Time to lift taboo on atheism

Sep 8, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Otago Daily Times

Year 13 student Alex Black, of Mt Aspiring College, argues that it is important for atheists to come out of the closet, and that society treat them with tolerance and respect.

Comments (Page 109)

Showing posts 2,161 - 2,180 of5,056
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2210
Oct 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
So you dismiss my possible evidence of the supernatural yet check on how I wear my underwear. That is weird, too.
I dismiss you possible evidence of the supernatural because it is very poor, and you can't provide any viable proof to verify it.

The underwear comment is an expression, not to be taken literally.

Did I really have to tell you that last part?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2211
Oct 15, 2010
 
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, the person who wrote it is a meteorologist so it must be true :-}
"PART 4: THE GREAT FLOOD
I am a meteorologist by trade. I was an Artillery Ballistic Meteorologist for about 21 years and during that time I was also school trained as a micro-meteorologist and as a US Air Force air weather observer. I also worked with, what was then, the US Weather Bureau during much of that time. I think that is enough for my credentials."
A meteorologist should have been able to rule out the flood story:

“About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.”
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.htm...

Of course, that doesn't take magic into consideration either.
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2212
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
I never studied the Easter Bunny like you did so I wouldn't try, but feel free to go for it.
By all means, run away from the tough questions.

Being purposfully ignorant does not help you. It just shows that you couldn't answer the question.
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2213
Oct 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you babbling about? The original poster said my proctologist just removed my head from my butt. I responded to his rank with a better rank and you seemed to latch onto my what I said to him and wanted a link. In his case it is a missing link. The fact that you refuse to defend your own position, whatever it is, while I gave what I believe is evidence of God's existence is quite telling..
If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. Put it this way, if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, and there are those that will state that, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks, all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
Many scientists look at the same evidence that skeptics do and see evidence of the supernatural. Obviously the evidence to make a decision is there but interpretation of the evidence differs.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.…
the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
.....
Prof. Robert Jastrow ,(1925-2008) Columbia Univ, A.B., A.M and Ph.D. in theoretical physics, Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College, Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and Hale Solar Laboratory.
First off, lets get on the same page.

You made the comment "Statistics show theists are happier and more well adjusted than atheists and cope better."

You were asked to provide a link.
To date, you have refused to do so.

As far as you r "evidence" that there is a god. It seems to me that it consists of I think god started the big bang.

That's not evidence, that's conjecture. It's not the same.
There is a book that you base your beliefs on that has been shown to be extremely flawed. You don't want to talk about that, you would rather talk about the begining of the universe. It is obvious as to why. You can't defend the Bible, so you cling to the vauge and unprovable. Oh, and you quote alot of people who have opinions on thier personal faith being real.

Do you really think anyone buys that?
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2214
Oct 15, 2010
 
getagrip wrote:
So what now for you? Since you have dismissed God from His role of your creator? Whats in store for eternity for you?
<quoted text>
NOTHING. That's it!! That's the part you are so afraid of. Live well in this lifetime. There is nothing afterward. It is your fear of death that makes you believe the unbelieveable. You cling to any story, no matter how often it's proven wrong because you fear death!!!
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2215
Oct 15, 2010
 
getagrip wrote:
Sorry,
didnt realize your current state of mental health. Your not capable of discussing this, because your afraid yourself of what is going to happen for your rebellion. Take your meds and I will leave you alone.
<quoted text>
In other words, when you ae faced with the truth that there is no evidence for you god, or a spirit, or that prayer doesn't work, or that your lord lied.... You run away. No surprises there. You are so scared of death, you can't even have a discussion about your own belief without making more crap up to shore up your own fabtasy(actually,it's not your fantasy, but someone elses that you were brainwashed into believeng).

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2216
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why theists tend to be happier than the non religious.
“all practicing religious groups are on average much, much happier than secularists”
Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It (2008)by Arthur C Brooks
ALL practicing religions, huh? Satanists, Shiite Muslims - all of them are happier than we are? You are so incredibly full of feces. Besides being irrelevant to the truth of religion, this ridiculous comment can ruled out as bogus out-of-hand.

