most of us take to be fields of human knowledge.”

As the journalist Lewis Cassels once wrote that: “Every age has its superstitions, and ours is the notion that science is an all-sufficient guide to truth.”

10) That science disproves God:

Again, this is another nonsensical claim. Science, the discipline that explores and defines what is in nature cannot go beyond its ability and “disprove” a supernatural entity, which by definition is above nature. However, many scientists are convinced that their scientific pursuits actually support their belief in God, as the Oxford mathematician, and philosopher of science John Lennox claims:

“Far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise is validated by his existence.”

The astronomer Allan Sandage believed that the supernatural was a necessity when trying to contemplate “the mystery of existence”:

“It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science, it is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”

C.S. Lewis, arguably the most popular and widely read Christian of the 20th and 21st centuries once wrote that: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a legislator.”

Far from science disproving God it actually points towards his existence via the complex language of DNA, the exquisite fine-tuning of the universe to make life possible, and the obvious design of biological creatures in the world. In essence, science cannot logically rule out God’s existence, but it can point towards him. Some former atheists were convinced that science pointed towards a creator God, and thus abandoned their atheism. As McGrath, who has his PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Doctor of Divinity from Oxford, says:

“Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain.”

Also the former militant atheist turned Christian apologist, Lee Strobel, explains that “It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.”

11) Stephen Hawking on the universe:

Hawking is a great scientist, and there’s no two ways about it. I also don’t want to sound arrogant in my critique of him, but he must be hold to account for his conclusions (as is the rule of thumb in science). Hawking writes:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

Surely to any reader that does not make sense at all. He says: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”, but laws are descriptive, they describe nature when it acts in uniformity. Laws do not create things, they describe. Philosopher of science and mathematician John Lennox explains:

“If I said that X created Y, that statement presupposes the existence of X in order to bring Y into existence. So if I say that X created Y I’m presupposing the existence of X in order to bring Y into existence, but it already is in existence. That statement is self-contradictory, it is logically incoherent. But perhaps worse than that Hawking’s says because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. So setting aside the logical problem he’s saying that gravity already exists, but that’s not nothing.”

Lennox goes on to define what physicists really mean when they talk about nothing: “And indeed when physicists talk about nothing they usually mean something very different from nothing. They usually mean a quantum vacuum.”

So what this shows is that, contrary to Hawking’s belief, laws do not create anything anymore than the laws of mathematics would put 50 bucks in my pocket. This also shows that when physicists refer to nothing creating everything they actually mean a quantum vacuum which is a sea of fluctuating energy, and certainly not absolute nothingness. Lastly, gravity is not nothing in the sense of no thing (no space, no laws, no time), as Hawking suggests.

For these reasons it is why Hawking’s statement makes no sense, and is self-refuting. Lennox concludes that: “Nonsense remains nonsense even when spoken by world famous scientists.”


TOPICS: Reference; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: antichristian; antitheism; atheism; atheists; fundamentalatheism; revisionisthistory; thenogodgod; waronchristianity; waronreligion; waronsciencememe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: dhs12345
Ah but is matter made of particles or waves?

It is not "made" of either of those things. You are confusing two highly useful conceptual models of a thing with the thing itself. Matter is neither particle nor waves, and if you look at the axioms of quantum mechanics [For just one example (which is typical): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#Postulates_of_quantum_mechanics] You will not find any reference to particles, waves, wavefunctions, or duality. These are high school concepts, which are useful ... and wrong.

Can we actually determine the outcome of an experiment by simply observing it?

In one word: yes.

Quantum mechanics does not make the results of experiments indeterminate. At. All. It makes some outcomes probabilistic under some experimental conditions, which is not the same thing.

Is it really true that we cannot know the speed of a particle and its position.

Speed is a classical notion, so the answer to your question is: Yes. We can know the speed of a particle and its position.

In quantum mechanics, we have an operator for momentum, but not speed. There is NO observable corresponding to "speed." We have an operator for position. Conjugate momentum and position operators don't commute, so there is a lower bound on their simultaneous precision, which is ℏ/2. This is a well know result, mathematically provable for anyone who's taken his first course in quantum mechanics. There's nothing mysterious or weird about it.

Or best of all, can we actually walk through walls (tunneling).

No. You can't.

The probability of an object with kinetic energy T tunneling through a potential energy barrier of energy V with width L is e-2L√(2m(V-T))/ℏ For typical walking speeds and even very weak walls only a few centimeters thick, this probability is ≈ e-1033. So start walking into walls now, and you will be doing that for something on the order of 10 quadrillion times the lifetime of the universe without winding up on the other side even once.

Is it really true that time slows down and I gain mass when I travel faster?

Not for you it isn't. Neither your proper time nor your mass appear to change. Observers in some reference frames see your clock running slow and an increase in your relativistic energy. Most physicists really don't talk about "mass increasing" any more, because that idea is not really very conceptually useful. They would agree that if you're moving relative to them, your energy appears to be greater.

And actually we don't define a particle as a physical entity but a probability distribution function. A mathematical equation of probably of where a particle might be.

