Closed Prove me wrong

[bandwagon]

Wrong! 97% of scientists are evolutionist and reject Intelligent Design simply because the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is scientific, i.e. well-supported by mountain of evidence and ID is pseudoscience, i.e. unfalsifiable fairytale. Likewise, overwhelming majority of scientists and academic philosophers are atheist because the state of their academic professions veers towards atheism, i.e. modern science/academic philosophy supports materialism/atheism over theistic/religious/supernatural viewpoints.

Even in ethical issues like abortion, majority of philosophers/scientists are pro-choice simply because the pro-choice stance is deemed ethical and more scientifically- and logically-justified than religion's strict, irrational pro-life stance. Theism is outdated and dead in academia for more than 200 years now.

Keep repeating the same lies.

If these atheists(scientists) told me that it's so and so therefore that''s so..but I'm not gullible so must most of us here too..it isnt because that scientists are atheists are telling the tetuh or that the absolute truth is uncovered. Their being scientists no guarantee to the truth of the matter. I don't mean you can't put good arguments on atheism here. It is just that fallacy about relevance or as populum or bandwagon. What if Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Ken Miller, Prothero, Michael Martin, Kai Nielson, Tom Cruise, Sarah Geronimo, Kris Aquino etc etc etc tell me that blah blah blah? Didnt you even dig into the heart of the matter that there are equally opposing intellects that say otherwise? Some atheistic tactics here are antiquated or from old school. There are worth reading or considering though.

Give me more reason to buy more popcorn.

 

[fabbriche]

Keep repeating the same lies.

If these atheists(scientists) told me that it's so and so therefore that''s so..but I'm not gullible so must most of us here too..it isnt because that scientists are atheists are telling the tetuh or that the absolute truth is uncovered. Their being scientists no guarantee to the truth of the matter. I don't mean you can't put good arguments on atheism here. It is just that fallacy about relevance or as populum or bandwagon. What if Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Ken Miller, Prothero, Michael Martin, Kai Nielson, Tom Cruise, Sarah Geronimo, Kris Aquino etc etc etc tell me that blah blah blah? Didnt you even dig into the heart of the matter that there are equally opposing intellects that say otherwise? Some atheistic tactics here are antiquated or from old school. There are worth reading or considering though.

Give me more reason to buy more popcorn.

Do you still not get it? Most philosophers and scientists today are atheist not because atheism is cool and trendy at the moment but because both science and philosophy are characteristically atheistic in content for nearly 300 years now. Scientists and philosophers follow where their disciplines lead them to, and that's atheism. Physics is explicitly atheistic. Biology is strongly atheistic. Cosmogony is apparently atheistic. Neuroscience is notably atheistic. Ethics is fundamentally atheistic. Heck even, metaphysics is surprisingly atheistic.

Atheism is not antiquated. Quite the opposite in fact. Atheism is a byproduct of modern scientific understanding of reality which is a legacy of the Enlightenment. It is the theistic philosophies of the medieval to the early modern eras that are antiquated and no longer compatible with modern science and academic philosophy, and are now implausible in light of recent scientific/philosophical developments. There really is no more scientific or philosophical leg that theism can stand on. All subdisciplines from both fields have already veered away from theism and towards atheism. Theism is rejected in science, and even is already a dead case in philosophy which, ironically, has traditionally been a bastion of theism. Theism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or whatever supernatural belief system people still cling on to is now deemed essentially a mythology in academia just like Greek, Norse, Sumerian and other ancient religions.

 

[bandwagon]

Do you still not get it? Most philosophers and scientists today are atheist not because atheism is cool and trendy at the moment but because both science and philosophy are characteristically atheistic in content for nearly 300 years now. Scientists and philosophers follow where their disciplines lead them to, and that's atheism. Physics is explicitly atheistic. Biology is strongly atheistic. Cosmogony is apparently atheistic. Neuroscience is notably atheistic. Ethics is fundamentally atheistic. Heck even, metaphysics is surprisingly atheistic.