But let's look at some data to confirm this:

"This new survey [Profiles of the Godless" (Free Inquiry magazine Vol. 29, No. 5, pps. 41-45)] reports that confident nonbelievers are more emotionally healthy with respect to “fence sitters” or religious doubters, shows that “spirituals” report less satisfaction with their lives than those who identify with other self-labels, and suggests that the common assumption that greater religiosity relates to greater happiness and life satisfaction is not quite true.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/prof...

Here's a summary chart:
http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads...

That sure looks bad for religion.

Here's the source document:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attac...

Even were it true that you people were happier, so what:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - GB Shaw

Too bad! So sad!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2217
Oct 15, 2010
 
Godlessons wrote: Statistics also show that religious people are generally more likely to commit crimes than the non-religious, especially sex crimes. On top of that, the religious are more susceptible to being victims of sex crime.
keltec 9mm wrote:
Considering that the religious are about 85% of the population that would come as no surprise.
We're making progress.

Why aren't you people more likely rather than much, much, MUCH less likely that nonbelievers to commit these crimes. Where's the power of your faith? Where's all that happiness.

BTW, I just checked back on Missouri politics for the hell of it and discovered that the POS Christian conservative that was recently Speaker of their house - Rod Jetton - is being brought up on charges of viciously assaulting a woman he arranged to meet over the Internet while playing violent sex games. He claimed that she never said the safe word "green balloons". LOL.

I couldn't be more delighted at seeing this religious hypocrite humiliated, prosecuted, and his future in politics ended! I met the smarmy little hypocrite a few times before he was even elected to the state assembly. God bless you, Rod.{See Rod Jetton sex scandal]

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2218
Oct 15, 2010
 
Oops!

"Why aren't you people"

should read

"Why ARE you people"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2219
Oct 15, 2010
 
So, how much of Fr. Lemaitre's scientific work was done using the theological method, which is using scripture, through prayer, or by edict?

THE RELIGIOUS METHOD: read the Bible, listen to other people who say that they know the deity’s mind, and pray.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, induction, prediction and confirmation.
keltec 9mm wrote:
I believe Galileo explained it quite sufficiently.
"When I reflect on so many profoundly marvelous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.”
Dr Francis Collins, director of the National Institute of Health, and former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute put it this way-
"The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory . By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."
Dr Francis Collins
Since you avoided the question, unless you didn' se it - which would be strange given that you chose to respond to it - it is reasonable to assume that you believe the answer to be embarrassing, that is, that none of Lemaitre's useful work was done using the religious method.

If so, that would make your attempt to imply that because a priest did science, that religion should get the credit for his work. Is that correct? Were you dissembling there?

You may correct these answers if they are incorrect. Or you can confirm them explicitly or with more evasions. This allows us to make forward progress.

I think that most people accept a "no defense" defense in a situation like this, where you are specifically told how your silence will be interpreted, as an admission that the question is too embarrassing to answer should you choose to evade it again. It will be the last time that you will have to try to do so.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2220
Oct 15, 2010
 
IANS: It's [the bible] allegory, right?
keltec 9mm wrote:
In my opinion only parts. Your unusual interpretation sounds like you have been smoking the heavy stuff.
I asked that if that's a legitimate way to read the Bible - allegory or metaphor - why consider Jesus an actual person or god instead of a metaphor? And you called that a strange interpretation of your book. I think that believing that only parts of your book are allegory, but that the rest is literal truth, is a strange way of reading any book.

What would you say if I suggested that only parts of Aesop, Mother Goose, and Grimm are fairy tales? And that in some chapters of Gulliver's Travels, Moby Dick, and Lord of the Flies, the events described were literally true.

Fantasy and fact are simply not published in alternating paragraphs of any works, certainly not with a clear indication of which is which.

The question for each believer, then, is when one is expected to take the Bible seriously, and when is it a cartoon.

Idea!

