Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12674 comments on the Conservapedia story from Nov 18, 2011, titled Atheism and cowardice. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

Thinking

Poole, UK

#9290 Jun 13, 2013
Good that you admit you are a repetitive, opinionated idiot.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news...
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Again the opinion of an idiot.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#9291 Jun 13, 2013
Why do you think Stalin went to priest school?
number four wrote:
<quoted text>...yes , he (Stalin)'was' an atheists ..
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9292 Jun 13, 2013
One of the things that make me believe in evolution is fingernails. Yes, believe it or not, something as simple as fingernails. Here, we have something that really has little or no use at all for humans, unless you like to bite them. But they aren't strong enough to really dig into anything, so they are pretty useless. But it just so happens that they are made of the same basic thing as claws are made of, and they just so happen to be and the hand, which would be the equivalent of the paw. And claws have plenty of use for animals that preceded humans. So here, we have a rather useless, left over artifact, rather than something we were given due to a particular intelligent design of the human itself. My guess would be that they would eventually even go away, say in a quarter of a million years or so, if humans still existed.

That said, for me that does nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design because for me, evolution IS an intelligent design. Why go around designing every living thing when if you come up with an infinitely intelligent plan and starting point in the first place, it will inevitably lead to where you intended it to, assuming perfect or near perfect foreknowledge. So the natural process itself does all of the work for you. It is also important to not that Darwin actually did believe in God and all that he did was simply make his observations and note them, and then left it up to others to draw their conclusions from it in respect to there being an intelligent creator or not. That's what a good scientist does. They are interested in science only. It's other people that take scientific information and use it one way or another for whatever social agendas they may have.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#9293 Jun 13, 2013
Another reason I believe in Evolution is that there is relatively little variation in the tetrapods.
Seeker wrote:
One of the things that make me believe in evolution is fingernails. Yes, believe it or not, something as simple as fingernails. Here, we have something that really has little or no use at all for humans, unless you like to bite them. But they aren't strong enough to really dig into anything, so they are pretty useless. But it just so happens that they are made of the same basic thing as claws are made of, and they just so happen to be and the hand, which would be the equivalent of the paw. And claws have plenty of use for animals that preceded humans. So here, we have a rather useless, left over artifact, rather than something we were given due to a particular intelligent design of the human itself. My guess would be that they would eventually even go away, say in a quarter of a million years or so, if humans still existed.
That said, for me that does nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design because for me, evolution IS an intelligent design. Why go around designing every living thing when if you come up with an infinitely intelligent plan and starting point in the first place, it will inevitably lead to where you intended it to, assuming perfect or near perfect foreknowledge. So the natural process itself does all of the work for you. It is also important to not that Darwin actually did believe in God and all that he did was simply make his observations and note them, and then left it up to others to draw their conclusions from it in respect to there being an intelligent creator or not. That's what a good scientist does. They are interested in science only. It's other people that take scientific information and use it one way or another for whatever social agendas they may have.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9294 Jun 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Another reason I believe in Evolution is that there is relatively little variation in the tetrapods.
<quoted text>
Well wouldn't evolution cause more variance in that? To me, that almost seems like an argument against it.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#9295 Jun 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Good that you admit you are a repetitive, opinionated idiot.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news...
Again another pointless remark.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#9296 Jun 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>Well wouldn't evolution cause more variance in that? To me, that almost seems like an argument against it.
Great point
Thinking

Poole, UK

#9297 Jun 13, 2013
Well why did you make it then?
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Again another pointless remark.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9298 Jun 13, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Great point
Well I think that you should know that I do think that evolution seems to be true, but I see that as a form of intelligent design. Why design every single thing instead of coming up with a truly brilliant plan in the first place and have natural forces simple do all of the work for you? If you are a master designer, you can design the initial plan the right way, and never even bother to have to lift a finger again, and you could know that it will eventually turn out the way you intended it to, assuming master or even perfect knowledge and an impeccable plan and starting point.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#9299 Jun 13, 2013
I don't see it that way. The variance we see is around the stable symmetrical "four legs plus a tail" format. If suddenly there were six legged elephants or twenty legged horses, it would be harder to see how they came about without "intervention".
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well wouldn't evolution cause more variance in that? To me, that almost seems like an argument against it.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9300 Jun 13, 2013
Having to bother to design every single little thing seems like a less wise and more imperfect plan to me, than a planned evolution where natural forces do all of the work and design for you. I am a software developer and I create things. If I created a game like the Sims, for example, why would I want to take the time to painstakingly create each character if I could instead do my initial software design the right way and have the game itself create them and do all of the work for me? That's how programmers think.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9301 Jun 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I don't see it that way. The variance we see is around the stable symmetrical "four legs plus a tail" format. If suddenly there were six legged elephants or twenty legged horses, it would be harder to see how they came about without "intervention".
<quoted text>
Well doesn't natural selection suggest that there could have been things like that but they would have not been as adaptable to the environment and therefore they died off? So don't see how a six legged Elephant would point to intervention unless we say that there is something inherently wrong with six legs and yet we have them anyway. I think that six legs, theoretically could have survived, but for whatever reason, it did not.

