NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.

Agreed. The irony is that most people are reaffirmed in thier faith by the existance of an obvious enemy. BOCTAOE.

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.

Oh I don't know, we've got a shortage of sermonising evangelists at the moment so until we get some more we can laugh at these guys instead.

im sick of poeple evangelising any religion. agree to disagree and move on

As an agnostic, I am prone to agree in the sense that religious debates are ultimately self-defeating. Both sides (and it is a gross inaccuracy to attempt to split it in to a religious v. atheist debate, I know) have their extremists who believe they are correct and the other side is wrong, and will attempt to "convert" others to their belief.

Simply put, follow what satisfies you the most and not what others tell you to follow. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that there is never going to be an end to the debate on NS over religion...

Agreed. The irony is that most people are reaffirmed in thier faith by the existance of an obvious enemy. BOCTAOE.

BOCTAOE? :confused:

Hear hear! <Applause>

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.
You know, you'd be much more relaxed and happy if you would just abandon the LIE that is god and embrace logic, reason and atheism.

:p ;) :D ;) :p

Don't go apeshit, I was just fooling with you.

BOCTAOE? :confused:

But of course there are obvious exceptions. From Scott Adams blog (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/).

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

But of course there are obvious exceptions. From Scott Adams blog (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/).

AISTYFEM Ah I See, Thank You For Enlightening Me

Sometimes I get sick of certain types of posts/posters (which is when I avoid them) and other times I enjoy them (which is when I read what they have to say). I wouldn't want them to stop expressing their point of views though.

As an agnostic, I am prone to agree in the sense that religious debates are ultimately self-defeating.

It really depends on the attitudes of those debating. Some of my most productive debates on religion (I generally call them "discussions", but they are sometimes like debates - polite ones) have been with my fiancee - an atheist. I have had wonderful discussions with people of other faiths and even of no faith that have caused me to reexamine, and in some cases alter, my own belief system.

Both sides (and it is a gross inaccuracy to attempt to split it in to a religious v. atheist debate, I know) have their extremists who believe they are correct and the other side is wrong, and will attempt to "convert" others to their belief.

It's best to either patronize or ignore the extremists - in any debate of any kind.

Simply put, follow what satisfies you the most and not what others tell you to follow.

Absolutely! Of course, to find what satisfies you the most - what seems the most true to you - you must examine all sorts of possibilities.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that there is never going to be an end to the debate on NS over religion...

I don't think any debate on NS actually ever ends. =)

Mind you now I think of it we often rely on the fundies on both sides to actually start religion threads. Once they get started a civilised debate can often be salvaged from the agressive start.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

And why, pray tell, do you presume these beliefs do no harm ?

Actually, you do have an interesting point. Both sides seem to be, shall we say, over-judiscious sometimes. It is, after all, up to ones opinion.

Although, I think part of the over-judisciousness comes from the enforcement of anothers beliefs upon the other (kinda like evolution being mandatory in the education system and the lack of counter arguements that are "presented" to the public, or even in the medieval times with the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, a number of Islamic countries). My point though is this, if you don't step on our toes, we won't step on yours.

And yes I know that chances are someone is going to try to start an evolution/creation arguement b/c of what I've said, but remeber, :) it takes at least 2 to have a conversation, or a debate for that matter.

The thing is this. In the Atheist/non-religious opinion, it doesn't matter most of the time that you are 'happy' where you are, because the position is seen as incorrect.

Take, for example, the 17th century or thereabouts. Plenty of people were happy with the Ptolomaic view of the Universe. In fact it was downright comforting - earth at the center of all the universe, orderly Aristotelian movements in the heavans, yadda yadda yadda. But that alone is not an argument against the enlightened individuals who know the truth showing people that truth, IE the Copernican model. Even if they were perfectly happy, even comforted by their previous view.

I'm not entirely in that camp, but I can see the POV.

I am a christian but I sometimes get anoyed with really religous people arguing their heads off. It is compleatly pointless and only encourages hatred. Its obviose that no side is going to give in so whats the use? I think everywon should follow their beliefs and that is that.

And why, pray tell, do you presume these beliefs do no harm ?

For the majority of people they do no harm.

And why, pray tell, do you presume these beliefs do no harm ?

First you tell me how private beliefs cause harm.

As an atheist, I think that atheist who think they can actually convert anyone are stupid for thinking that. Worse is the fact that they usually justify their atheism badly, which makes people think all atheists are dumb.

I agree, I'm an atheist and in discussions with friends, I promote that point of view, but all the while I (try to) respect other opinions, it's nice to talk about that kind of stuff as long as it remains a friendly exchange of ideas.
Extremists of both sides sicken debates and give both sides a bad image.

I agree, I'm an atheist and in discussions with friends, I promote that point of view, but all the while I (try to) respect other opinions, it's nice to talk about that kind of stuff as long as it remains a friendly exchange of ideas.
Extremists of both sides sicken debates and give both sides a bad image.

But they're so fun to bait. :(

Although, I think part of the over-judisciousness comes from the enforcement of anothers beliefs upon the other (kinda like evolution being mandatory in the education system and the lack of counter arguements that are "presented" to the public

Last time I checked the reasons why evolution was considered the current best scientific theory to explain the diversity of life were treated in my standard biology courses. "The best" already implies a comparison with other theories; and the fact the theory is not yet complete in every detail was certainly mentioned.

So.. were my courses so unique, or are you simply lying ?


And yes I know that chances are someone is going to try to start an evolution/creation arguement b/c of what I've said

Oh no. I see a distinct difference between attacking evolution and promoting ID :P But I will shut up about it now. At least in this thread ;)

Last time I checked the reasons why evolution was considered the current best scientific theory to explain the diversity of life were treated in my standard biology courses. "The best" already implies a comparison with other theories; and the fact the theory is not yet complete in every detail was certainly mentioned.

So.. were my courses so unique, or are you simply lying ?




Oh no. I see a distinct difference between attacking evolution and promoting ID :P But I will shut up about it now. At least in this thread ;)

Read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, I did (shortly ago to) and you'll be surprised about what we "aren't told".

Furthermore, evolution is still mostly atheistic b/c of the context that it is commonly used in. Hence, it is part of a religion (yes, atheism is a religion, and here's how, have you ever heard of an Atheistic-Christian? You probably wouldn't have.) Also, jsut because your textbook says it, doesn't mean it's true. Textbooks have been known to be wrong, after all.

First you tell me how private beliefs cause harm.

If you *truly* keep them private - that is: never let them exit your own head, never involving them in any social interaction; then yes: one can argue they can not do harm [1].

But that is not a realistic scenario IMO. Beliefs influence decisions. And where decisions are made and interaction based on belief occurs, there is a potential for harm - just like there is a potential for joy.

[1] Though certain religions would disagree - since it would still upset God.

First you tell me how private beliefs cause harm.

The Squeaky Rat, hope u don't mind but I'd like to give a brief example of how "private beliefs cause harm".

Adolf Hitler. 6 million (or so) Jews and thousands of others, dead in less than 10 yrs (?time frame?).

Personally the whole thing makes me laugh, neathier side can prove there argument but both think they can :D

The thing is this. In the Atheist/non-religious opinion, it doesn't matter most of the time that you are 'happy' where you are, because the position is seen as incorrect.

Take, for example, the 17th century or thereabouts. Plenty of people were happy with the Ptolomaic view of the Universe. In fact it was downright comforting - earth at the center of all the universe, orderly Aristotelian movements in the heavans, yadda yadda yadda. But that alone is not an argument against the enlightened individuals who know the truth showing people that truth, IE the Copernican model. Even if they were perfectly happy, even comforted by their previous view.

I'm not entirely in that camp, but I can see the POV.

Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because religion most often deals in the supernatural, which cannot be measured in the way that the natural (ie. the planets, etc.) can be. Thus, no human being can disprove the beliefs of another about the supernatural, nor can they prove their own.

Furthermore, evolution is still mostly atheistic b/c of the context that it is commonly used in.

Context does not change the meaning of something. A scientiific theory can be neither atheistic nor theistic. It must be completely silent on the matter of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Invoking the supernatural (or its non-existence) will invalidate any scientific theory, as it becomes based upon untestable premises.

Read Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, I did (shortly ago to) and you'll be surprised about what we "aren't told".
Or.... what Jonathan wasn't told. ;)

The Squeaky Rat, hope u don't mind but I'd like to give a brief example of how "private beliefs cause harm".

Adolf Hitler. 6 million (or so) Jews and thousands of others, dead in less than 10 yrs (?time frame?).

What exactly is private about a guy telling lots of other people to kill Jews?

And why, pray tell, do you presume these beliefs do no harm ?
Beliefs can no more do harm than they can manifest themselves in the physical world.

It is actions that do harm.

Personally the whole thing makes me laugh, neathier side can prove there argument but both think they can :D

... well, not in they way that you can prove a "scientific theory"...
... you can use philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily prove it...
it's simply a matter of what makes more "sense" to the person.

What exactly is private about a guy telling lots of other people to kill Jews?

The fact that it was probably caused by his personal experience with Jew Generals in WW1, among other things.

The fact that it was probably caused by his personal experience with Jew Generals in WW1, among other things.

How is experience in the military "private"?

Context does not change the meaning of something. A scientiific theory can be neither atheistic nor theistic. It must be completely silent on the matter of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Invoking the supernatural (or its non-existence) will invalidate any scientific theory, as it becomes based upon untestable premises.

Context does matter. Evolution is usually (or typically placed) in the context that there is no supernatural being. Hence, it is on untestable premises. Gravity would be a perfect example of a scientific theory.


Also, Jonathan Wells is an evolutionist. Also, his book talks about matters in detail that are in his scientific field, or relatively close.

How is experience in the military "private"?

New idea, define "private" b/c we obviously don't have the same definition.

Beliefs can no more do harm than they can manifest themselves in the physical world.

It is actions that do harm.

Do you claim belief cannot lead to actions ?

Do you claim belief cannot lead to actions ?

1. Suppose I own a gun.
2. I pick it up.
3. I aim it at you.
4. I fire it at you - thus killing you

Which item is the one that actually causes you harm?
My posession of the gun?

im sick of poeple evangelising any religion. agree to disagree and move on
agreed... I mean disagreed... I mean I disagree to.... eerrr.. :confused:




NARF!!!! :D

Do you claim belief cannot lead to actions ?
Of course not. But where it does, it would generally make more sense to attribute harm to the actions of individuals than to their beliefs, especially where those beliefs are not/cannot be known.

agreed... I mean disagreed... I mean I disagree to.... eerrr.. :confused:




NARF!!!! :D


.... one of the physological problems with the "agree to disagree"... somebody get a strait jacket plz...

1. Suppose I own a gun.
2. I pick it up.
3. I aim it at you.
4. I fire it at you - thus killing you

Which item is the one that actually causes you harm?
My posession of the gun?

The action where you fired of course. But lets rephrase it a bit:

1. Suppose I believe you are threatening the life of my child
2. I pick up my gun.
3. I aim it at you.
4. I fire it at you - thus killing you

Had 1 not been there, the rest of the chain would not have happened.

In order to prove anything, you have to get the person you're trying to convince to agree to accept a set of premises as true. Even if you can get theists to agree on this, they will change their minds after they realise that God is disproven when those premises are true.

So it's pointless to try.

In order to prove anything, you have to get the person you're trying to convince to agree to accept a set of premises as true. Even if you can get theists to agree on this, they will change their minds after they realise that God is disproven when those premises are true.

So it's pointless to try.
The supernatural God cannot be 'disproven'.

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.
I have to agree, ridicule doesn't do either side in the debates justice. I don't know as I see it more or less on the atheist side, but rather than get annoyed, I tend to just dismiss/ignore those posts.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them!
I agree. However, I don't see the problem in asking deep questions. People often see people of a non-Christian perspective making very complex enquiries and accuse them of alternative evangelism. If someone makes a statement, I would like to know what they mean by it, why they make it and, if there's some issue I don't understand or have difficulty with, to have them either explain it or to give it a second thought. Is that not reasonable?

The supernatural God cannot be 'disproven'.

There's this new invention called "reading all of the post", it's pretty good for understanding things, but a bit lousy for self-delusion. Let me give an example.

In my post, I said that if you accept a set of premises as true, you can prove anything (disproving is just the proving opposite).

E.g.
I accept these premises:
- two solid objects cannot pass through each other
- my chair is solid
- I am solid

Thus I can prove that
- I cannot pass through my chair

(and so I choose to sit on it)

Of course, if I refuse to believe one of these premises, I can't prove it.

Just a quesion has there ever been a war start =ed by an Atheist

just a question don't get pissed

Just a quesion has there ever been a war start =ed by an Atheist

just a question don't get pissed

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the USSR started wars.

And of course, communist revolutions.

In order to prove anything, you have to get the person you're trying to convince to agree to accept a set of premises as true. Even if you can get theists to agree on this, they will change their minds after they realise that God is disproven when those premises are true.

So it's pointless to try.

... how does that work? If the set of premises is true for God, then how can God be disproven by those premises?

Just a quesion has there ever been a war start =ed by an Atheist

just a question don't get pissed
There has. The Korean War was started by Il Sung. Admittedly, it was a little provoked, but most historical analysis puts the North as the aggressor.

I agree. However, I don't see the problem in asking deep questions. People often see people of a non-Christian perspective making very complex enquiries and accuse them of alternative evangelism. If someone makes a statement, I would like to know what they mean by it, why they make it and, if there's some issue I don't understand or have difficulty with, to have them either explain it or to give it a second thought. Is that not reasonable?

True. The best way to learn about something is to ask questions, bt not only that, answering questions expands the persons knowledge of what he believes too.

Just a quesion has there ever been a war start =ed by an Atheist

Absolutely! The dozens of Communist revolutions, the Korean War, the invasion of Tibet...virtually every action undertaken by a Communist nation was undertaken by a proclaimed atheist government.

... how does that work? If the set of premises is true for God, then how can God be disproven by those premises?

Um... I guess I didn't write that perfectly. When I said you have to agree on premises to prove anything, I meant that to disprove the existence of God you have to agree on a set of premises which allow you to logically prove the non-existence of God. Disproving something is just proving the opposite of it.

Um... I guess I didn't write that perfectly. When I said you have to agree on premises to prove anything, I meant that to disprove the existence of God you have to agree on a set of premises which allow you to logically prove the non-existence of God. Disproving something is just proving the opposite of it.

Ahhhhh, thank you.

Context does matter. Evolution is usually (or typically placed) in the context that there is no supernatural being. Hence, it is on untestable premises.

Incorrect. I can place evolutionary theory in the context that there is no supernatural being or in the context that there is a supernatural being without changing a single thing about the theory. Thus, it is not based on untestable premises in the least.

Gravity would be a perfect example of a scientific theory.

Yes, it would be. And I can place it in the context of there being no supernatural being, or in the context that there is a supernatural being. It doesn't change the premises on which the theory is based, which are entirely natural.

Also, Jonathan Wells is an evolutionist.

Not according to Wikipedia.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10348439

"He is a prominent supporter of Intelligent design and also questions the role of HIV in causing AIDS."

Wait, so he supports bringing religion into science - forcing the supernatural - an untestable premise - into scientific theories, thus invalidating them, and also questions the very clear role of HIV in causing AIDS.

Yeah, sounds like a real winner.