I've often thought that Bibles should be treated like the movie The Wizard of Oz. Recall that reality, which was set in Kansas, and which appeared on screen only at the beginning and end of the movie, was filmed in black and white; whereas the fantasy world of Dorothy's dream during her unconsciousness caused by the tornado, was set in Oz and shot in color.

Couldn't we have Bible's like that? When we're in fantasy mode, like the talking snake and whale / great fish, or God saying, "If you eat from that tree you will surely die this day," the printing could be in color so that you would know that they were just kidding. So, "stone your unruly teen to death" would also be in color, because, like Oz, it's just a joke, and not to be taken seriously.

But when they got to the actual, factual stuff - dead serious reality - like where it tells people that homosexuals should be targets of Christian abuse, or you're going to burn if you don't obey the man in the dress in the pulpit, you would know that they weren't kidding any more, because, like Dorothy in Kansas, it would be in black and white.

Helpful idea or not?
jack13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2221
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, all those happy non believers.
"Surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe that gods actually exist, but I part company with the New Atheists because I believe that religion is an adaptation that generally works quite well to suppress selfishness, to create moral communities, to help people work together, trust each other and collaborate towards common ends.”
Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia
Great propaganda piece. I've always been an atheist and am usually happy. But a little rain must fall in every life. I have a degree in psychiatric social work and for twenty-three years of counselling, did not find any difference between the religious and atheists when it comes to living their life. I think most mental health workers will agree with me on that. I did find the religious tended to be more frightened of change, even when it would benefit them. I also alcoholism is more prevalent among the religious. But I caution you, America is a large country and you can not draw valid conclusions about a group from a few members. Also the people I worked with had serious problems.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2222
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
A 400ft foul ball into the stands is still just a foul ball . Do the chest beating when you can prove those scientific claims .I am curious, what particular 'dogmas' has science contradicted?
Really?

How about the part where your god put life on earth in a few days, or where he nearly extinguished it with a flood?

BTW, as you may have already gathered, if you're going to tell me that those parts didn't happen as written, which is what you have already said about parts of your book, then I'll agree and tell you that almost none of your book happened as written.

That material - the creation story, the Garden of Eden, the flood - was always taught as literally true until it was shown by scientists to be ridiculous.

Now, many Christians like you are trying to fit scripture to science, which though smart, comes very late in the conflict - centuries too late.

So, I'll bet most of us are not going to let people forget that Christians like you are revisionist.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2223
Oct 15, 2010
 
getagrip wrote:
By the way, where is the missing link,[/QUOTE
The "missing link" is, and always has been a misnomer as it applies to evolution.

It implies that evolution is similar to a chain, and that each "link" is completely different from the next link or evolutionary change.

It doesn't work like that, and is a bad analogy.
But, I'll try to stick with the "chain" analogy.

Imagine a chain, made up of 30 links, 1-30, that would represent a series of progressive joinings, or events, that over all, make up a chain(the end product).

But, initially, the chain started with only the single circle of steel, and since we've defined the "chain" as being made from 30 of those circles, it is only complete when it is the full thirty.

Each single link (with variance in construction, content), isn't a chain.

Pull out a link from the center of the chain and you have a chain of 14 links, and a chain of 15 links.

The missing piece isn't a chain(species).

Add that single piece to chain of 14 links, and it becomes 15 etc...etc...

Imagine someone finding a single link of chain lying on the ground, they wouldn't shout "hey!, I've found a chain!"

[QUOTE who="getagrip"]and why arent we still evolving?
We are evolving every day.

My son is the next part of my chain. Who knows what my chain will look like in a million years.

At any rate, "missing link" isn't a good way to represent evolution(but I tried to be adaptive)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2224
Oct 15, 2010
 
oops
getagrip wrote:
By the way, where is the missing link,

The "missing link" is, and always has been a misnomer as it applies to evolution.

It implies that evolution is similar to a chain, and that each "link" is completely different from the next link or evolutionary change.

It doesn't work like that, and is a bad analogy.
But, I'll try to stick with the "chain" analogy.

Imagine a chain, made up of 30 links, 1-30, that would represent a series of progressive joining's, or events, that over all, make up a chain(the end product).

But, initially, the chain started with only the single circle of steel, and since we've defined the "chain" as being made from 30 of those circles, it is only complete when it is the full thirty.

Each single link (with variance in construction, content), isn't a chain.

Pull out a link from the center of the chain and you have a chain of 14 links, and a chain of 15 links.

The missing piece isn't a chain(species).

Add that single piece to chain of 14 links, and it becomes 15 etc...etc...

Imagine someone finding a single link of chain lying on the ground, they wouldn't shout "hey!, I've found a chain!"
getagrip wrote:
and why arent we still evolving?
We are evolving every day.

My son is the next part of my chain. Who knows what my chain will look like in a million years.

At any rate, "missing link" isn't a good way to represent evolution(but I tried to be adaptive)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2225
Oct 15, 2010
 
getagrip wrote:
No, it doesnt look like your afraid. It looks more like you have a very low IQ. Your mocking the living God, whether you acknowledge who He is or not. That is a huge problem.
There is no need to fear mocking Jehovah-Jesus. Your god is a myth. Here's the proof:

BIBLE SELF-REFUTING

Jehovah-Jesus? He's been ruled out. Your bible is self-refuting, and therefore, your god is a mythical creature. That is easily demonstrated with just a bible and a look at its myriad internal contradictions
[1] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_me...

Or, with a bible and an encyclopedia, you can verify that these are failed biblical prophecies
[2] http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm

Or, you can rule out the bible as being divinely authored by its other myriad scientific, logical, and historical absurdities
[3] http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/lon...

Or, you can explain these two fibs (broken promises):
[4] http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

So, unless you can rectify a couple hundred self-contradictions, errors of historical and scientific fact, failed prophecies, broken promises and assorted absurdities in those links and elsewhere, you've got a book that could not have been authored by an omniscient. If the isn't divinely authored, there is no reason to believe that it is about a real god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2226
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Many scientists believe a supernatural explanation of creation is a valid option
Assuming you mean more than merely logically possible, which most scientists would not argue against, that would be an example of faith based thought, which IS the religious method, and which will add nothing to knowledge.

Who cares what religious scientists believe about the supernatural? Or about Madonna or Michael Jackson?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2227
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
The naturalistic world view states emphatically that God didn't do it because God doesn't exist.
Almost all secularists / naturalists / atheists / rational skeptics say much less than that about the supernatural and all other unsupported claims, and I know that you know that. So I'm going to have to tell your god and the world that you fibbed just a little here.

Incidentally, if you've already resorted to this straw man, you're flagging faster than normal. You're usually good for a week of cuttin'-n-pastin' before you tuck tail.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2228
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
"Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions or our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so."

The New York Times, Leon Wieseltier, American writer, critic, and magazine editor.
Another straw man.

No, we don't have the view that science can explain everything. We just believe that science is the only way to describe the physical world objectively and accurately. Art might be said to describe subjective truth, but that is unrelated.

No other method has produced results - not astrology, nor phrenology, nor religious revelation, nor the Ouija board, nor "the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles." Only science has ever generated any useful knowledge about reality.

And history attests to that:
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/R-Scienc...

So, yes it is an insult to science to confuse it with superstition. That's you people. We test our assumptions against reality, and require precise prophecy be fulfilled before we'll accept our assumptions as valid. You require - um - er - nothing.

Your opinion about scientism is nonsense.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2229
Oct 15, 2010
 
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
It it was that clear than even atheists would believe, and God needs atheistic role models to show theists that you may lead a horse to water but you can't make him do the backstroke.
So, your god so loved his creation that hides from it with enigma and ambiguities? He needs to trick some of us as an example that he can?

When you think out loud for your god, you reveal that one of you doesn't think very well.

When are you going to pull out that crap where you try to make atheists look worse than believers by modifying some nobody's quote? Who was that guy - Paul somebody with a "V".

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,161 - 2,180 of5,056
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••