Atheism is not antiquated. Quite the opposite in fact. Atheism is a byproduct of modern scientific understanding of reality which is a legacy of the Enlightenment. It is the theistic philosophies of the medieval to the early modern eras that are antiquated and no longer compatible with modern science and academic philosophy, and are now implausible in light of recent scientific/philosophical developments. There really is no more scientific or philosophical leg that theism can stand on. All subdisciplines from both fields have already veered away from theism and towards atheism. Theism is rejected in science, and even is already a dead case in philosophy which, ironically, has traditionally been a bastion of theism. Theism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or whatever supernatural belief system people still cling on to is now deemed essentially a mythology in academia just like Greek, Norse, Sumerian and other ancient religions.

Your argument above is simply like this...

Logic is atheistic therefore, I don't argue.
Since, I don't argue, atheism is true?!

A thinking being says otherwise. It is an old school or the unthinking masses to fool with your tactics that science and philosophy are atheistic.

and what even did you say that metaphysics(branch of philosophy) is atheistic? Who can you fool?

More popcorn please?

 

[bandwagon]

Your argument above is simply like this...

Logic is atheistic therefore, I don't argue.
Since, I don't argue, atheism is true?!

A thinking being says otherwise. It is an old school or the unthinking masses to fool with your tactics that science and philosophy are atheistic.

and what even did you say that metaphysics(branch of philosophy) is atheistic? Who can you fool?

More popcorn please?

I want to point further here that the claim that Metaphysics is atheistic is a joke or an irony of ironies.

 

[fabbriche]

Your argument above is simply like this...

Logic is atheistic therefore, I don't argue.
Since, I don't argue, atheism is true?!

A thinking being says otherwise. It is an old school or the unthinking masses to fool with your tactics that science and philosophy are atheistic.

and what even did you say that metaphysics(branch of philosophy) is atheistic? Who can you fool?

More popcorn please?

I've literally discussed this before. There's no arguing with science. You just present your theories in science, gather supporting evidence for them, test them many times over and if they hold up to all these tests, you've got a well-established scientific theory. Unfalsifiable theories have no place in science.

Evolution has been tested so many times in attempts to show it wrong, and those attempts have all failed to show evolution wrong, and evolution explains so much that we consider it proved. No test has ever been conducted to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism, Intelligent Design, god or any other religious idea because they are all unfalsifiable. They are unscientific and, worse, trying to pass them as or reconcile them with science only earns them the category of pseudoscience.

Philosophy deals only with rational and logical things and it takes cues largely from science which is atheistic for its conclusions. Science deals with rational/logical and/or empirical things. Gods are neither of those thus they don't belong in science and philosophy. They are a category of their own (religion) and need not be brought out of that category that's why bringing god into any argument outside of religion, be it in science discussions, abortion, political debates and other social issues, are generally frowned upon and not taken seriously in intellectual circles.

 

[fabbriche]

I want to point further here that the claim that Metaphysics is atheistic is a joke or an irony of ironies.

Metaphysics is the study of what is real. Physicalism is the philosophical consensus. Hardly any philosopher that is not a theist is a non-physicalist and believes in the supernatural.

 

[bandwagon]

I've literally discussed this before. There's no arguing with science. You just present your theories in science, gather supporting evidence for them, test them many times over and if they hold up to all these tests, you've got a well-established scientific theory. Unfalsifiable theories have no place in science.

Evolution has been tested so many times in attempts to show it wrong, and those attempts have all failed to show evolution wrong, and evolution explains so much that we consider it proved. No test has ever been conducted to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism, Intelligent Design, god or any other religious idea because they are all unfalsifiable. They are unscientific and, worse, trying to pass them as or reconcile them with science only earns them the category of pseudoscience.

Philosophy deals only with rational and logical things and it takes cues largely from science which is atheistic for its conclusions. Science deals with rational/logical and/or empirical things. Gods are neither of those thus they don't belong in science and philosophy. They are a category of their own (religion) and need not be brought out of that category that's why bringing god into any argument outside of religion, be it in science discussions, abortion, political debates and other social issues, are generally frowned upon and not taken seriously in intellectual circles.

That's fun if there is no arguing in science and even this kind of fun becomes sadism. I mean, you state the complete irony..from disagreement, arguments, debates and discussions, great ideas or competing theories were born in science.

You always say philosophy deals only with the rational and logical and yet the irony is mirrored in your arguments. Example, I don't necessarily argue that the Intelligent Design is true or false. However, the way you treat it here is purely rhetorics and you just echo the sentiments of other anti ID proponents. You just say preach so and so that ID is blah blah creationism without giving any valid argument against its fundamental case. You can not even tell here how Darwinism stand the origin, complexity, variety, design of biological life. Of course you will redirect me to weblinks ohh Im tired of these because I can re direct you to weblinks that intellectually hammer your ideology.