Maybe you could say that it would be hard to see how these things would survive, but the theory says that they would have existed in some form at some time. If one says that nature wouldn't create this at all simply because it is inefficient for whatever reason, then that puts intelligence into nature, and hence intelligent design comes back on the table again. So I'm getting a little confused.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9302 Jun 13, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well doesn't natural selection suggest that there could have been things like that but they would have not been as adaptable to the environment and therefore they died off? So don't see how a six legged Elephant would point to intervention unless we say that there is something inherently wrong with six legs and yet we have them anyway. I think that six legs, theoretically could have survived, but for whatever reason, it did not.
Maybe you could say that it would be hard to see how these things would survive, but the theory says that they would have existed in some form at some time. If one says that nature wouldn't create this at all simply because it is inefficient for whatever reason, then that puts intelligence into nature, and hence intelligent design comes back on the table again. So I'm getting a little confused.
Can anybody explain to me why my post above, quoted by myself, was judged the way it was? It's not that I care about the judgement as I could care less. I just wonder who all of these secret people are that mark it this way and yet never explain specifically why they feel this way. Why do people do things like this? Isn't it supposed to be an open discussion? Who cares who is right or wrong? Aren't we just supposed to exchange ideas? Isn't that what a "discussion" forum is supposed to be? Instead, everybody seems to have their own personal little feelings, and that's all they seem to know or think about.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9303 Jun 13, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..a 'new' low , "The Buy-bull is 100% false 'now' the little girl that 'you' are ...wikipedia ,is false too..???
Parts of Wiki are false-- certainly.

In fact, Wiki cannot really be trusted at all-- unless there are sources that are referenced at the bottom.

Go to the sources? To find the facts-- Wiki is often slanted or edited to make a false point.

I have no doubt that Teresa's page is pretty much all false.

There are fanatic Cat'Licks who likely check it every day, to re-edit in the lies.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9304 Jun 13, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..NEIN.."They can 'not' explain 'seeing things they were not privy to '...'hear conversation they were not privy to '.....It is a mystery ..
Never happened for certain. All is hearsay-- second-hand and third-hand accounts.

All can be explained by dream states or LYING.

I did forget to mention that many of these people LIE.

Just as YOU do.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9305 Jun 13, 2013
number four wrote:
there is 'no' FACT that supports other dimensions , dark matter/energy ,extraterrestrial life ,cold fusion and A.I....So, we just assume they are impossible ...??...(.I'm 'not' like you I keep 'an' open mind ..)
Who said these are impossible?

I never did-- well, apart from cold fusion, that appears to be highly unlikely, if not impossible.

As for the rest? Who knows?

But I do know your godling, as described in the ugly bible?

That?

That **is** impossible-- the present universe proves this billions of times a second.

In the quantum world of matter, there **must** be uncertainty to make the Universe work.

Your bible describes an "all knowing god". That would ELIMINATE the required uncertainty-- and the universe would COLLAPSE.

... ergo, your god is impossible.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9306 Jun 13, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>there is a personal judgment at the moment of death ..and..a general judgement where everything will be revealed to everyone ...( that's going to be the, embarrassing one )..
You have PROOF of this?

No?

Then you are just making bullshit up-- or else repeating bullshit someone ELSE made up...

(good you didn't try to mention the ugly bible-- that book is pretty much 100% bullshit...)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9307 Jun 13, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>...yes , he (Stalin)'was' an atheists ..
Nope-- likely not.

He was trained as a PRIEST. He never did make a formal rebuttal to that training.

Obviously your deity was less than .. convincing.

Your god is like that: not convincing.

In fact?

Your god couldn't sell WATER to someone in the SAHARA.

That is how UNCONVINCING your silly godling is...
Lincoln

United States

#9308 Jun 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Never happened for certain. All is hearsay-- second-hand and third-hand accounts.
In the News
A humanist organization sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Greenville County elementary school because of where they had their fifth-grade graduation and what was said during the ceremony.
According to the American Humanist Association, the graduation ceremony .........included two prayers.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/22574185/pra...
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9309 Jun 13, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
In the News
A humanist organization sent a cease-and-desist letter to a Greenville County elementary school because of where they had their fifth-grade graduation and what was said during the ceremony.
According to the American Humanist Association, the graduation ceremony .........included two prayers.
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/22574185/pra...
I don't understand why anybody who claims to not disbelieve in God but has a lack of belief itself because there is nothing to believe in, would ever get upset about this. Why wouldn't someone with a lack of belief, rather than disbelief, let this go and just laugh to themselves and call these people fools for their stupid beliefs? Why would it upset them? If that's what the community thinks that they would like to do, what's the big problem? It's one thing if they don't allow Atheist beliefs and force them to pray in class, but they don't. So if an Atheist shouldn't be forced to pray, which I believe is correct, why should they force others to NOT pray? Personally, even though I believe in God, I don't pray myself. Why chant things when you can do things to actually help the needy instead? But if that's what others think that they need to do, what's so bad about it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 min Science 642
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 hr replaytime 76,826
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Thu Dogen 4,281
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... Wed Eagle 12 - 10
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jul 18 John 4,952
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jul 18 John 32,164
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Jul 17 Eagle 12 - 6,123
More from around the web