In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#34715 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither theory depends on any designer.
Oh? I think ID depends on at least one designer existing or having existed.

If you disagree, explain how you propose an intelligent design without also proposing that there was a designer.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34716 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sandra Fluck is back in the news - standing up with Obobo.
You remember Fluck? She's the poor little Ivy League student who wants the government to make the Catholic Church pay for her flucking.
Obama trying to lock up part of his base - stupid single women who fluck around.
Sandra Fluck - poster chick for the nanny-state.

Obobo called Fluck on Fluck's phone after she spoke to Congress.

Obobo called for civility for people like Fluck.

Then has his people accuse Mitt Romney of killing an old lady.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34717 Aug 8, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
And he can hear you f_cking your pigs from DC.
Goes both ways.
Did you hear Obama's hippie mom squeal like a pig when Obama's daddy, communist Frank Marshall Davis, flucking her?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#34718 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sandra Fluck is back in the news - standing up with Obobo.
You remember Fluck? She's the poor little Ivy League student who wants the government to make the Catholic Church pay for her flucking.
Obama trying to lock up part of his base - stupid single women who fluck around.
You're just pissed off because none sleep with you.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34719 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
More rights?
Under the bill, each only gets one vote.
The point of Obobo's lawsuit is to prevent more opportunity for military personnel to vote, because most will vote for his opponent.
A president that would accuse Mitt Romney of causing an old lady to die of cancer would suppress military voting.
He would do anything to win. Ask Jack Ryan - Obobo's boys got into his child custody agreement.
You are a lying piece of dog shit.
Obobo?

Like, with a large wooden piercing across his nose?

Hey Buck.

If you want to be a racist, don't be so obvious.

You can do it with a modicum of subtlety.

I'm here to help in your quest to elevate your social stature. To kick it up a notch as Emeril would say.

Provide you with a little savoir faire.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34720 Aug 8, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh? I think ID depends on at least one designer existing or having existed.
If you disagree, explain how you propose an intelligent design without also proposing that there was a designer.
Easy. You form a hypothesis from scientific evidence that design exists in nature. And then you investigate.

If your investigation leads to scientific confirmation of design, then your hypothesis is correct.

If someone wants to investigate a hypothesis about a particular designer, or attributes of that designer, he is free to do so.

It's the same way you study evidence for the Big Bang. You try to determine if it is evident. The cause of it is an implication of the hypothesis, but it is not part of the hypothesis.

I'm getting tired of explaining this.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34721 Aug 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obobo?
Like, with a large wooden piercing across his nose?
Hey Buck.
If you want to be a racist, don't be so obvious.
You can do it with a modicum of subtlety.
I'm here to help in your quest to elevate your social stature. To kick it up a notch as Emeril would say.
Provide you with a little savoir faire.
Hey. When it comes to savoir faire, I'm the first hog to the trough.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#34722 Aug 8, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
And he can hear you f_cking your pigs from DC.
Goes both ways.
Speak for yourself. I don't go both ways.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34723 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sandra Fluck is back in the news - standing up with Obobo.
You remember Fluck? She's the poor little Ivy League student who wants the government to make the Catholic Church pay for her flucking.
Obama trying to lock up part of his base - stupid single women who fluck around.
That, my friend, is dishonest.

A very, very skewed version of the reality.

I won't even dignify it.

Sorry, with me you have to rise above that sort of thing.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#34724 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you hear Obama's hippie mom squeal like a pig when Obama's daddy, communist Frank Marshall Davis, flucking her?
You have now reached a level that, even for you, is beneath contempt.

I mean it.

Very Jekyll/Hide really, for the "real" Buck.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#34725 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. You form a hypothesis from scientific evidence that design exists in nature. And then you investigate.
If your investigation leads to scientific confirmation of design, then your hypothesis is correct.
If someone wants to investigate a hypothesis about a particular designer, or attributes of that designer, he is free to do so.
It's the same way you study evidence for the Big Bang. You try to determine if it is evident. The cause of it is an implication of the hypothesis, but it is not part of the hypothesis.
I'm getting tired of explaining this.
Can design exist without a designer? They are proposing that there is a designer, an intelligent designer. There's no way out of that. Do you think arguing that there is, makes a better case for you or ID? It does not. If you must be dishonest about it, I'm okay with that. So much the better.

Do you disagree that the ID movement is propelled by belief in a particular designer, God from Bible fame? It is. It would have practically no support otherwise.

As far as the Big Bang, and my understanding, the evidence led to the idea, not the idea to the evidence. ID starts with the premise that life was designed by a designer, in full or in part. Applying the scientific method to the research of biology yielded the Theory of Evolution. That ship has sailed. If you wish to sink it, you'll have to come up with something better than the ToE. ID does not compare, even remotely.

Are you arguing from the perspective of someone who believes Intelligent Design?

Are you arguing from the perspective of someone who believes Intelligent Design?

...and one more time...

Are you arguing from the perspective of someone who believes Intelligent Design?

...now I'll rephrase it...

Do you think life on Earth was in part, or fully intelligently designed?

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#34726 Aug 8, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Throwing out a bunch of links about ring species proves nothing. No one is debating microevolution.
Sure you are.

Ring species illustrate how many small changes result in one pretty major change.

