In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

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.

Comments
27,161 - 27,180 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28132
Jul 20, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll find that barefoot tries to make you responsible for what he thinks you said, rather than what you actually said.
Yes, I'm starting to realise this :-}

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28133
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

The Dude wrote:
So Buck.
What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? How is "design" measured? How is CSI (Complex Specified Information) quantified? When and where did it do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? What observations can be made in regards to ID? Why is this (potentially all-powerful universe-creating) designer apparently incapable of evolution and how were these limits determined scientifically? What useful scientific predictions does ID make? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified?
.
Keep in mind the ONLY one you've come SLIGHTLY close to answering is predicting that evolution is incapable of evolution. Yet that leads to another question asked above which has been ignored just like the rest. Contrary to your claims these ARE valid scientific questions, and any theological/philosophical concerns are your own, and not relevant to science. Or the "science" of ID, if such a thing was to exist.
I shall repeat your answers so far:
Something
did something
somehow
somewhere
at sometime.
(without evolution no-way no-how no-SIR)
Thanks for the questions.

1. Already gave you the theory.

2. The designer is not known or hypothesized. The theory involves the detection of design, not the source of it. The source of the design is not scientifically discernable at this point. This is how science operates - staying within the limits of analysis.

3. The mechanism is unknown and not hypothesized. The theory is modest and limited - the detection of design which requires intelligence.

4. CSI is measured as follows:

I(B|A), like I(A&B), I(A), and I(B), can be represented as the negative logarithm to the base two of a probability, only this time the probability under the logarithm is a conditional as opposed to an unconditional probability. By definition I(B|A)=def -log2P(B|A), where P(B|A) is the conditional probability of B given A. But since P(B|A)=def P(A&B)/P(A), and since the logarithm of a quotient is the difference of the logarithms, log2P(B|A)= log2P(A&B)- log2P(A), and so -log2P(B|A)=-log2P(A&B)+ log2P(A), which is just I(B|A)= I(A&B)- I(A).

5. "When and where did it do..." Stupid question.

6. "Why is this designer incapable of evolution..." Nobody said it was. ID theorists accept evolution.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28134
Jul 20, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you partial quoting me now?
No, just explaining the situation to you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2011 Census has not released data re: religion as of today.
I agree.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The last official census data released by the UK is the 2001 census.
I agree. However, this does not change things. The last official census in the UK was in 2011.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy to see that link to 2011 data on religion: when it becomes available.
I agree. The data regarding religion in the 2011 census will be more accurate in showing the UK attitudes to religion because it is more up to date. The information you were quoting from 2001 is 11 years out of date.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28135
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't agree with this more. Faith means bypassing reason and leaping to conclusions - the very definition of invalid thought.
Agreed.

As indicated, objection to ID is based on faith. No substantive objections have been brought on these pages that have not been answered.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28136
Jul 20, 2012
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>The US is at 74.1%. So where is the UK on the list? Haha. Bit yourself on that one, didn't you?
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fatte...
LOL the fattest parts of the U.S are the parts that have the most people of British White & Black orgins in the U.S
(Which are Southern states)
These are also the most religious states too LOLOLOL

The U.S South is very Scottish.

You can see it so clear.

Hillbillies really do look Scottish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28137
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Want a disproof of your claim "there are no neutral mutations".
Ok...
DNA codes for proteins by having three bases in a row code for amino acids that will build the proteins. However, there are more than one series of bases that will code for a particular amino acid. Often, these codes will differ by a single "letter". Thus, a mutation that changes a single letter, but links to the same amino acid is a neutral mutation.
In another case, even if one amino acid is changed, the action of a protein sometime remains the same. Thus a mutation which changes one amino acid for another may have no effect on the protein's action. That is, a neutral mutation.
Or another case, due to gene duplication there are multiple copies of a single gene. Sometimes a mutation will disable one of these genes turning it into a pseudogene. This will make that one copy inactive but will have no detrimental effect on the creature. That is, a neutral mutation.
Or the gene duplication itself is a neutral mutation.
There you have 4 examples of neutral mutations. Ergo, "no neutral muations" is false.
You have been schooled, as well as pwned.
You are wrong.