And this is interesting as well:

"As a follower of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, Wells chose to gain his science PhD at UC-Berkeley to learn how to defeat Darwinian evolution. [1]"

So he got a PhD with the express purpose of trying to defeat a theory. That would be interesting, if he had actually found empirical evidence that is in conflict with it. It would also be intersting to wonder why he didn't know that evolutionary theory long ago moved beyond Darwinian writings.

Also, his book talks about matters in detail that are in his scientific field, or relatively close.

If his book deals with ID, it talks about things completely outside of science.

New idea, define "private" b/c we obviously don't have the same definition.

In the case of a belief? "Generally kept to oneself" or "held to apply only to oneself."

In order to prove anything, you have to get the person you're trying to convince to agree to accept a set of premises as true. Even if you can get theists to agree on this, they will change their minds after they realise that God is disproven when those premises are true.

So it's pointless to try.

It actually sounds rather logical. In truth, the ONLY premise all theists agree on is, "There is a god or gods." Likewise, the ONLY premise that all atheists agree on is, "There is no god." Unfortunately for those who love debating these things, neither premise can be proven or disproven. It is an axiomatic statement that must be agreed upon before any discussion.

Beyond that, any theist should question any other attributes and premises they place upon their god or gods. If they do not, they cannot continue to search for truth, as such a search requires questioning. If you caused someone to change their premises, then you actually did accomplish something - you made them reexamine their faith, hopefully moving closer to truth.

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.
I tried of Christians condeming everyone and everything from Ariel Sharon to Brokeback mountian. Get over yourselfs, atheists arent preachy, theres nothing to preach. I noticied few atheists bashing posts lately and its annoying.

If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.

Nor should atheists or agnostics be ridiculed.

Heh. Four pages into this thread, noone has spelled "atheist" "athiest".

Heh. Four pages into this thread, noone has spelled "atheist" "athiest".
Hooray for good spelling?

i dont suppose it has occurred to y'all that if you dont like religious threads you dont have to read them. you can just leave them to those who enjoy the debate.

i find there are lots of types of threads that i never read. the "great new kind of gun" threads leave me cold so i just skip them.

you could do the same.

Agreed. The irony is that most people are reaffirmed in thier faith by the existance of an obvious enemy. BOCTAOE.
True. I didn't feel such a need to defend God so much until random atheists started telling me what was true and what wasn't true all the damned time.

They aren't scientists. They don't have any scientific proof prooving or disproving God. They aren't people you should listen to.

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.

The same is more or less true of any high-profile debates around here, whether on religion, politics, or economics. Communists, capitalists, atheists, religious types - everyone likes to argue their side, and people around here have LOTS of opinions and LOVE to broadcast and subsequently defend them. [shrug] It's interesting, fun, and it passes the time. I, personally, find debates stimulating and enjoyable.

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.

Wow, and I thought I was the only one who noticed...
Religion needs more moderats...

Incorrect. I can place evolutionary theory in the context that there is no supernatural being or in the context that there is a supernatural being without changing a single thing about the theory. Thus, it is not based on untestable premises in the least.

Yes, it would be. And I can place it in the context of there being no supernatural being, or in the context that there is a supernatural being. It doesn't change the premises on which the theory is based, which are entirely natural.

Not according to Wikipedia.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10348439

"He is a prominent supporter of Intelligent design and also questions the role of HIV in causing AIDS."

Wait, so he supports bringing religion into science - forcing the supernatural - an untestable premise - into scientific theories, thus invalidating them, and also questions the very clear role of HIV in causing AIDS.

Yeah, sounds like a real winner.

And this is interesting as well:

"As a follower of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, Wells chose to gain his science PhD at UC-Berkeley to learn how to defeat Darwinian evolution. [1]"

So he got a PhD with the express purpose of trying to defeat a theory. That would be interesting, if he had actually found empirical evidence that is in conflict with it. It would also be intersting to wonder why he didn't know that evolutionary theory long ago moved beyond Darwinian writings.

If his book deals with ID, it talks about things completely outside of science.

Firstly, evolution has no evidence which cannot be interpretted in another manner.

Secondly, it deals mostly with the past and how we came to be. This not only intrudes into history but into religious beliefs. So, since it comes into contradiction with religions, then it does involve the supernatural.

Thirdly, read his book, and you'll beg to differ.

Fourthly, ID is about "outside of science" as evolution is.

But if you want to support a theory which has false evidences given to high school students, universirty students, etc. and blatently lies to us about what the "scientific society" thinks about evolution, then fine. That's your choice. Go hypocrisy! Burn what science truly means and encourage the utterly impossible. Mind you, there is at least some reason behind believeing in a God seeing as that w/o one, our very existence would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and just about ever conservation law known.

Now then, after that little tangent and my information, I still feel inclined to say that you have the right to believe whatever you want... just don't step on our toes.

Firstly, evolution has no evidence which cannot be interpretted in another manner.

Such as?

Secondly, it deals mostly with the past and how we came to be. This not only intrudes into history but into religious beliefs. So, since it comes into contradiction with religions, then it does involve the supernatural.

Contradicting the supernatural does not make something supernatural

Thirdly, read his book, and you'll beg to differ.

Fourthly, ID is about "outside of science" as evolution is.

Uh-huh....tell me when you can disprove ID, test it, and other such things that a scientific theory must be subjectable to, and maybe this statment might make sense.

But if you want to support a theory which has false evidences given to high school students, universirty students, etc. and blatently lies to us about what the "scientific society" thinks about evolution, then fine. That's your choice. Go hypocrisy! Burn what science truly means and encourage the utterly impossible. Mind you, there is at least some reason behind believeing in a God seeing as that w/o one, our very existence would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and just about ever conservation law known.

Now then, after that little tangent and my information, I still feel inclined to say that you have the right to believe whatever you want... just don't step on our toes.

Reading this, and your sig, you don't seem the person most likely to consider (or attempt to understand) any opposing viewpoint, rational or no.

Such as?

Contradicting the supernatural does not make something supernatural

Uh-huh....tell me when you can disprove ID, test it, and other such things that a scientific theory must be subjectable to, and maybe this statment might make sense.

Reading this, and your sig, you don't seem the person most likely to consider (or attempt to understand) any opposing viewpoint, rational or no.

Firstly, it's not the fact that it contradicts "the supernatural", but rather that it contradicts a religious viewpoint. Now then, add on the fact that only another religious belief can contradict a religious belief and you have the basis for evolution being or part of a religious belief.

Secondly, ID may not follow any of those guidlines, but neither does evolution. It is neither testable, provable, predictable, nor does it make a hypothesis.

Thirdly, maybe your right, but I think it may be in part b/c of the fact that ppl tend to step on others toes without giving so much as a care. Also, the ignorance of people and the ability of people to be mindless sheeps (which I know for certain the Bible says not to be).

Sry, forgot your first question. Evidence that is wishy-washy:
-The fossil record (explainable by the flood)
-Mutation (explainable by the original/first sin)
-Diversity of animals (explainable by ID)

Mind you, there is at least some reason behind believeing in a God seeing as that w/o one, our very existence would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and just about ever conservation law known.

Bullshit. If you actually understood the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you wouldn't waste your finger motion saying that.

The Second Law of the Thermodynamics is as follows: [x|all times] net[delta]universal entropy > 0. That is, at all times, the net change in the entropy rating of the entire universe is positive. That means a couple of different things with respect to your views:

Firstly, life is not a violation of the Second Law. Increase in entropy is global. Specific systems, spatial/informational subsets of the universe if you will, can follow a trend of negative entropy - but only at the expense of adjacent systems. For example, life on Earth, refrigerators, and steam engines. All of these create energy exchanges that result in a net increase in entropy through generation of waste heat.

BUT, the purpose of the device or organism is to tap into that exchange for enough energy to perform whatever its purpose is. All of Earth's biosphere is an engine - one engaged in tapping into a bit of energy from the great entropic flow from the sun to the vacuum. Living things exist in local defiance of entropic law - but in the overall scheme of things, their existence and actions result in a net increase in entropy, just one that first affects neighboring spatial-informatic systems.

Secondly, the universe does not exist in global defiance of the Second Law. According to Big Bang theory, the early cosmos wasn't a cosmos at all - it was a singularity. That is, all matter and energy were concentrated into a single infinitely dense point body which, either because of instability, an external event, or whatever, subsequently exploded.

The reason that's important is that if you know the basic entropic progression - energy flowing from a very hot object to a very cold one - you can see that the entire course of the universe's expansion is the entropic flow from the ultimate hot brick - the singularity - to the ultimately cold vacuum, with the heat death of evenly distributed heat as the endpoint and complex galactic structures as the temporary side effect of the process. The evolution of life and the universe are both in compliance with the Second Law.

Bullshit. If you actually understood the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you wouldn't waste your finger motion saying that.

The Second Law of the Thermodynamics is as follows: [x|all times] net[delta]universal entropy > 0. That is, at all times, the net change in the entropy rating of the entire universe is positive. That means a couple of different things with respect to your views:

Firstly, life is not a violation of the Second Law. Increase in entropy is global. Specific systems, spatial/informational subsets of the universe if you will, can follow a trend of negative entropy - but only at the expense of adjacent systems. For example, life on Earth, refrigerators, and steam engines. All of these create energy exchanges that result in a net increase in entropy through generation of waste heat.

BUT, the purpose of the device or organism is to tap into that exchange for enough energy to perform whatever its purpose is. All of Earth's biosphere is an engine - one engaged in tapping into a bit of energy from the great entropic flow from the sun to the vacuum. Living things exist in local defiance of entropic law - but in the overall scheme of things, their existence and actions result in a net increase in entropy, just one that first affects neighboring spatial-informatic systems.

Secondly, the universe does not exist in global defiance of the Second Law. According to Big Bang theory, the early cosmos wasn't a cosmos at all - it was a singularity. That is, all matter and energy were concentrated into a single infinitely dense point body which, either because of instability, an external event, or whatever, subsequently exploded.

The reason that's important is that if you know the basic entropic progression - energy flowing from a very hot object to a very cold one - you can see that the entire course of the universe's expansion is the entropic flow from the ultimate hot brick - the singularity - to the ultimately cold vacuum, with the heat death of evenly distributed heat as the endpoint and complex galactic structures as the temporary side effect of the process. The evolution of life and the universe are both in compliance with the Second Law.

Firstly, dumb it down. Second law of Thermodynamics is also known to say that energy is neither created nor destroyed. I'll explain how existance is in contradiction wiyth this later.

Secondly, the Big Bang theory has several major gaps or problems which include:
- Where did this matter come from if this was the very begining? Hence breaks 2nd law of thermodynamics.
- Black hole effect. All this matter in one spot would create a black hole from which nothing could escape.
- Different directional spins on planets, asteroids, moons, etc.

BUT you have the right to believe whatever religious belief you want, just don't step on our toes, and we'll try not to step on yours.

Firstly, it's not the fact that it contradicts "the supernatural", but rather that it contradicts a religious viewpoint. Now then, add on the fact that only another religious belief can contradict a religious belief and you have the basis for evolution being or part of a religious belief.

Secondly, ID may not follow any of those guidlines, but neither does evolution. It is neither testable, provable, predictable, nor does it make a hypothesis.

Thirdly, maybe your right, but I think it may be in part b/c of the fact that ppl tend to step on others toes without giving so much as a care. Also, the ignorance of people and the ability of people to be mindless sheeps (which I know for certain the Bible says not to be).

Sry, forgot your first question. Evidence that is wishy-washy:
-The fossil record (explainable by the flood)
-Mutation (explainable by the original/first sin)
-Diversity of animals (explainable by ID)

Dangit, stupid browser lost my post. Short version.

1. "only another religious belief can contradict a religious belief" Not fact.
2. Evolution is testable, disprovable, predictable, and makes a hypothesis. (AKA You have no idea what Evolution is)
3. I'd consider the non-questioning members of religion to be more sheep than people studing the world around them, drawing conclusions, then testing them (AKA Scientists)
4. Also all explainable by the Ivisible Pink Unicorn, Invisible Green Dragon, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and my new idea that everything came from my little sister's kitchen playset.

Firstly, dumb it down. Second law of Thermodynamics is also known to say that energy is neither created nor destroyed. I'll explain how existance is in contradiction wiyth this later.

Secondly, the Big Bang theory has several major gaps or problems which include:
- Where did this matter come from if this was the very begining? Hence breaks 2nd law of thermodynamics.
- Black hole effect. All this matter in one spot would create a black hole from which nothing could escape.
- Different directional spins on planets, asteroids, moons, etc.

BUT you have the right to believe whatever religious belief you want, just don't step on our toes, and we'll try not to step on yours.

1. I don't know much about the law, but my geuss is your knowledge comes up to something less than Free Mercantile States'. Just a geuss.
2. Oh my gosh! You mean it doesn't explain everything about the universe at this very instant without any hitches? (Or, It's a scientific theory, and not, "God did it"?)

Dangit, stupid browser lost my post. Short version.

1. "only another religious belief can contradict a religious belief" Not fact.
2. Evolution is testable, disprovable, predictable, and makes a hypothesis. (AKA You have no idea what Evolution is)
3. I'd consider the non-questioning members of religion to be more sheep than people studing the world around them, drawing conclusions, then testing them (AKA Scientists)
4. Also all explainable by the Ivisible Pink Unicorn, Invisible Green Dragon, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and my new idea that everything came from my little sister's kitchen playset.

1.) Prove it.
2.) State them, and how.
3.) LOL. Tell me, how many students actually look into the arguements that aren't mentioned in textbooks? Not many, read Icons of Evolution. Also, Jesus himself said to be like a certain group of ppl (cant recall their name) who constantly checked what Jesus said to what the rest said.
4.) Maybe, seeing as that without a supernatural being you can't "prove" that anything exists.

Firstly, dumb it down.

That wasn't so bad. If I had really wanted to be dense, I would've pasted in the equation and left it as self-evident, and used more scientific terminology.

Second law of Thermodynamics is also known to say that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Nope. That's a different law, called the Law of Conservation of Energy. If the Second Law had that kind of name, it would be if anything the Law of Positive Nonconservation of Entropy.

- Where did this matter come from if this was the very begining?

Not within the scope of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory describes the formation of the known universe based on current evidence, and posits a protosingularity from which the cosmos arose. Contrary to popular ignorance/belief, the origin of this singularity is not within the bounds of the theory, and is as of yet only the subject of hypothesizing.

- Black hole effect. All this matter in one spot would create a black hole from which nothing could escape.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Black hole==singularity. They're synonyms.

- Different directional spins on planets, asteroids, moons, etc.

What? Run by me again what the Big Bang has directly to do with how modern-day minute cold-matter orbital bodies orbit stars in step with Kepler's Laws of Planetery Motion?

BUT you have the right to belief whatever, religious belief you want, just don't step on our toes, and we'll try not to step on yours.

So far, the religious right has rather failed in the not-stepping-on-of-toes.

So far, the religious right has rather failed in the not-stepping-on-of-toes.

Interesting. I make it a point not to defend my religion unless my religion is attacked, and yet somehow I always seem to be defending my religion... not on these forums (yet, I suppose), but everywhere else on the internet...

1. I don't know much about the law, but my geuss is your knowledge comes up to something less than Free Mercantile States'. Just a geuss.
2. Oh my gosh! You mean it doesn't explain everything about the universe at this very instant without any hitches? (Or, It's a scientific theory, and not, "God did it"?)

1.) I don't have a clue what FMS said but he didn't make much of an attempt to make it understandable. There's what I know. And if he has a problem with that then he can complain to the Canadian School System,
2.) Science is figuring out how and why the world works, not about "how we got here or where we're from, or waht happened a long time ago".

That wasn't so bad. If I had really wanted to be dense, I would've pasted in the equation and left it as self-evident, and used more scientific terminology.

Nope. That's a different law, called the Law of Conservation of Energy. If the Second Law had that kind of name, it would be if anything the Law of Positive Nonconservation of Entropy.

Not within the scope of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory describes the formation of the known universe based on current evidence, and posits a protosingularity from which the cosmos arose. Contrary to popular ignorance/belief, the origin of this singularity is not within the bounds of the theory, and is as of yet only the subject of hypothesizing.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Black hole==singularity. They're synonyms.

What? Run by me again what the Big Bang has directly to do with how modern-day minute cold-matter orbital bodies orbit stars in step with Kepler's Laws of Planetery Motion?

So far, the religious right has rather failed in the not-stepping-on-of-toes.

LOL. Couple of words, complain to the Canadian School System then :)

What "current evidence" for the big bang? LOL

But you still haven't explained how then we can exist if we're all still in a black hole :)

Duh, somehow the big bang would have caused or been partial to the rotation of planets.

I think religion has done better now-a-days than what evolution has :)

But you know what, seeing as that you obviously take me for a fool and vice versa, you go believe whatever some "scientist" says without a doubt, as for me, if it contradicts my religion I'm going to look into it.

Good bye friendly arguement, good bye.

1.) Prove it.
2.) State them, and how.
3.) LOL. Tell me, how many students actually look into the arguements that aren't mentioned in textbooks? Not many, read Icons of Evolution. Also, Jesus himself said to be like a certain group of ppl (cant recall their name) who constantly checked what Jesus said to what the rest said.
4.) Maybe, seeing as that without a supernatural being you can't "prove" that anything exists.

1. I don't need to, you used it as justification for Evolution being a religious belief, the burden is on you
2a. Place a population into a controlled environment, find individuals better suited to environment, see if they have more ofspring, if it's traits are passed down, change in population over generations, etc.
2b. Find a fossilized bunny in Precambrian era.
2c.Predict how a population might change over generations if say, a favorable trait (speed, hieght, better camofluage, etc) is introduced.
2d.What do I have to do? quote the theory? Something to the effect of "populations change over time through natural selection" Or maybe "Organisms with traits better suited to the environment will have more offspring and pass these traits on"
3.Who said anything about students? But on that subject, how many of them check what their religion actually says and follow it, as opposed to what their parents tell them. How many parents probably did the same thing when they were kids?
4. How so? What's your definition of existance?

LOL. Couple of words, complain to the Canadian School System then :)

What "current evidence" for the big bang? LOL

But you still haven't explained how then we can exist if we're all still in a black hole :)

Duh, somehow the big bang would have caused or been partial to the rotation of planets.

I think religion has done better now-a-days than what evolution has :)

But you know what, seeing as that you obviously take me for a fool and vice versa, you go believe whatever some "scientist" says without a doubt, as for me, if it contradicts my religion I'm going to look into it.

Good bye friendly arguement, good bye.

How could you have looked into it? Ask your preist?

1.) I don't have a clue what FMS said but he didn't make much of an attempt to make it understandable. There's what I know. And if he has a problem with that then he can complain to the Canadian School System,
2.) Science is figuring out how and why the world works, not about "how we got here or where we're from, or waht happened a long time ago".


1. It made perfect sense to me, but I suppose because you can't understand something AND it goes against your religion, it's twice as wrong. so it doesn't matter
2. Honestly, what DO you know about anything against your religion?

Interesting. I make it a point not to defend my religion unless my religion is attacked, and yet somehow I always seem to be defending my religion... not on these forums (yet, I suppose), but everywhere else on the internet...

Unfortunately, Focus on the Family, the Bush administration, the Discovery Institute, etc. don't share your attitude.

LOL. Couple of words, complain to the Canadian School System then :)

I'll be sure to march into the nearest principal's office next time I'm in Canada. :)

What "current evidence" for the big bang? LOL

:rolleyes: Microwave background radiation and the universally observed galactic redshift are the major two. Unlike religion, science doesn't advance theories without evidence or reasoning.

But you still haven't explained how then we can exist if we're all still in a black hole :)

Singularities are unstable by nature, and eventually 'evaporate' into radiation. In any case, though, the possession of an extremely screwy gravity well does not preclude explosion. If the singularity becomes critically unstable, it'll go 'pop'.

Duh, somehow the big bang would have caused or been partial to the rotation of planets.

....not really. The formation of the first rocky planets didn't occur until billions of years after the Big Bang. Sure, there's a connection, but it's like the connection between any two things: causality says a link exists, but it's so circumspect it doesn't matter.

The rotational characteristics of orbital bodies is a function of the mass, density, etc. of them and the body they orbit around, and the circumstances under which one began to orbit the other.

I don't know what exactly you're thinking, but the Big Bang didn't spew out a bunch of fully formed solar systems and planets in a single perfect trajectory that settled into the exact universe a few minutes later. It's like saying the circumstances of the assassination of MLK Jr. must have a direct causal effect on the present-day actions of every functionary in the NAACP, which must then all be the same.

I think religion has done better now-a-days than what evolution has :)

Right, an illogical, arbitrary mythological belief system predicated on blind faith that has no evidence and makes no sense is such a superior idea....

But you know what, seeing as that you obviously take me for a fool and vice versa,

Where do you get that? As far as I can tell, I've been perfectly polite, with the exception of the "bullshit" comment, which wasn't directed at you anyway.

you go believe whatever some "scientist" says without a doubt,

LOL. How ironic coming from someone who believes in things because "the Bible tells me so."

I've always found that amusing - religious people are so hung up on belief in a particular person or authority, they are literally incapable of imagining a person who doesn't. Hence the use of the term Darwinism, and your quoted comment. Those who exercise independent reason don't unquestioningly accept the words of a so-called authority figure just because - that's the whole point.

Scientific reasoning has to be objective and repeatable. The only time I take a scientist's word for it is when the math involved is over my head, and even then only if there is strong scientific backing from the community. Unlike religious types, those who exercise their logical faculties don't rely on subjective experiences and supposedly authoritative sources - it has to be to some degree provably factual to be considered.

The problem is that both sides have a tendency to go about it in a way that will not win converts. Evangelical Christians try to provide a solution by shoving a problem, sin, onto people. If someone is not willing to accept the problem, then there is no need for them to accept the solution either. Atheists, otoh, are trying to shove the problem of lack of faith onto other people. Worse yet, they fail to even hint at a solution.

The key to a productive dialogue is to embrace the ideas of compassion, forbearance, and wisdom. Instead of trying to rob others of the value in their lives, take that which is valuable in one's own life and offer it to others. Equally important, when someone offers you something of value, recognize that as the gesture it represents and appreciate it accordingly.

Firstly, evolution has no evidence which cannot be interpretted in another manner.

Nor does any scientific theory. However, evolution, like all accepted scientific theories, has no evidence which directly contradicts it. It works, and works quite well if you actually understand it, with all available evidence. Thus, it is a valid theory. You may not "believe" it, but it is a perfectly valid scientific theory, and the most well-supported one currently out there, regardless of your personal beliefs.

Secondly, it deals mostly with the past and how we came to be. This not only intrudes into history but into religious beliefs. So, since it comes into contradiction with religions, then it does involve the supernatural.

This is clearly the most idiotic thing you have said. It does not involve the supernatural unless the theory itself invokes the supernatural. It does not. The fact that it contradicts some religions does not mean it involves the supernatural itself. It means that some people think the supernatural contradicts the natural.

Thirdly, read his book, and you'll beg to differ.

Considering that his field is my field, and just reading about him on Wikipedia demonstrates that my expertise in said field is better, I don't think I need to.

Fourthly, ID is about "outside of science" as evolution is.

Incorrect. ID invokes the supernatural and is based in untestable premises - ie. there is a god. Thus, it isn't science, plain and simple.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not based in a single untestable premise.

But if you want to support a theory which has false evidences given to high school students, universirty students, etc. and blatently lies to us about what the "scientific society" thinks about evolution, then fine.

I'm a member of the scientific community, and I can tell you point blank that nothing you were told in high school or university lies about what we think of evolution. It is dumbed down quite a bit, but not falsified.

Burn what science truly means and encourage the utterly impossible.

It is those who feel the need to invoke the supernatural in theories that "burn what science truly means." Science must be based in the empirical, or it ceases to be science.

Mind you, there is at least some reason behind believeing in a God seeing as that w/o one, our very existence would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics and just about ever conservation law known.

(a) I do believe in a God. That is irrelevant to science.

(b) You clearly misunderstand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and just about every conservation law known.

Firstly, it's not the fact that it contradicts "the supernatural", but rather that it contradicts a religious viewpoint. Now then, add on the fact that only another religious belief can contradict a religious belief and you have the basis for evolution being or part of a religious belief.

Correction. This is the most idiotic thing you have said.

When Galileo pointed out that the moon has craters (after looking at them), which contradicted the religious belief that everything in the heavens was flawless, was the measurable fact that the moon has craters a "religious belief"?

When Copernicus pointed out that all heavenly bodies do not revolve around the Earth, contradicting the religious beliefs of the Church at the time, did the measurable orbits become "religious belief"?

Secondly, ID may not follow any of those guidlines, but neither does evolution. It is neither testable,

Really? So when we grow a plate of bacteria in antibiotics and watch them develop resistance, that isn't testing natural selection, a key component of evolutionary theory? We can't test genetics? We can't test inheritance? We can't test mutation? This is all new to me, considering that I test quite a bit of it on a daily basis.

provable,

Nothing in science is "provable". A scientific hypothesis or theory must be disprovable. Evolutionary theory could be disproven by any piece of evidence that contradicts it, as can any scientific theory.

predictable,

When I put a plate of bacteria into antibiotics, I predict that antibiotic-resistant strains will develop. When we look at viruses, we predict possible mutations that might move them into other species, make them more virulent, etc. We can predict the number of animals in a given population with a given trait. I could go on, if you like.

nor does it make a hypothesis.

Wow, you are full of idiocy today, aren't you? Evolutionary theory is, itself, a collection of hypotheses, as is any theory.

You may not believe the theory is correct, but you are either completely and totally ignorant of both science and evolutionary theory, or you are intentionally spreading falsehoods.

1.) I don't have a clue what FMS said but he didn't make much of an attempt to make it understandable. There's what I know. And if he has a problem with that then he can complain to the Canadian School System,

Not everyone who comes out of the Canadian school system is as ignorant as you appear to be, so I'm going to blame you, rather than the school system. My guess is that you refuse to learn anything that might challenge your beliefs.

2.) Science is figuring out how and why the world works, not about "how we got here or where we're from, or waht happened a long time ago".

You cannot figure out how and why the world works without looking at how it got there.


But you know what, seeing as that you obviously take me for a fool and vice versa, you go believe whatever some "scientist" says without a doubt, as for me, if it contradicts my religion I'm going to look into it.

And you should look into it. But if you do so with the idea of, "My religious beliefs, which have no empirical evidence, are correct and anything anyone else says is wrong," then you aren't really "looking into it."

What's the old saying...? "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."

The reason atheists can't "live and let live" is because religion by its very nature means irrational belief in something for which the evidence is insufficient ... meaning it is hostile by its nature to science, logic, and open-mindedness.

As for the claim that "you can't disprove the existence of God," this makes about as much sense as "you can't disprove the existence of y." What I mean is, unless and until you make clear what you mean by "God," any factual statements about "God" and the existence of him, her, it, them, or whatever other pronoun may be appropriate is basically meaningless. If "God is love," and when you say "God exists" you are merely asserting that there is such a thing as love, I won't deny that. If you assert the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I won't deny that either. What I do deny is that there is an agency independent of matter in motion--because to allow such an agency would make a mockery of causality and logic.

I don't think any debate on NS actually ever ends. =)
Don't you mean, is resolved?
They can certainly end with a swift kick to the digital scrotum, or with a fed-up mod, or with people getting so bored and/or distracted that their wherewithal is overcome by Emeril.
Me, i take it all personal and cram it down deep inside so i can make better weapons of my imperfections, so i can use them as well as my few advantages in a melee of wit.
F*ck-yeah. I feel like a Cazu Marzu on a Rosemary-Garlic Triscuit. *munch*

I think atheists/agnostics would just say "live and let live" if theists weren't so damn scary. Christians for instance cite the new testament to apear moral and loving, then look at the old testament whenever they want a quick fix, and then act reprehensibly. We're not trying to make you think like us (Why should we care?) we're just trying to take away your teeth (metaphore).

What's the old saying...? "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."
I prefer "Knows just enough to be dangerous"

The reason atheists can't "live and let live" is because religion by its very nature means irrational belief in something for which the evidence is insufficient ... meaning it is hostile by its nature to science, logic, and open-mindedness.


Oh, please. All religion by nature hates science! They're all irrational and closed-minded! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

That is a gross generalistion. For many of us religious types, we do have evidence. Personal evidence that is sufficient for ourselves. Personally, I couldn't care less whether my evidence is insufficient for you and that you think it's irrational because I'm not asking you to believe what I do.

I'm religious and I LOVE science. Hell, I wouldn't even have my religion if it wasn't for the archaeological and linguistic sciences. I love the technology science has brought us, I love the knowledge of the world and the greater universe science has brought us, I love the medicine science has brought us. Yes, I even love that wicked lie or unassailable truth (depending on which stupid extreme you prefer) theory of evolution!

You make that sort of sweeping (and unjustified) generalisation and then accuse others of being hostile to open-mindedness? :rolleyes:

Oh, please. All religion by nature hates science! They're all irrational and closed-minded! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

That is a gross generalistion. For many of us religious types, we do have evidence. Personal evidence that is sufficient for ourselves. Personally, I couldn't care less whether my evidence is insufficient for you and that you think it's irrational because I'm not asking you to believe what I do.

I'm religious and I LOVE science. Hell, I wouldn't even have my religion if it wasn't for the archaeological and linguistic sciences. I love the technology science has brought us, I love the knowledge of the world and the greater universe science has brought us, I love the medicine science has brought us. Yes, I even love that wicked lie or unassailable truth (depending on which stupid extreme you prefer) theory of evolution!

You make that sort of sweeping (and unjustified) generalisation and then accuse others of being hostile to open-mindedness? :rolleyes:

[Furious nodding in agreement]

Theoretical Physics prooves the existence of God anyway. So Enstein was right: science and religoun do go together.

Theoretical Physics prooves the existence of God anyway. So Enstein was right: science and religoun do go together.
No it doesn't. It takes Mathematical Set Theory to do that.

Theoretical Physics prooves the existence of God anyway. So Enstein was right: science and religoun do go together.

Are you just talking out your ass or misinterpreting some half-remembered bit of grade school science, or do you have anything to justify that assertion?

Oh yes religious beliefs dont harm anyone.
...
If i werent being Mod-Watched i would call you SOOOoOooo many names right now.
Crusades.
Anti-Gay Rights and Homophobia
Anti-Womens Rights and Prohibition in America
Nipples dammit!
and most importantly Witch-Burnings Colonialism and the Western Expansion of the US.

Who have Atheists hurt?
Uuum... well you called me fat!

riiiiiiight... In conclusion just say No to Anti-Atheists, its another tool of the Christian regime! ;p

The reason atheists can't "live and let live" is because religion by its very nature means irrational belief in something for which the evidence is insufficient ... meaning it is hostile by its nature to science, logic, and open-mindedness.

There is nothing at all about religion that is necessarily hostile to science, logic, or open-mindedness. First of all, religion deals with issues that are outside the realm of science, so science has nothing at all to do with it. There is no necessity that religion defy logic, and there is certainly no requirement to be close-minded.

Meanwhile, the evidence is only "insufficient" if you make a philosophical choice that only empirical, demonstrable evidence will be considered sufficient. It is a personal choice that you make, one that cannot, in and of itself, be backed up empirically or demonstrably.

As for the claim that "you can't disprove the existence of God," this makes about as much sense as "you can't disprove the existence of y."

It all depends on whether y is proposed to be natural or supernatural. Anything which is natural can be measured and thus propositions about it can be disproven. Anything supernatural is outside the realm of empirical measurement, outside the realm of science, and thus cannot be disproven in the sense that suggestions about the natural can.

What I do deny is that there is an agency independent of matter in motion--because to allow such an agency would make a mockery of causality and logic.

Incorrect. To allow such an agency would be to allow for something outside of this universe. How do we know what is and is not outside of that which we can measure?


Don't you mean, is resolved?
They can certainly end with a swift kick to the digital scrotum, or with a fed-up mod, or with people getting so bored and/or distracted that their wherewithal is overcome by Emeril.

Even if a particular thread dies, the debate comes back up in another thread not too long after. Individuals may leave the debate, but it seems that there is always someone else to bring it up. =)

*snip*
You make that sort of sweeping (and unjustified) generalisation and then accuse others of being hostile to open-mindedness? :rolleyes:
No; he said that 'religion' (the thing, itself) is hostile to 'science' (the thing, itself). I think you misunderstood.

To paraphrase: A thing which, by its very nature, means irrational belief in something for which the evidence is insufficient is hostile to these other things, which, by their nature, (rely on sufficient evidence).

Oh yes religious beliefs dont harm anyone.
...
If i werent being Mod-Watched i would call you SOOOoOooo many names right now.
Crusades.
Anti-Gay Rights and Homophobia
Anti-Womens Rights and Prohibition in America
Nipples dammit!
and most importantly Witch-Burnings Colonialism and the Western Expansion of the US.

Who have Atheists hurt?
Uuum... well you called me fat!

riiiiiiight... In conclusion just say No to Anti-Atheists, its another tool of the Christian regime! ;p
Those are not examples of religious beliefs that do harm, but rather people that do harm. For support, I would point to the people who hold religious beliefs --even similar religious beliefs to the people in those groups --who have not done any harm.

Oh yes religious beliefs dont harm anyone.

They don't. Actions taken because of certain religious beliefs do, but none of said religious beliefs are universal to every religion. Meanwhile, all of those beliefs are also held by those who are not religious. There are racist, mysoginist, homophobic, etc. atheists.

riiiiiiight... In conclusion just say No to Anti-Atheists, its another tool of the Christian regime! ;p

One doesn't have to be anti-atheist to be anti-militant-anybeliefsystem. You are a militant atheist, and thus are no better than a fundamentalist of any given religion.

One could hardly say I am anti-atheist. I'm engaged to one.

No; he said that 'religion' (the thing, itself) is hostile to 'science' (the thing, itself). I think you misunderstood.

To paraphrase: A thing which, by its very nature, means irrational belief in something for which the evidence is insufficient is hostile to these other things, which, by their nature, (rely on sufficient evidence).

...which is still a completely idiotic statement, as science must restrict itself to that which is empirical and for which evidence can be gathered, while religion and philosophy do not.

It's like saying, "Walking is completely hostile to driving, because driving requires wheels."

They don't. Actions taken because of certain religious beliefs do, but none of said religious beliefs are universal to every religion. Meanwhile, all of those beliefs are also held by those who are not religious. There are racist, mysoginist, homophobic, etc. atheists.



One doesn't have to be anti-atheist to be anti-militant-anybeliefsystem. You are a militant atheist, and thus are no better than a fundamentalist of any given religion.

One could hardly say I am anti-atheist. I'm engaged to one.

Im not a Militant Atheist.
Im a LOUD atheist.
Im a Sure atheist.
Im a True Atheist.
Not this Agnostic type.
Listen here, Christians are all right by my book as long as they dont contradict themselves ridiculously.
Judge not lest ye be Judged.
"GAYS ARE BAAAD AIDS DAMMIT! AIIIIIDS!"
...k ur going to hell by your own book.

...which is still a completely idiotic statement, as science must restrict itself to that which is empirical and for which evidence can be gathered, while religion and philosophy do not.

It's like saying, "Walking is completely hostile to driving, because driving requires wheels."
By 'idiotic' I once again take you to mean 'human'. I agree.

It is more like saying, "Driving, which requires little physical exertion, is hostile to walking in terms of good health, as the latter requires a lot."
Context is important.

Im not a Militant Atheist.

Yes, you are. You treat all who do not hold to your beliefs with bigotry, stereotyping them in all sorts of ways.

Im a LOUD atheist.
Im a Sure atheist.
Im a True Atheist.

You could be all of these things without turning to bigotry. However, you have chosen the bigotry path.


Listen here, Christians are all right by my book as long as they dont contradict themselves ridiculously.
Judge not lest ye be Judged.
"GAYS ARE BAAAD AIDS DAMMIT! AIIIIIDS!"
...k ur going to hell by your own book.

If I made a habit of judging others, would I be engaged to a person who doesn't even believe in God?

By 'idiotic' I once again take you to mean 'human'. I agree.

It is more like saying, "Driving, which requires little physical exertion, is hostile to walking in terms of good health, as the latter requires a lot."
Context is important.

Incorrect. You are adding too much into it to make it sound as if it is logical, when there wasn't a shred of logic in the original statement. Something cannot be hostile to another thing unless it infringes upon it in some way. I can get all the physical exertion I need, but still drive.

THe person did not say, "Religion is hostile to science where it infringes upon science," but that religion itself, by definition, is hostile to science. This is incorrect, just as if I were to say nothing more than, "Driving is hostile to walking."

Yes, you are. You treat all who do not hold to your beliefs with bigotry, stereotyping them in all sorts of ways.



You could be all of these things without turning to bigotry. However, you have chosen the bigotry path.



If I made a habit of judging others, would I be engaged to a person who doesn't even believe in God?

I wasnt directing it at you it was directed at a random imaginary christian

I wasnt directing it at you it was directed at a random imaginary christian
*Forehead slap*

"GAYS ARE BAAAD AIDS DAMMIT! AIIIIIDS!"

:D :D :D :D

That was probably meant seriously, but it was the funniest damn thing I've heard today.

Incorrect. You are adding too much into it to make it sound as if it is logical, when there wasn't a shred of logic in the original statement. Something cannot be hostile to another thing unless it infringes upon it in some way. I can get all the physical exertion I need, but still drive.

THe person did not say, "Religion is hostile to science where it infringes upon science," but that religion itself, by definition, is hostile to science. This is incorrect, just as if I were to say nothing more than, "Driving is hostile to walking."
No, I was attempting to restoring a layer of context that you stripped away with an inappropriate analogy in order to emphasize how ridiculous the original statement was. Sure, if you take something out of context, it's going to sound ridiculous; that's true of any statement.

That you can get all the physical exertion you require and still drive is again taking what I said out of its context.

Yes, I admit the concept of "hostility" doesn't work with the analogy of walking and driving, even when I try to add back in some context analgeous to that in the original statement. That is why the analogy is inappropriate, to begin with.