Evolution.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#34727 Aug 8, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
lolerbat...

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#34728 Aug 8, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Introducing Sole Savior™ comfort insert sandals, designed by THE Intelligent Designer Himself, Jesus Christ.
Order now, before it's too late!
He even had himself design himself but used a ghost of himself to father himself so he wouldn't be "technically", doing his mother, which, really, is bizarre due to the *3 n'1* deity deal.

<Mary> "o0Ooo, Joseph, you know I don't like that!"

<the Jesus> "don't let her fool you, she's a freak and loves it, Joe...um, I mean..uh, dad... Quit lookin at me like that, I'm the Jesus, I know stuff..."
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#34729 Aug 8, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The fact is he told the Jews of his day that they no longer needed to follow Mosaic Law or adhere to covenant that required all Jewish men to be circumcised. He preached in direct opposition to what the rabbis taught and telling his neighbors that they didn't have to bear the burden of living under so many different rules infuriated Jewish leaders because it lightened the purses on their shoulders. They denied him because of greed, not because they didn't believe whether he was a Messiah or not. If his ideology had made them richer through practice of it, they would have welcomed his sermons and claim to heaven. He preached love and freedom, and the rabbis taught separation and strict adherence to numerous rules [so many rules that people probably couldn't remember them all]. You don't think his message would appeal to the poor and oppressed Jews?
Jackasses like you make me laugh when you run about calling people fools. Your comment just bit you in the ass, moron.
Yawn

Matthew 3:17

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#34730 Aug 9, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
And he can hear you f_cking your pigs from DC.
Goes both ways.
Funny, Hes Deaf When It Comes To The Rest of Americans.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#34731 Aug 9, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Atheists harbor contempt for Deity... It's not non-belief... It is arrogant denial of evidence.
Confirmed that you do not know anything about atheism.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34732 Aug 9, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
William Dembski, of ID fame, had this to say:
"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."
Thanks.

As you noted Dembski said, "I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution." I resent these people trying to steal the credit deserved by the universe and its creations such as man, and exporting them to some ghost that doesn't live here. They debase man ("the flesh") and matter ("worldly") in the service of this imaginary ghost.

Your link also included these quotations from ID luminaries:

"Phillip Johnson converted to fundamentalist Christianity after a mid-life crisis and made "Defeating Darwinism" (part of the title of one of his books) his new mission.

"Jonathan Wells candidly admitted that "Father's [Rev. Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism..."

So Wells, the junk ID meme master, is a Moonie, huh? I just threw up in my mouth.

These people all vehemently deny their god in their work, and then make comments like Dembski's, Wells' and Johnson's. They deny their god motivations, which are painfully obvious, and claim to be doing science, not chasing their god. But who is fooled by that, apart from maybe themselves?

It's pretty hard to sell anything once you appear to be concealing something. How can this this stuff survive the scrutiny that the Internet makes possible?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34733 Aug 9, 2012
HTS wrote:
The mountains of fossil evidence is against evolution.
That's the theistic position. The scientists say otherwise.

As I've told you repeatedly, I trust the culture of science, which esteems the search for the answers, and has a tried and true method for determining it that has done more for the human condition than any other human enterprise in history.

And I deeply distrust the culture of the Christian church, which only seeks to promote its ghost, which has zero compunction about lying, and which has given the world nothing but strife, division, false comfort, and now, antiscientism. It seeks to degrade humanity's most successful program EVER.

That means that I will never, ever take an opinion about science from the church. Never. If it is legitimate science, the scientists taught it to us - you, too - not the church. So, show me where mainstream science says it, or you're wasting your time.

Reputation matters.
HTS wrote:
Australopithecus was an ape..nothing more.
Science says otherwise.
HTS wrote:
The evidence from embryology genetic code, nested hierarchies, phenotypic and molecular homology are all perfectly consistent with ID.
It's consistent with astrology, too. That's obviously not good enough.

Besides, everything is consistent with ID. It's not falsifiable. Whatever the world reveals, you can say that that was the intelligent design. What would be the rebuttal? A stupid design? May I rebut that for you: "How dare you even hint that the Lord's design is stupid with your puny human mind?"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#34734 Aug 9, 2012
HTS wrote:
All you have is philosophical evidence. You have a hypothesis.
I have the worlds best evidenced scientific theory ever:

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory)... Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Th...
HTS wrote:
Now if you want to engage in science, you can start testing that hypothesis. You can begin by showing that proposed mechanisms of transmutation are possible.
I'm retired. And I'm not a scientist.

Nor do I feel motivated to continue to provide you evidence when your decisions are based on faith, not evidence.
HTS wrote:
No one can ever demonstrate this
Nobody needs to demonstrate it. It's a ridiculous request. Demonstrate that it's possible for cells to made of life. Demonstrate that gravity is possible.

Demonstrate that a god is possible.

You can't, you consider the demand ridiculous, and you reject the need to do so as a criterion for anything out of hand, don't you? But you demand it of science. Sorry. Your doublr¿e standards also defeat your argument.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min Thinking 15,844
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Brian_G 40,367
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 9 min IB DaMann 196
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 255,941
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 1 hr Thinking 4,630
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr ChristineM 3,747
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr Thinking 388
More from around the web