Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Atheist Islamophobia... Again

There are 3765 comments on the Religion Dispatched story from Apr 9, 2013, titled Atheist Islamophobia... Again. In it, Religion Dispatched reports that:

Sparked by a Richard Dawkins tweet , in which he drew a parallel between Islamists and Nazis, Nathan Lean recently suggested on Salon.com that the most famous representatives of the new atheism "flirt with" Islamophobia [echoing Chris Stedman's prescient warning to fellow atheists on RD this past August]. As the article explains, Dawkins, Hitchens ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Religion Dispatched.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2260 Jun 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
When you're able to the prove the god you're lying to us about, you gain higher morals.
Watching a theist try to "argue" is similar to watching ants trying to move a 5 pound weight that is in their way...

... the ants do not understand the nature of the weight.

... all they know, is that they are somehow **compelled** to try to move it.

Amusing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2261 Jun 16, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither one is mentioned in the bible, so it is immaterial to them.
According to them, all the mysteries of the universe can be explained through the buybull.
Which is why these people are so bad at.... basic reality.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2262 Jun 16, 2013
huntcoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for you to PROVE what you said happened. Like all your rants, you can't do it. Curious about one thing, do you drool when you type this drivel? What kind of bib do you wear while you rant? Do you scream at the screen? Do you take medicine for your condition?
Failed theist who cannot muster up even an ARGUMENT in support of his delusions.

Let alone ... facts.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2263 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Ding-Dong, I am on the US News Forum. Why don't you go to the Christophobic forum with your brain dead buddies.
You are in the ATHEIST thread, doofus.

Why don't you go play with your OTHER Genuine Christholes™ wherein you pat each other on the butts and exclaim how "wonderful" your gay-relationship with Jewsus is...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2264 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
There is much evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
Name.... one.

Just ONE.

Can you DO it? Hint: your BuyBull isn't evidence--it's totally biased.

This could be good for a laugh...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2265 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence is the fine toning of the constants of the universe.
Really?

So you are saying the Universe has... PERFECT PITCH?

Hint: "tone" has to do with sound, or athletics (as in muscle tone).

It has **nothing** to do with our Universe....!

You are too much!

BUT THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR ID.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2266 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
The design in the universe must be investigated as any other natural phenomena and not simply dismissed.
WHAT DESIGN?

Where?

You haven't shown that there IS any such thing.

Get busy!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2267 Jun 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What "fine tuning?"
Note that he did not say "tuning"... he said "toning"... which is very different.

<laughing my azz off here>

These ignorant fools cannot even get their own memes correct....

...!!!

So funny!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2268 Jun 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the first step in figuring out whether something is designed is to first understand what nature alone can do without intelligent intervention.
For example, perfect rectangular solids with open insides are rare to non-existent in nature, so we can know that certain types of buildings are designed simply by their construction.
Or, if we got a signal from space that included a progressing sequence of primes, we would know that an intelligence was behind it since there is no way to produce such signals naturally (that we know of).
Another example can be found in archeology, when we are attempting to determine whether a given rock was modified by intelligence. Do determine that requires knowing how rocks split naturally and finding a difference in the sample from the naturally produced effects.
Now, it is not the complexity of a thing that determines whether it is designed enough. There are many complex phenomena that are perfectly natural and many things that are designed are very simple (example: a paper clip).
So now we come to the universe. First, we know of natural processes acting via gravity that would produce the spiral galaxies, the stars, and the planets. We know there are a wide variety of planets and stars, so it is not at all surprising that a combination like our earth and sun could happen. Once you get a planet in the habitable zone, life is probably fairly easy to get started because the basic materials are well distributed in galaxies. Any 'fine tuning' for the earth specifically is more like the water in a puddle commenting how the earth around it was perfectly designed for the shape of the water. We are a product of our environment, so it isn't surprising that we fit into it. Again, that aspect is perfectly natural.
Now you bring up the 'tuned constants'. It is a good bet that most people who bring up this argument can't say even one of those tuned constants. They are simply parroting what someone else said. But much more relevant is that we do not know how or whether those constants can be different. We simply do not know what nature can do alone. In fact, in a multiverse scenario (and un-verified possibility), it is quite likely that *all* different combinations are found *somewhere*. We just happen to be in a spot that works well for the development of life.
So, your conclusion of design is at least premature until we know what is possible in terms of changing 'constants'. It is even possible that there is some sort of feedback mechanism that forces the constants to be certain values. We simply do not know. And, in some of the theories we have built, it is even the case that all possible combinations happen somewhere, eliminating the design hypothesis from consideration.
A brilliant piece, Professor. Up to your usual standards of quality.

Alas, it's a pity it is entirely lost on someone so dimwitted, he cannot even correctly copy-paste his own creationist memes...

... likely because he has no frikkin' CLUE what "fine tuning" actually means, in cosmology.

Most amusing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2269 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
If life is so easy to develop from the raw materials why hasn't life been created in a petri dish? Oh, if we leave the ingredients in the dish long enough life will develop on its own.
Science has not been able to prove life can rise from chemicals and energy alone. It is only speculation.
Has there ever been any indication of life beyond the earth? How long have they been searching for signals from extra terrestrial life?
Your claims are based on your faith in materialism and not fact.
Yes... this ignorant MORON has NO CLUE what the consequences of "fine tuning" mean.

