Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8163 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
"The theist does not say he knows that God exists, he says he believes it ... The atheist claims to be quite certain that there is no god"
Dream on. This is exactly backwards.

Most theists are gnostic theists. They tell us that they know for an ironclad fact that their god exists.

They see him everywhere they look, and offer the world as evidence to the rest of us that they are correct. They say that their god has spoken to them.

And they say that we can see their god too, but that we hate him and are trying to avoid accountability with him.

Contrarily, most atheists simply reject these claims without making any positive assertion about gods being impossible or nonexistent. I posted exactly that yesterday with reference to intelligent design:

God Himself wrote: "Why couldn't natural intelligence cause the formation of the universe by intelligently designing; even by evolution in as much as it is a process that can be used to create intelligently?"

IANS replied: "I can't say that it couldn't have, and I don't."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8164 Dec 11, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Maybe you should question why you are trying to convert intelligent people who can see through your proven religious fraud?
Agreed. I like to tell them that when they come shaking the Scary Chicken On A Stick at us. The susceptible people in our demographic - mostly middle aged or older skeptics, most well educated, and many former Christians - have been captured long ago, making this is an especially poor place to come fishing for more souls for the Scary Chicken.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8165 Dec 11, 2012
Khatru wrote:
YEC = Young Earth Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_crea...

Have you had a schism in your group yet? The day will come when someone does his sums again and spots an error, placing the imagined date of creation a thousand years earlier. Then you'll have the SOTYECs or Slghtly Older Than Young Earth Creationists"
SOTYECs? "Die, heretic scum!"
Thinking

Andover, UK

#8166 Dec 11, 2012
For the best part of a year I had to use a company ISP to get on conservapedia for my laughter fix.

They were so unsure of their content they were blocking all European IPs, the free speech oppressing cowards.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
And we know how reliable Conservapedia is.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8167 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
My point was that the majority deemed the war acceptable then something new happened, it was maybe not the majority but the most vocal group stood up against the war and so we left

With out God the majority makes the rules. This was my point.
The majority, which in America is Christian, didn't decide to invade Vietnam. But they did accede to the decision, as Christians always do. They typically conflate their religiosity and patriotism, and assume like Christians do that the authoritarian father figure is right, and that those who disagree with him such as the war protestors, are disobedient and immoral. Check this out:

"Linguist George Lakoff in his provocative book, Moral Politics, contrasts the divergent political viewpoints upon human nature held by the conservative "right" and liberal "left" in contemporary Western discourse.

"On the right side is the "Strict Father" morality. Here we have the notion that people will behave morally only under the surveillance of, and the promise of threat and reward from, an authoritarian father figure, agents or agencies of government or religion. In this model of human nature, there is no natural goodness in people, only tendencies toward evil that must be curbed by strict behavior-modification practices. Such societies engage in forms of retributive justice to deter crime while insisting on discipline through enforced control and total obedience to a hierarchical authority.

"In contrast, on the left side is the "Nurturing Parent" metaphor of human nature, proposed by Lakoff. It replaces a Skinnerian social control approach with one more central to most religions, wherein caring for and loving others takes precedence over an ego-centered fear/reward focus. Respecting individual autonomy and personal worth are linked to compassion, forgiveness and forms of justice based on fairness, equity and restitution."
http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_content_la...

=========

The war protestors were right. Vietnam did not need America there, and has done better since America stopped bombing it. The Communists were never a threat. I've been to Vietnam since the war ended, and can tell you first hand that Communism is not hurting these people like the US Department of Defense did.

Now guess which kind of people were the Nixon supporters, and who were the ones responsible for "something new happened, it was maybe not the majority but the most vocal group stood up against the war and so we left." Which group contained the largest fraction of Christians, and which had more secular humanists?

We can't trust the Christians to make a moral stand. We can only trust them to follow an authority figure, just as they did in Nazi Germany, like so many lowing bison.

It was secular humanist values that came to the rescue and eventually prevailed, or else America might still be in Vietnam. We're different. We know right from wrong in a different way - a better way - and we will defy authority when it is wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8168 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
I don't believe a tornado can given enough time could ever create a jet air craft.
Then how about a god? What are the odds of the pieces of a god finding one another without having even the help of a wind? How much time would that require?

And how could such a thing be a first cause? Assorted laws or forces must have existed for that to happen, and to maintain the god intact.

Let me guess: no rules or reason applies to your god. It simply transcends these problems because you need it to and say so.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8169 Dec 11, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Then how about a god? What are the odds of the pieces of a god finding one another without having even the help of a wind? How much time would that require?
Another thought for KJV. An aeroplane is not assembled by one super powerful person, but a team of people. Who is to say the universe was not created by a collection of lesser gods. Bet he hadnt considered that possibility ;)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#8170 Dec 11, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Home schooled.
Some home schools are decent. My daughter was home schooled until high school (when she decided she wanted the social aspect). She was reading (and understanding) Plato at age 10 and reading books on reptile surgery at age 12.

But her experience is not the typical one.:)
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8172 Dec 11, 2012
Survey of religious belief in the UK
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/644941...