 

[bandwagon]

Metaphysics is the study of what is real. Physicalism is the philosophical consensus. Hardly any philosopher that is not a theist is a non-physicalist and believes in the supernatural.

What is real?
What is the essence of real/reality?
Is our mental state or imagination really unreal?

Where do you find in physical world that "metaphysics is the study of what is real"?

What are the sub parts or studies of metaphysics? Are metaphysical topics divided like a pizza pie or cake?

Are definition of things material or reside in space-time?

Is this statement " metaphysics deals with first principles or being of beings"..."metaphysics deals with the ultimate"...a material or matter?

Of course, these questions or ideas I wrote here where these indovidual letters are emission or projection of electrons,...but how do these electrons create ideas like what we are writing here?

Is it written in the electron themselves?

No, we are not dealing with the supernatural here. You have a very limited understanding of the theist philosopher. You are creating a crude caricature of his intellect. These theist philosophers dont even buy the God of the gaps fallacy. You are bifurcating his intellectual position.

 

[bandwagon]

I've literally discussed this before. There's no arguing with science. You just present your theories in science, gather supporting evidence for them, test them many times over and if they hold up to all these tests, you've got a well-established scientific theory. Unfalsifiable theories have no place in science.

Evolution has been tested so many times in attempts to show it wrong, and those attempts have all failed to show evolution wrong, and evolution explains so much that we consider it proved. No test has ever been conducted to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism, Intelligent Design, god or any other religious idea because they are all unfalsifiable. They are unscientific and, worse, trying to pass them as or reconcile them with science only earns them the category of pseudoscience.

Philosophy deals only with rational and logical things and it takes cues largely from science which is atheistic for its conclusions. Science deals with rational/logical and/or empirical things. Gods are neither of those thus they don't belong in science and philosophy. They are a category of their own (religion) and need not be brought out of that category that's why bringing god into any argument outside of religion, be it in science discussions, abortion, political debates and other social issues, are generally frowned upon and not taken seriously in intellectual circles.

I didn't say that atheism is antiquated. The truth is, there were antiquated or old school arguments of atheism and theism that were thoroughly refuted. Hence, the modern atheist or theist must explore reality deeper and wider to reinforce their claims. My ideas here isn't even impervious to criticisms. We have competing, contrasting, complementing or suplementing ideas here. Maybe God/Gods who reside in the 1023th dimension or alternate reality is watching us how we evolve or grow intellctually and/or scientifically..It doesnt follow here that I argue that God/Gods exist..however, we can not even prove or disprove with complete, absolute confidence/evidence that there at least a God or no Gods at all..when we intellectualize, you can even think that this God/Gods maybe removed the direct link to its residence or abode.

 

[michellian]

Sya nga pala gusto sana kita maging friend kasi alam kong magkaintindihan tayo lalo na pag naging katulad na din kita na bumaliktad na, hanapin mo sana ako pag nalaman mo na yung katotoohanan, kasi ayan yung mystery

For me yung mga ganitong tao ang extreme kasi hinahanap nila ang Diyos without knowing it pero nakakalimutan lang nila itanong sa mismong creator nila kung bakit sila nasa mundo, at kadalasan sa mga ganitong tao nagalit sa mga nakikita nya sa mundo or nabiktima din sya ng mundo tong, at isa po ako dun paps, binago ng Diyos pag iisip ko at pinaalam nya lang sakin purpose ko bat nabuhay ako, pero yung dati ko katulad po ako ng tong ng post netoh at sobrang lapit nako maging masama nun, para sakin may paraan lagi para malaman ang totoo, wag mo lang isasarado yung sarili mo sa sinasabi ng iba kasi may mga na experience din sila na d mo p na experience, aabangan ko tong taong nag post nito na bumaliktad kasi magiging sobrang devoted nya sa Diyos

Ipagdasal nalang natin na ma bubuksan ang utak nila. Kasi sayang ang pagkakataon na nandito sila sa mundo pero para sa kanila walang Diyos na naglikha nang lahat. Kung wala man silang pinaniwalaan na Diyos wag nalang sana nila ibahagi sa iba ang kanilang mga idea na walang Diyos dahil hindi to nakakabubuti sa tao.