Again, you are confusing a model with the thing itself. A particle is not a probability distribution. There is a probability of measuring certain attributes of a particle based on its state vector. But the particle itself is NOT the state vector, that is simply a thing which describes the particle, and describes how certain operators -- called observables -- will act when we do measurements.

And some of the theories describing matter these days are pretty bizarre.

The theories are only "bizarre" if you're of the very arrogant opinion that the same rules applied to things 15 or 16 orders of magnitude smaller than your ordinary experience or 20 or so orders of magnitude larger than your ordinary experience will produce the kinds of outcomes you're familiar with. But the same laws govern your ordinary experience as govern those very large, or very small, or very quick, or very slow events. And there is nothing strange -- even in your everyday experience -- about those laws.

61 posted on 03/01/2015 12:01:52 AM PST by FredZarguna (Every time you type "LOL" the entire Internet knows you're a dumbass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
The question is not whether He can. That is not the question, nor has it ever been the question. The question is whether He did. And the answer to that question for people who don't share your faith is "no."
62 posted on 03/01/2015 12:03:33 AM PST by FredZarguna (Every time you type "LOL" the entire Internet knows you're a dumbass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
I mean that in order to claim any part of the Bible is untrue, you must necessarily argue from a starting point of secularism.

This statement is certifiably untrue. The Bible describes events which supposedly happened in our world at specific times. They either happened, or they didn't. That's not a "secular point of view" unless by "secular" you mean "reality based." That is not a position you want to try to defend. And in fact, I'm not aware of any Apologist who ever has.

If the Hebrews claim to have wandered around in the desert for forty years but left no trace of their passing found by archaeologists, we have an obligation to regard their claim as untrue unless we can determine some reason why all trace of them would disappear from a particular period in history. That's not a matter of faith.

63 posted on 03/01/2015 12:09:38 AM PST by FredZarguna (Every time you type "LOL" the entire Internet knows you're a dumbass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
These statements make no sense.

Phlogisten doesn't exist. But for many years there was a belief in its existence because there was a manifestation [fire] that could be attributed to it. Unless you embrace a "reverse God of the Gaps", there isn't any logical content to the statement until we have discovered everything there is to discover, and find no evidence of God in the process.

The second statement means nothing because it assumes the existence of a thing in order to affirm the existence of everything else. But we already know other things exist. We don't know that God exists. That is a matter of faith.

64 posted on 03/01/2015 12:19:08 AM PST by FredZarguna (Every time you type "LOL" the entire Internet knows you're a dumbass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Random Access

So if their religion involves cutting off your fingers you’re okay with that, right?


65 posted on 03/01/2015 6:25:43 AM PST by RipSawyer (OPM is the religion of the sheeple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

I wrote if he can create the universe. It’s syllogistic logic—the argument is not in the premise but in its conclusion.

I was responding to the poster’s comment that events in the Bible are “impossible on their face.” And the point is they’re only impossible if we first accept the premise that God doesn’t exist. So the comment is wrong because it’s circular reasoning.


66 posted on 03/01/2015 9:08:22 AM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Neither statement assumes anything—note they start with “if.”

Both are self evident truths.


67 posted on 03/01/2015 9:09:17 AM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

By secularism I mean operating on the premise that God doesn’t exist.

Think of it this way: the Bible is either logically coherent or not. But it is impossible to demonstrate logical incoherence by using extrinsic arguments.

In the case of the Bible, an extrinsic argument is one which operates on the premise that God doesn’t exist. It is circular reasoning and therefore invalid.


68 posted on 03/01/2015 9:11:07 AM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
The physicists of the time didn't magically and randomly pull their theories out of thin air. To suggest that would imply Divine inspiration and I don't think that you are trying to make this point. Otherwise, the physicists would have based their theories on the best chicken soup recipe and like chicken soup, would have no basis and use in physics.

And absolutely yes, each theory was a stepping stone all the way back to the Greeks and the first definition of an atom, or Newton, or Faraday, Maxwell, Plank, Einstein, etc. etc.

As for thermodynamics and Physics and atom smashing and conservation of energy and matter:

The process is thus:

Fire a high speed particle, a proton?, with a relativistic mass and velocity at an atom and compute the starting energy. After impact, count up the resulting particles, their speeds, charges, etc. and compute energy and add them together.

THE ENERGY BEFORE BETTER MATCH THE ENERGY/MATTER AFTER. Sounds familiar. Matter is not destroyed?

This is not unlike when physicists of Einsteins time were trying to explain missing mass during a fission experiment. Einstein proposed that the matter was transformed into energy. It was destroyed but transformed.

69 posted on 03/01/2015 9:50:11 AM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Confusing models? Make up your mind. And yes, matter behaves both ways and the same thing for EM waves — photons.

My point here is just a little more than 100 years ago, we humans thought that we had the universe pegged. We had figured it all out and there was nothing more. Fast forward to modern times and is clear that what we perceive with our senses is VERY MISLEADING.

I suspect that in another 100 years, “the real” world will be even more abstract. And we should learn from the past,and admit that we are naive and foolish and don’t know everything about everything AND WE PROBABLY NEVER WILL.


70 posted on 03/01/2015 9:57:22 AM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson