Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 Full story: Washington Times 6,103

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5496 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care why a person does good work as much as I care that he does good work. If someone does good work because they want to avoid hell and go to heaven; I'm just happy that they do good. This is where we differ.
Bingo. This IS where we differ. There's goodness for the sake of it, or goodness done merely for personal gain. In my view that is not "good".
Brian_G wrote:
Abolitionism was led by religious people. Name an atheist organization that has done such good. Name the hospitals, orphanages, homeless shelters, food lines and philanthropic organizations built and run by atheists; cite their good works.
Until those atheists can compete with religions; I support religion.
Since atheism is mere statement of a lack of belief for something which there is no evidence it lacks motivation to do good works "in the name of atheism". To do so would merely be to want to take credit, which appears to be the Christian motivation. So in effect the numerous non-religious charitable organisations could be described as "atheistic", as they are doing good works without a need for religious motivation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5497 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Religions help teach how to become a better person.
Religions help teach how all those who do not share their beliefs are lesser people.
Brian_G wrote:
Atheism can't do that.
Atheism can't teach you how to be a better cook either. So what's the problem?(shrug)

Don't criticize spoons for not helping us carry battleships.

“The strength of science is”

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#5498 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. This IS where we differ. There's goodness for the sake of it, or goodness done merely for personal gain. In my view that is not "good".
<quoted text>
Since atheism is mere statement of a lack of belief for something which there is no evidence it lacks motivation to do good works "in the name of atheism". To do so would merely be to want to take credit, which appears to be the Christian motivation. So in effect the numerous non-religious charitable organisations could be described as "atheistic", as they are doing good works without a need for religious motivation.
I am glad you posted this response. I wanted to, but couldn't come up with a proper way to state it.

In my opinion the mention of a dearth of atheist charitable organizations was meant as an indictment of atheist values and nothing more. Your post gets to the heart of that attack and shows how valueless it really is.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5499 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
AGain, you link without reading.
"building blocks of DNA"
"DNA precursors"
Look at the words and get a friend or parent to explain what the big ones mean.
Yep. That's what it said, "precursors", not life or *fossils* of once living organisms.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5500 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. This IS where we differ. There's goodness for the sake of it, or goodness done merely for personal gain. In my view that is not "good".
<quoted text>
Since atheism is mere statement of a lack of belief for something which there is no evidence it lacks motivation to do good works "in the name of atheism". To do so would merely be to want to take credit, which appears to be the Christian motivation. So in effect the numerous non-religious charitable organisations could be described as "atheistic", as they are doing good works without a need for religious motivation.
In the movie The impossible , a story about some Australians caught in the tsunami in Thailand a boy argues with his mother about helping another boy. It was not god or religion that made the woman's mind up. It was because it was the right thing to do.

She said we are going to help that boy even if it's the last thing we do. To me that's what we are talking about, it has nothing to do with anything else. It surpasses fear and doubt, it's not divine nor is it religion. It's just simply
"the right things to do".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5501 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I question N.'s understanding of morality; without religion all morality is subjective.
WITH religion, all morality is subjective. Christians are better than other religions? Subjective. Muslims better than other religions? Subjective. BOTH claim that their religions are "righteous" in the eyes of God. Either way, it involves an invisible sky-daddy up there which claims certain things are right and wrong because it SAYS so - that's subjective.
Brian_G wrote:
I blame socialized medicine.
We've always offered exceptions for the risk to the mother's life. For us, abortion isn't a black and white issue except for the question of taxpayers paying for your abortion.
Uhuh, the mother can DIE first before you right-wing nutbags will consider paying taxes to fund that abortion.
Brian_G wrote:
Please name a modern religious university that doesn't allow the teaching of evolution. For religious people, they understand faith and science are two different things while radical secularists attribute their own faith to science.
Liberty count?
Brian_G wrote:
Missionaries of Charity is a Roman Catholic religious congregation established in 1950 by Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. It consists of over 4,500 religious sisters and is active in 133 countries. Members of the order designate their affiliation using the order's initials, "M.C." A member of the Congregation must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, and the fourth vow, to give "Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_...
Which ignores his criticism of Teresa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Cr...

Also bear in mind that they do not necessarily have to do what they say on the tin. Kinda like the DI laughably claiming to support science and without religious bias.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5502 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. This IS where we differ. There's goodness for the sake of it, or goodness done merely for personal gain. In my view that is not "good".
<quoted text>
Since atheism is mere statement of a lack of belief for something which there is no evidence it lacks motivation to do good works "in the name of atheism". To do so would merely be to want to take credit, which appears to be the Christian motivation. So in effect the numerous non-religious charitable organisations could be described as "atheistic", as they are doing good works without a need for religious motivation.
So they pat themselves on the back instead of lounging around hoping Jesus will do it?

Whatever.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5503 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Religion helps people become better persons; it teaches charity
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cart...

Lemme guess, not "true" Christians, right?
Brian_G wrote:
love
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eNu3RDHfRa8/TxJ698M...
Brian_G wrote:
and devotion.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x_pDIBIVGRA/UGrs7MJ...
Brian_G wrote:
There are no atheist organizations that fulfill that role on a large scale in our society.
http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibeliev...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5504 Jan 13, 2013
There's something a few people are wrong about here.
They think morals are subjective in religion, but this is false.