 

[michellian]

So sino creator ng creator???
Wag mong sabihin may creator tapos may creator ng creator tapos may creator na namn. Hahaha

Yan ang question mo tol? May sagit ang bible jan pero di ka maniniwala kasi utak tao lang ang kaya mo. Sabi sa Bibliya na Siya (God) ang simula at ang Huli, walang gumawa sa kanya. Ang tao lang ang Ginawa.

 

[FAKE Account]

Yan ang question mo tol? May sagit ang bible jan pero di ka maniniwala kasi utak tao lang ang kaya mo. Sabi sa Bibliya na Siya (God) ang simula at ang Huli, walang gumawa sa kanya. Ang tao lang ang Ginawa.

Tama ka utak tao lang ako.

Eh ano ba gamit mong utak??? Di kaba tao?
Zzzzzz, taga nimic kaba???
Isa pa bat hindi kristyano ang mga taga jerusalem??? Patingin ng chart na nasa baba

How ironic eh bat 2percent lang kristyano kung don naman pinanganak si jesus??? Diba dapat mga kristyano mga taga jerusalem, diba mga descendant nila witness sa mga.miracle ni jesus?

 

[michellian]

Tama ka utak tao lang ako.

Eh ano ba gamit mong utak??? Di kaba tao?
Zzzzzz, taga nimic kaba???
Isa pa bat hindi kristyano ang mga taga jerusalem??? Patingin ng chart na nasa babaView attachment 732746
How ironic eh bat 2percent lang kristyano kung don naman pinanganak si jesus??? Diba dapat mga kristyano mga taga jerusalem, diba mga descendant nila witness sa mga.miracle ni jesus?

Mas maintindihan mo tol pag binasa mo bible... Hirap kasi mag explain dito. Mahaba pa ang babasahin mo sa bibloya para maintindihan mo. Mag basa kana tol para di na ako mag eexplain pa sayo. Mas mabuti nang may marami kang alam. Basahin mo lang kung bakit, nandun ang sagot. Kahit di mo na lang paniwalaan basta alam mo lang kung ano ang dahilan. Problema nang mga atheist eh di na pinaniwalaan ang bibliya eh di panaman binabasa. Basahin mo muna bago ang conclusion mo. Patunayan mo na hindi totoo ang mga sinabi nang bibliya. Hanapin mo mga mali sa bibliya para ma convince mo na mag atheist ang mga theist.

 

[Arlertz]

Tama ka utak tao lang ako.

Eh ano ba gamit mong utak??? Di kaba tao?
Zzzzzz, taga nimic kaba???
Isa pa bat hindi kristyano ang mga taga jerusalem??? Patingin ng chart na nasa babaView attachment 732746
How ironic eh bat 2percent lang kristyano kung don naman pinanganak si jesus??? Diba dapat mga kristyano mga taga jerusalem, diba mga descendant nila witness sa mga.miracle ni jesus?

Simleng sagot po. Dahil yung mga tao noong panahon bago pa dumating si Jesus ay mga Judio/Jews. Ang Judio ay tawag lang dati sa mga descendants ni Juda, pero later on naging tawag narin sa lahat ng Hebreo sa buong mundo para ma distinct sila sa Gentil. Yung mga lider na Judio (yung iba ay Pariseo) ay merong mga maling pagkakapit sa kasulatan/utos kaya nga napabigatan masiyado yung mga tao. Marami silang dinagdag na utos na wala naman sa batas mosaiko. Kaya noong dumating si Jesus, kinorek niya yung mga maling ginagawa nung mga lider na Judio na yon pati na mga Pariseo/Saduceo.

Ngayon sa tanong mo kung bakit hindi Christian ang bansang Israel? Kasi kahit noong panahon ni Jesus, hindi nila siya pinaniwalaan na siya yung Mesias na pinangako sa Hebrew scriptures na darating. Para sa kanila, magiging hari siya dapat nila. Kahit ngayon hinihintay parin nila yung "Messiah" nila e. Nag sticked sila sa beliefs nila at hindi tinanggap si Jesus na Messiah noong 29 CE. Kaya sinabi ni Jesus mismo sa kanila sa Mateo 21:43 na kukunin sa kanila yung kaharian ng Diyos na dapat sana sa kanila manggagaling. At later on sinabi ng Bible sa Gawa 15:14 na kukuha na nga sa ibang bayan yung Diyos na magdadala ng pangalan Niya.

Ngayon, ine expect parin ng mga Jews na sila parin yung "bayan" mismo ng Diyos gaya ng pangako ng Diyos kay Abraham noon. Kaya yung buong bansa ng Israel ay hindi sila naging Christian sa ngayon. Meron lang ilan.

 

[Arlertz]

Tama ka utak tao lang ako.

Eh ano ba gamit mong utak??? Di kaba tao?
Zzzzzz, taga nimic kaba???
Isa pa bat hindi kristyano ang mga taga jerusalem??? Patingin ng chart na nasa babaView attachment 732746
How ironic eh bat 2percent lang kristyano kung don naman pinanganak si jesus??? Diba dapat mga kristyano mga taga jerusalem, diba mga descendant nila witness sa mga.miracle ni jesus?

Actually, palusot lang yan ng mga atheist kung minsan. Hanap butas para lang ma justify yung beliefs niyo diba? Ang totoo pag pinag aralan mo lang kung bakit ganito kung bakit ganon, maiintindihan naman e. Kaso lang ayaw niyo lang aralin kasi

 

[michellian]

Simleng sagot po. Dahil yung mga tao noong panahon bago pa dumating si Jesus ay mga Judio/Jews. Ang Judio ay tawag lang dati sa mga descendants ni Juda, pero later on naging tawag narin sa lahat ng Hebreo sa buong mundo para ma distinct sila sa Gentil. Yung mga lider na Judio (yung iba ay Pariseo) ay merong mga maling pagkakapit sa kasulatan/utos kaya nga napabigatan masiyado yung mga tao. Marami silang dinagdag na utos na wala naman sa batas mosaiko. Kaya noong dumating si Jesus, kinorek niya yung mga maling ginagawa nung mga lider na Judio na yon pati na mga Pariseo/Saduceo.

Ngayon sa tanong mo kung bakit hindi Christian ang bansang Israel? Kasi kahit noong panahon ni Jesus, hindi nila siya pinaniwalaan na siya yung Mesias na pinangako sa Hebrew scriptures na darating. Para sa kanila, magiging hari siya dapat nila. Kahit ngayon hinihintay parin nila yung "Messiah" nila e. Nag sticked sila sa beliefs nila at hindi tinanggap si Jesus na Messiah noong 29 CE. Kaya sinabi ni Jesus mismo sa kanila sa Mateo 21:43 na kukunin sa kanila yung kaharian ng Diyos na dapat sana sa kanila manggagaling. At later on sinabi ng Bible sa Gawa 15:14 na kukuha na nga sa ibang bayan yung Diyos na magdadala ng pangalan Niya.

Ngayon, ine expect parin ng mga Jews na sila parin yung "bayan" mismo ng Diyos gaya ng pangako ng Diyos kay Abraham noon. Kaya yung buong bansa ng Israel ay hindi sila naging Christian sa ngayon. Meron lang ilan.

Maganda at totoo ang explaination mo tol... Simple at maiintindihan talaga sa mga tao na nagbabasa nang bibliya. Kaso di naniniwala mga atheist sa explaination mo dahil di nila gusto magbasa nang bible kahit for knowledge nalang nila kung bakit ganyan. Mukhang kontento na sila sa nalalaman nila sa science. Ang science sana ginagamit to prove God, di para e prove na walang God.

 

[michellian]

Actually, palusot lang yan ng mga atheist kung minsan. Hanap butas para lang ma justify yung beliefs niyo diba? Ang totoo pag pinag aralan mo lang kung bakit ganito kung bakit ganon, maiintindihan naman e. Kaso lang ayaw niyo lang aralin kasi

Tama ka tol.

 

[michellian]

Tama ka utak tao lang ako.

Eh ano ba gamit mong utak??? Di kaba tao?
Zzzzzz, taga nimic kaba???
Isa pa bat hindi kristyano ang mga taga jerusalem??? Patingin ng chart na nasa babaView attachment 732746
How ironic eh bat 2percent lang kristyano kung don naman pinanganak si jesus??? Diba dapat mga kristyano mga taga jerusalem, diba mga descendant nila witness sa mga.miracle ni jesus?

O diba basi sa research mo marami paring mga jewish na hindi naniniwala ni Kristo kahit na sila ay naniniwala sa Diyos, how much more ikaw na science lang ang pinag aaralan. Much of the jew didn't believe is because of their expectation about the coming messiah, di nag ma match sa expectation nila na ipapadala ni God na mag liligtas sa kanila kaya di sila naniniwala. Mag ka pareho din sayo sa expectation mo di nag ma match kaya dika naniniwala na may God.

 

[fabbriche]

That's fun if there is no arguing in science and even this kind of fun becomes sadism. I mean, you state the complete irony..from disagreement, arguments, debates and discussions, great ideas or competing theories were born in science.

You always say philosophy deals only with the rational and logical and yet the irony is mirrored in your arguments. Example, I don't necessarily argue that the Intelligent Design is true or false. However, the way you treat it here is purely rhetorics and you just echo the sentiments of other anti ID proponents. You just say preach so and so that ID is blah blah creationism without giving any valid argument against its fundamental case. You can not even tell here how Darwinism stand the origin, complexity, variety, design of biological life. Of course you will redirect me to weblinks ohh Im tired of these because I can re direct you to weblinks that intellectually hammer your ideology.

I've already addressed this many times before. It astounds me how you conveniently ignored what I already discussed. ID is pseudoscience because it assumes the existence of an incomprehensible force having an unfalsifiable hand in the creation, evolution and survival of living organisms. When you're dealing with incomprehensible and unfalsifiable terms you're dealing with baseless assumptions—the very antithesis of science.

There is no design in the universe. You've got not a slightest clue of what you're talking about. Around 3 billion years from now, earth will be completely uninhabitable when it travels out of the goldilocks zone which will result in conditions that are impossible for life to still thrive. The universe goes through this constant series of formation and destruction of planetary and star systems and galaxies, and evolution and extinction of their living inhabitants, if any. Even the universe will end one day, and the actual amount of time the universe can be able to harbor life is not even greater than 1% of the universe's total lifespan. The universe will be an empty, cold, lifeless place for most of its time. The fate of the universe is too scary and depressing to be designed by an intelligent force. Your improvident creationist views totally lack scientific insight and foresight.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[fabbriche]

I didn't say that atheism is antiquated. The truth is, there were antiquated or old school arguments of atheism and theism that were thoroughly refuted. Hence, the modern atheist or theist must explore reality deeper and wider to reinforce their claims. My ideas here isn't even impervious to criticisms. We have competing, contrasting, complementing or suplementing ideas here. Maybe God/Gods who reside in the 1023th dimension or alternate reality is watching us how we evolve or grow intellctually and/or scientifically..It doesnt follow here that I argue that God/Gods exist..however, we can not even prove or disprove with complete, absolute confidence/evidence that there at least a God or no Gods at all..when we intellectualize, you can even think that this God/Gods maybe removed the direct link to its residence or abode.

You are completely oblivious to the critical developments in philosophy post-Enlightenment if you seriously believe theism still holds ground in philosophy today and is equal in viability to atheism.

Academic philosophy has already engaged extensively and critically with the issue of God's existence for the past 300 years, and the pendulum has swung fairly firmly in a direction that suggests no gods exist. Even in the slightest possibility that such a higher being exists somewhere in an unknown, theoretical plane of existence that is detached from the universe, it doesn't matter because that being doesn't manifest at all in our physical reality and isn't remotely making any effect on us—essentially making that being indistinguishable from non-existent and unreal.

Nothing in the universe from its origin, evolution and development, to its laws, mechanism and processes, even in issues concerning human affairs, requires an appeal to any supernatural cause. Gods and religions are completely outdated, and don't offer viable answers to any problem philosophers/scientists are still trying to work on—surely not in biology, physics and cosmology nor even in ethics, economics and politics. Science and philosophy which have both become naturalized and atheistic do so much better job, and the only ones that do it right, in explaining the universe and humanity. Appeals to gods are extraneous and unnecessary. The universe doesn't need gods to exist nor invoking gods in times of distress will help or change a thing. God is dead in philosophy and it won't ever be making a comeback.