One interesting finding "only 54% of the population say they are Christian, and of these, only 35% could correctly identify the first book of the New Testament."

What is clear is that most people wh call themselves Christian are not Christians, because they do not believe in the teachings of Christianity.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#8173 Dec 11, 2012
Did you see the 2011 England and Wales Census data today?

"No religious affiliation" up 6.3m from 2001, christianity down 4.1m from 2001.

"The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011." - www.ons.gov.uk
Adam wrote:
Survey of religious belief in the UK
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/644941...
One interesting finding "only 54% of the population say they are Christian, and of these, only 35% could correctly identify the first book of the New Testament."
What is clear is that most people wh call themselves Christian are not Christians, because they do not believe in the teachings of Christianity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8174 Dec 11, 2012
derek4 wrote:
“Another example of irreducible complexity is ...
Dozens of such statements have been debunked already, most famously at Behe's expense during Kitzmiller v. Dover.
derek4 wrote:
... the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments ... All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down.


Another bare claim of irreducible complexity with absolutely nothing to back it up. For starters, there is still no mathematical definition of complexity provided by the people making these claims, no algorithm for identifying or quantifying complexity, and algorithm for determining when complexity is irreducuble.

Furthermore, as indicated, this claim is made cheaply by the creationists, and debunked regularly by scientists. All we have is repeated examples of Christians guessing and pointing their fingers at various systems, followed by scientists debunking their claims one by one.

Ken Miller made a laughingstock of Behe's mousetrap example of irreducible complexity at Kitzmiller. Behe claimed that a mousetrap with its five parts is irreducibly complex - remove a part and it has no function. Miller came into court wearing a mousetrap with two pieces removed as a tie clip. Here he is explaining this:

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8175 Dec 11, 2012
derek4 wrote:
Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
This is one from Behe as well, from his book Darwin's Black Box, also debunked:

"In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

"one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system." Wiki on irreducible complexity.

And here's Ken Miller debunking Behe's bogus clotting claim:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clo...

Nobody has introduced more junk science into the culture than you Christians.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8176 Dec 11, 2012
It's called a spoof Dim. You actually took this seriously didn't you?

Holy effing sht.
derek4 wrote:
A favorite re-post
“First Atheist Church of True Science explains why atheism is a religion.”
Video in attached link is excerpt from an atheist sermon:
http://yourhappyplace.yuku.com/topic/54211/At...
[It's mostly all “double talk”- he's confused, as are most atheists - but the bottom line:“atheism is a religion”- he says it several times in his rambling rant, lol. So, there you have it from the very mouth of an atheist.]

Since: Mar 11

United States

#8177 Dec 11, 2012
Dim finds a spoof link, something meant to be a joke and he takes it seriously. Can you imagine all the wedgies he got back in school?
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol
Ah yes, let's just remind ourselves how Dim thinks that all Christianity that came after Jesus should be purged!
ROFLMAO!!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8178 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Why would it? A jet is designed. btw Fred Hoyle also believed the Universe was static (i.e. ageless, no creation)
KJV wrote:
Ah I see you are unfamiliar with the tornado / 747 argument or maybe discussion would be a better word for it.
You see it's basically goes like this. For the odds of nature to have created everything from more or less nothing would be far lower than a tornado going though a junk yard and leaving behind a perfectly built 747.
If he were unfamiliar with that fallacy, he wouldn't have mentioned Fred Hoyle in his post:

"Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallac...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8179 Dec 11, 2012
KJV wrote:
Math is a real bitch on evolution!
Actually, your argument is easily debunked with a reductio ad absurdum argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is ... false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

In this case, you are arguing for the existence of a god based on the unlikeliness of a 747 (or a cell) existing undesigned, and offering this as evidence that an infinitely more complex entity must exist to account for it.

This is usually rebutted by some form of special pleading that basically says, "You can't use my argument because [insert irrelevant reason and unsupported claim here]"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#8180 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I am so unfamiliar with the 747 argument that I actually name dropped its flawed author Fred Hoyle in my previous post. So suck on that, god botherer.
Oh. Never mind. I should have looked first.

How about "godbotfly"?
Thinking

Andover, UK

#8181 Dec 11, 2012
Like it!
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Never mind. I should have looked first.
How about "godbotfly"?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#8182 Dec 11, 2012
Sodom means scorched and Gomorrah means burning. You realize nobody would ever name their city that right? It was a legend nothing more.

Sheesh you are gullible.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no God then it's a majority rules on morals.
Sodom and Gomorrah for example.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#8183 Dec 11, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Did you see the 2011 England and Wales Census data today?
"No religious affiliation" up 6.3m from 2001, christianity down 4.1m from 2001.<quoted text>
Missed that. Seen it now.

The UK is becoming a very secular country.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Uncle Sam 233,210
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 19 min Richardfs 179
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 45 min Morse 2,625
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 47 min Morse 23,279
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 53 min Morse 5,960
faith & pride 1 hr geezerjock 1
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr _Bad Company 214
More from around the web