In religion moral can be dictated. And it tries to dictate morality on those who do not believe in tandem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5505 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Teaches the science of evolution:
Bio 300 Evolution and Origins.
page 52, 2012 course catalog:
http://www.bju.edu/academics/catalogs/ug11.pd...
"All of our courses are taught within the context of biblical creation and offer a scientific and philosophical refutation of evolution"

So uh, according to your own linky, no they don't.

Oh, and here's some more BS besides:

http://www.bju.edu/academics/college-and-scho...

http://www.bju.edu/academics/college-and-scho...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5506 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I haven't incited hate; I just observed that atheists haven't built hospitals, orphanages or universities and religions have.
So not one of these have ever had an atheist construction worker? There are no atheist builders or architects?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5507 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, and students are still required to learn evolutionary theory, if only to know how to refute it from their faith.
So in other words you were lying when you claimed they taught evolution, because what they're really teaching is creationist religious apologetics.

Once again Brian is caught supporting creationist apologetics in a scientific context. Tut tut, Brian. The 9th Commandment mean nothing to you then?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5508 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Bob Jones University is a religious school, not an accredited college.
But you said it taught evolution. If I teach Jimbo's version of gravity am I really teaching the science of gravity?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5509 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That isn't a very sound basis for a science curriculum, but it does fit with the anti-science stand of many fundamentalists of today.
And Brian too, it seems.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5510 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
In my opinion the mention of a dearth of atheist charitable organizations was meant as an indictment of atheist values and nothing more.
Indeed, it's just another way of religious people pretending to take the moral high ground. Nightserf made a good point too when he notes that atheists are also in the minority of the population.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5511 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'd agree that ancient Egyptians believed Ramses was god; isn't that proof of god?
This was exactly my point six months ago.

By the definition, so long as a group (in this case ancient Egyptians) believe that someone (in this case Ramses) was a god, then the title "god" can be applied.

That simple statement is apparently beyond Skippy and Aura's capacity to comprehend.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5512 Jan 13, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So they pat themselves on the back instead of lounging around hoping Jesus will do it?
Whatever.
In the case of the likes of Mother Teresa for example, she was hoping Jesus would do it. Keep in mind that when large religious institutions hold a large majority they will go to great lengths to keep it that way. I don't claim that your average non-fundie Christian is as heartless as Brian G's hypothetical caricature atheist counterpart, but merely using the example to counter his claims. In fact we're just waiting for him to invoke Godwin's by bringing up Stalin so we can mention Hitler then out comes the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's the way these debates always go.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5513 Jan 13, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
There's something a few people are wrong about here.
They think morals are subjective in religion, but this is false.
In religion moral can be dictated. And it tries to dictate morality on those who do not believe in tandem.
And they are dictated by those who have an opinion on what is "right" and "wrong", be it (a) God who don't like teh buttsecks or the ancient superstitious goat-herders writing it on its (or their own) behalf.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5514 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree with N. characterization of Missionaries of Charity. I challenge him for proof of those defamatory claims.
One of hundreds such articles:
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/artic...
I question N.'s understanding of morality; without religion all morality is subjective.
All morality is subjective anyway. It is not "more" moral to apply Mosaic law than it is to apply Utilitarianism.

All you change is the presuppositions upon which the "morals" are based.

Is it "moral" to stone someone to death because she was raped? According to Mosiac law - yes. According to concepts of autonomy - no.
We've always offered exceptions for the risk to the mother's life. For us, abortion isn't a black and white issue except for the question of taxpayers paying for your abortion.
Well, too bad your view was not shared by the "charitable churches" you are applauding.
Please name a modern religious university that doesn't allow the teaching of evolution.
I'm responding after about 3 hours absence. I'm gonna assume someone already gave you this list. If they haven't I'll come back to it.
Missionaries of Charity is a Roman Catholic religious congregation established in 1950 by Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. It consists of over 4,500 religious sisters and is active in 133 countries. Members of the order designate their affiliation using the order's initials, "M.C." A member of the Congregation must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, and the fourth vow, to give "Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_...
And yet their actions are not for the benefit of the poor, but rather the benefit of themselves.

None of the people participating in these charities are doing so without hope of reward in Heaven for the "good deeds".

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5515 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is where we differ; I don't care why a person does good work but all N. cares about is good intentions and he doesn't care about consequences.
Consequences are everything, intentions are objectively unobservable, hence they are meaningless.
You are claiming that atheists can not be charitable and that Christians can, BUT you are saying that the REASON for their action is irrelevant.

That's a contradiction.

How is it that Christians can be charitable and atheists can't if the fact that they are Christians and atheists is completely irrelevant to your argument?

Further, this argument is: "The ends justify the means". That's the opposite of what you are trying to express.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 hr Eagle 12 2,407
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 hr Joe fortuna 232,877
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 10 hr _Bad Company 23,198
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 14 hr Pahu 33
God' existence 14 hr Carchar king 63
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 14 hr Carchar king 138
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 21 hr Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web