Not a frikkin' clue-- he is just COPY-PASTING from some equally ignorant website...

... pitiful.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2270 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
It is evidence of an intelligent designer and not random chance and time.
What is "it"?

You have NO CLUE what you are copy-pasting MEANS, do you?

<laughing my azz off at the ignorant creotard>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2271 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence is in the world around you.
WHAT "evidence"? You have to be SPECIFIC, man!

Your nebulous "it's out there" is garbage.
Uncle Sam wrote:
Science has yet to produce life in a petri dish.
False. Artificial Cell: " http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21c... ;
Uncle Sam wrote:
If life is so easy to create that it occurs throughout the universe by accident, why can't they produce it in a petri dish?
Who said it was easy? The universe is HUGE-- there are likely billions upon billions of opportunities to create life.

You simply have NO CLUE of the scale of the visible universe.

It's obviously larger than the feeble god YOU imagine.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2272 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for science to create life in a petri dish.
" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21c... ;

Read it and WEEP, you ignorant creotard.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2273 Jun 16, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
Basic life is created even today next to some of the volcanic vents in the ocean floor. In time and in given circumstances it will evolve over million of years.
Link
Dak-Original

Leeds, UK

#2274 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Link
I saw it on a Discovery documentary.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2275 Jun 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And when they have done so, the basic components of life have been produced: amino acids, nucleic acids, etc. They will also spontaneously form cell-like structures and produce catalysts for many of the reactions required for life.
We know that life is a chemical process. The question is what the conditions and environment were where life first arose. That is one aspect that we do not know. Even on the early earth, there were a large variety of different environments with different chemical compositions, different temperatures, different conditions of drying and wetting, etc. We do not know the exact conditions or combination of conditions that event existed, let alone which ones were required for encouraging the chemical reactions for life. But progress is being made and we know much more than we did even a couple of decades ago and the results consistently point to it being a process that is possible, even if it took more than the couple of decades we have been working at it.
<quoted text>
Look at any biochemistry book. Every aspect of life is chemical. There is nothing different about the atoms in your body that those same types of atoms anywhere else.
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. If we set up conditions similar to the early earth, with the variety of required environments, and life is formed, that would show that intelligent intervention is NOT required. Even if the first life we produce is made via intelligent intervention, we may well learn what conditions are required for it to happen spontaneously.
Of course life is made up of chemical and energy. It is the process of getting from chemical and energy to life that is the problem. So far science has not made any real headway in determining how life came into existence. So far it's been guess work and what if's.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2276 Jun 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21c... ;
Read it and WEEP, you ignorant creotard.
Big deal, proves nothing; Other than showing it takes intelligent design to make a cell.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2277 Jun 16, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>
Basic life is created even today next to some of the volcanic vents in the ocean floor. In time and in given circumstances it will evolve over million of years.
Sorry, but this is a misunderstanding of what is happening in the deep sea vents. new life is not being formed in the abiogenesis sense. BUT, the types of life that are there are probably similar chemically to some of the earliest life on earth. It is also the only life we know of that is not dependent on the energy from the sun for survival: the energy there comes from the geological processes in the vents.
Uncle Sam

Beckley, WV

#2278 Jun 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT "evidence"? You have to be SPECIFIC, man!
Your nebulous "it's out there" is garbage.
<quoted text>
False. Artificial Cell: " http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21c... ;
<quoted text>
Who said it was easy? The universe is HUGE-- there are likely billions upon billions of opportunities to create life.
You simply have NO CLUE of the scale of the visible universe.
It's obviously larger than the feeble god YOU imagine.
Oh the universe is so big! Wow! Aren't you impressed!! It must stagger your primitive brain even thinking how 'big' it is. Is your head spinning in your tin foil hat?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2279 Jun 16, 2013
Uncle Sam wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course life is made up of chemical and energy. It is the process of getting from chemical and energy to life that is the problem. So far science has not made any real headway in determining how life came into existence. So far it's been guess work and what if's.
That is not true. A great deal of headway has been made, both from the chemical point of view and from the life side of the equation. We know that life as it exists now (based on DNA and protein) is likely to not be structured the way that the earliest life was (probably based on RNA, perhaps with minimal proteins). We know many more chemical reactions that lead to the types of chemicals required for life and how they form larger structures. We know that life is much more diverse than what we knew 50 years ago and that it is possible in much more extreme environments that we ever thought before. We know how the life that now exists is related and we have picked apart the different types of metabolism to see their similarities, differences, and hereditary links. We know more about the environment of the early earth and are learning more each year.

Are there many challenges? Of course. But progress has been made.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min was auch immer 87,669
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 47 min Eagle 12 - 259
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) 2 hr ChristineM 144
Why does Congress have a Chaplain ? Sat Wilmington 1
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Sat Wisdom of Ages 5,843
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Feb 21 ChristineM 4,035
Christianity almost did not happen Feb 12 Quatsch22 1
More from around the web