The mutations you cite are SELECTIVELY neutral, but not neutral.

A nucleotide-altering mutation affects spacing between other nucleotide sites, affects regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding, and nucleosome building.

Even if a mutation results in a nucleotide change which contains absolutely no information, it is still not neutral as it slows cell replication and costs energy.

There is no such thing as a neutral mutation.

You have been schooled, as well as pwnd. Whatever the hell that means, Smartass.
1 post removed

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28139
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly: I am well-aware of the "situation" since so far it seems that I haven't had a problem posting the facts, and I am not the one running away from the FACT that the compulsory collecti worship statute is (like I said) enforce right now.
Today.
And the fact that that kind of law is not (and could not be) upheld in the USA.
Due to the Constitution.
Which we have one of in the USA.
Compared... I don't know... ah! compared to the UK which has no constitution but which does have a state religion.
What part of the U.S. Constitution would prohibit that?

Don't give me a court case - you said "Constitution".

The only prohibitions in the "Constitution" with regard to religion are the prohibition against a religious test, and the First Amendment prohibition of Congress establishing a national religion, or preventing free exercise.

I'd like to see the constitutional prohibition you refer to.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28140
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
A conclusion can be presented as if it were a hypothesis. But if it is a premise from the start, that's what it is.
The ID movement is a pseudoscientific political movement powered by the faith based assumption that an intelligent designer exists, which bias informs all of its propaganda.
You really can't make anybody but yourself believe otherwise.
<quoted text>
ID is not a science. It is anti-scientific propaganda. You are apparently susceptible.
Your declarations are contradicted by facts.

That's not scientific; it's faith-based.

You are a Grey Poupon Fundamentalist.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28141
Jul 20, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already proved you are wrong, and pointed out that the most obese country in the world is Nauru, the USA is not in the top five, and that 66 percent of subjects of the UK are also obese.
Fact.
Fact.
Fact.
Fact.
I am not interested in your subsets- you moved (again) the goal posts after you are proved wrong.
http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/ob...
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/health/101...
http://www.globalpost.com/photo-galleries/568...
Actually, the above statistics are not of obesity (BMI > 30), but of being overweight (BMI > 25). The US is at the top of the list for obesity. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-hea... NationMaster's source is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a well respected source for international statistics--the same one that Khatru used. The World Health Organization (WHO, the source for the globalpost article) data on "fatness" is also excellent, especially since it evaluates a much wider range of countries, but the status of isolated countries with populations that range from the size of small towns to medium sized cities are hardly significant except for mindless quibbling over anomalies. the fact is that among the major nations, the US is at the top of the list for obesity.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28142
Jul 20, 2012
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Not designed by a Pole. Not even engineered by a Pole. It was a Soviet car which the Poles got themselves licensed to make in Poland.
I guess we have to keep looking for that Polish designed and engineered car, don't we?
FSO is a Polish car just like the Leopard, Veno etc

Poland was hit worse in 2 world wars & then communism where we couldn't even have companies.

Which of course People West of Poland started both world wars & created the Soviet Union with Jews.

For what?

People West of Poland are becoming Muslim states.

People West of Poland are such stupid, destructive, animalistic creatures.

Western Europeans are on the brink of extinction as they deserve.

You are a foul disgusting immoral dirty monkey people with hideous women just like Negroes

You are not the least bit deserving of life.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28143
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

The Search for Extra Intelligent Terrestrials

Will you see Bigfoot today?
Why don't the aliens stay?
You said they put things in your butt,
but that it doesn't mean you're gay.
Was it a root or a ghost,
that flung that dirt in your face?
How many nights have you spent,
staring with hope into space?

I'm starting to think...
there's no intelligent life...
out there.

(guitar solo)

Will you please consult the bones?
They're putting taps on your phones,
because you saw UFOs,
because you know we're not alone.
It's a conspiracy, of course,
it makes perfect sense,
everyone is lying,
could you be any more dense?

I'm starting to think...
there's no intelligent life...
out there.

(guitar solo)

Would you like some magic beans?
Do you see ghosts in machines?
I hear they like microwaves,
and put wrinkles in your jeans.
They like to move your keys,
and flush the toilet in the night,
it's no wonder you're afraid,
and why you sleep in the light.

I'm starting to think...
there's no intelligent life...
out there.

(guitar solo)

Are you part of the master race?
Like to keep women in their place?
It's everyone else that is wrong,
especially atheists and gays.
What makes you so afraid,
that you simply can't learn?
Is it a sin to be smart?
Are you afraid that you'll burn?

I'm starting to think...
there's no intelligent life...
out there.

Has anyone seen...
any intelligent life...
out there?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28144
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Astrology, too. Same principle.
Nice admission.

Since we can reject astrology on substance, that distinguishes ID in the pair as your objection on principle.

Thanks for clarifying that your objections have nothing to do with science.

As we agreed, your conclusions drawn without reason cannot be combated with reason.

Since: Jun 12

Brewster, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28145
Jul 20, 2012
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Not designed by a Pole. Not even engineered by a Pole. It was a Soviet car which the Poles got themselves licensed to make in Poland.
I guess we have to keep looking for that Polish designed and engineered car, don't we?
Poland makes the top buses in Europe.

Polish Solaris bus company invented the Hybrid Bus in Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Polish Sylvester Porowski invented Blue lasers used in Blue ray disc.
Which are the best Blue lasers manufactured & sold by Polish companies.

Don't worry it won't be too long untill we Poles dominante technology in Europe.

Technology in Europe is already dominanted by Germany who Germans have the most Slavic genes in Western Europe.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28146
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the other way around - Darwin made gods unnecessary to account for the diversity of life on earth. Unbelief in gods follows. Skepticism results from science. Science implies atheism.
Why? Because there was never was a reason to even consider the possibility of a god except to explain the otherwise inexplicable. And science does that better. With each of its pronouncement, every god shrinks into a smaller gap.
Darwin helped us to see that your god never lived. Science shows us that we don't need magic. And the result is that religion is dying wherever science is thriving.
You are just substituting a different god.

Ernst Haeckel, after spontaneous generation was disproven by Pasteur:

"If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have the recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation."

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity.” It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." ~ George Wald

You have admitted your objection to ID, and acceptance of Darwinism is...

..."philosophical necessity".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28147
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the other way around - Darwin made gods unnecessary to account for the diversity of life on earth.
Then someone should have told Darwin.

When spontaneous generation was falsified, he was disturbed over the damage it does to his theory.

His choice was to bifurcate abiogenesis and evolution in order to wreckon the situation.

It persists today.

You can't explain "diversity of life" unless you have a specific concept for the arrival of life. The theory is propagandized.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28148
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no reason to participate in any religion or believe any holy book. If a god existed and wanted us to know, we'd know.
Or a god could exist and leave it up to us to know.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28149
Jul 20, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't care- the UK Parliament & the PM bows down before the Queen.
Whatever floats the Queen of England's boat and those who serve her.
The compulsory collective worship act was modified in 2010.
And is enforce today.
Also in force today are US state laws banning atheists from office.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28150
Jul 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The pledge of allegiance means nothing in the USA, putting aside it isn't a Christian oath.
Of course it's a Christian oath.

By swearing allegiance to your country (which just happens to be under the Christian god) you are acknowledging that very same god.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28151
Jul 20, 2012
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>But the PEOPLE of the UK are still not as religious as the PEOPLE of the US. That settles this, right?
That point goes over barefoot's head.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28152
Jul 20, 2012
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>He's A Jehovah's Witness.
That would explain a lot.

Are you a JW, barefoot?

Come on now, don't be shy. You know what your god says about hiding your light under a bushel.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••