The context of the original statement is the thing that evidence is required for.

Am I the only person on these boards who is sick of evangelising atheists?

I suppose there's innate irony in the similarities they have with religious evangelicals. Both of them can't stop talking about religion, both of them refuse to accept another's point of view, and both take great pleasure in demonising those who do not share their beliefs.

Perhaps one day they'll recognise that the silent majoprity is quite happy for people to believe what they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If people want to believe in a God that gives their life purpose and helps them through difficult times, then good for them! I don't see why they should be ridiculed.

People can believe whatever shit they want, but the sad fact is that it often does hurt others. Many religions oppress women, gays, and members of other religions. To do such things because of a false belief (or even a true one) is unacceptable.

People can believe whatever shit they want, but the sad fact is that it often does hurt others. Many religions oppress women, gays, and members of other religions. To do such things because of a false belief (or even a true one) is unacceptable.

EXACTLY. and what have atheists done?

Christians :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

Atheists. :mad: :mad:

Great comparison...

EXACTLY. and what have atheists done?

Christians :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

Atheists. :mad: :mad:

Great comparison...
You use gun smilies. That is an evil so grotesque and malevolent that God didn't even think it necessary to make a commandment about it.

... What? I hate those damned smilies. >_<;

You use gun smilies. That is an evil so grotesque and malevolent that God didn't even think it necessary to make a commandment about it.

... What? I hate those damned smilies. >_<;

I used it in a way that "Christians get violent as hell and do stuff about it" but atheists just insult christians, we never DO anythign about it. so they are shizznor worse.

No, I was attempting to restoring a layer of context that you stripped away with an inappropriate analogy in order to emphasize how ridiculous the original statement was. Sure, if you take something out of context, it's going to sound ridiculous; that's true of any statement.

That you can get all the physical exertion you require and still drive is again taking what I said out of its context.

No, it is keeping it completely in context. Just as I can get all the physical exertion I need through walking, and still drive sometimes, I can use scientific thinking where it is appropriate, and still follow a religion.

Yes, I admit the concept of "hostility" doesn't work with the analogy of walking and driving,

Nor does it work in any way with science and religion. Exactly my point.

The context of the original statement is the thing that evidence is required for.

The original statement requires evidence for something for which there can be no evidence - at least not empirical, repeatable evidence. Thus, the original statement is completely illogical.

The statement is basically saying, "Religion is hostile to science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, even though it is outside the realm in which the scientific method is relevant."

I used it in a way that "Christians get violent as hell and do stuff about it" but atheists just insult christians, we never DO anythign about it. so they are shizznor worse.
You still use gun smilies. Those things are one of the signs of the apocolypse in egrapotentiwoolianism, dontcha know.

Seriously, though, I think there's a very simple reason many Atheists and Christians often conflict, and it's nothing whatsoever to do with theological ideas. It's your respective ways of thinking. An atheist looks at the universe structurally, like (if not as) a scientist, which is all fine and good. Many Christians look at the world in terms of underlying form; the Platonic Ideal, if you will. Which is also all fine and good. The problem comes in unifying the two mindsets, that none of the fundamentalists on either side can manage.

The key to a developed understanding is to analyse both underlying meaning and studying face value and knowing when each are appropriate. Hence my (cryptic?) remarks earlier about there being truths in even the most ridiculous mythology.

When some Atheists study Christianity at face value, it seems flawed and nonsensical. When some Christians try to study the underlying form of the Atheist, it seems dry and unemotional. If the two could see their own judgements and work with each other, they'd have a lot to learn and the world would be much better off. But, of course, nobody questions the way they think. Thus, clash of attitudes and general irritation all around.

The world needs Atheism; I don't doubt that. But it needs it to be constructive in its approach. Irrational hostility is just perpetuating the cycle that Religion has been victim to itself. Why not give dialogue a chance?

The statement is basically saying, "Religion is hostile to science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, even though it is outside the realm in which the scientific method is relevant."

Problem: religion is only *partly* outside the realm of where the scientific method is relevant - unless you have no problem accepting two contradicting things as both being true (e.g. earth is flat vs earth is round[1]) .

[1] This is merely meant as an example of things where the religious answer can differ from the scientific one. Another one would be the age of the earth.

No, it is keeping it completely in context. Just as I can get all the physical exertion I need through walking, and still drive sometimes, I can use scientific thinking where it is appropriate, and still follow a religion.
It's the author's context that matters, here. The reason it is nonsense to you is because you are not viewing it in the same context. You have created a new context.

Nor does it work in any way with science and religion. Exactly my point.
It is the analogy you made that doesn't work in any way with the science and religion statement. The hostility makes some sense in the context that the author used it, based on his definitions of science and religion.

The original statement requires evidence for something for which there can be no evidence - at least not empirical, repeatable evidence. Thus, the original statement is completely illogical.

The statement is basically saying, "Religion is hostile to science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, even though it is outside the realm in which the scientific method is relevant."
And this is why is makes no sense to you. You see science and religion to have a different purpose than the author.

Originally Posted by Workers Dictatorship
The reason atheists can't "live and let live" is because religion by its very nature means irrational belief in something for which the evidence is insufficient ... meaning it is hostile by its nature to science, logic, and open-mindedness.
What is he looking for in the evidence? What is his "science, logic and open-mindedness" threatened by?

Problem: religion is only *partly* outside the realm of where the scientific method is relevant - unless you have no problem accepting two contradicting things as both being true (e.g. earth is flat vs earth is round[1]) .

Where does it state that any religion must believe that the earth is round.

[1] This is merely meant as an example of things where the religious answer can differ from the scientific one. Another one would be the age of the earth.

What on earth makes you think that any given set of religious beliefs must contradict science at all? I don't need religion to examine the universe around me. I can use science for that. And nothing within science in any way contradicts my religion. You are taking examples and trying to make them representative of the whole, although they are not. It is completely and perfectly possible to have an entire set of religious beliefs that does not in any way conflict with science. Thus, religion is not hostile to science - some religions are.

Some political ideologies contradict science. Right-wing Republicans, for instance, hold all sorts of false beliefs about stem cell research. Does that mean that politics, by definition, contradicts science? Of course not! It is perfectly possible to have a political position that never contradicts science.


It's the author's context that matters, here. The reason it is nonsense to you is because you are not viewing it in the same context. You have created a new context.

The original author didn't give the type of context you are trying to add on. I am using the context of reality.

It is the analogy you made that doesn't work in any way with the science and religion statement.

And the science and religion statement simply doesn't work.

The hostility makes some sense in the context that the author used it, based on his definitions of science and religion.

As soon as you can point out how all religion is hostile to science, you'll have a point.

And this is why is makes no sense to you. You see science and religion to have a different purpose than the author.

The author clearly sees no purpose for religion - his opinion, but opinion nonetheless. Science, by its very definition, can only have purpose within the natural. If the author sees it differently, he's just wrong.

What is he looking for in the evidence? What is his "science, logic and open-mindedness" threatened by?

Nothing. That's the point. There are a few religions that are hostile to these ideas, but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority have no problem with science, logic, or open-mindedness.

Where does it state that any religion must believe that the earth is round.

Nowhere - which is why I added a footnote saying it was just an example.

What on earth makes you think that any given set of religious beliefs must contradict science at all?

Because I know of no religion that says nothing whatsoever about life in this universe. The Abrahamic religions, the Greco-Romanic ones, ancient Egypt, Hinduism etc etc - they all made statements which *could* be tested by the scientific method. And science got different answers.

I don't need religion to examine the universe around me. I can use science for that. And nothing within science in any way contradicts my religion.

I am intruiged. What is your religion ?

You are taking examples and trying to make them representative of the whole, although they are not. It is completely and perfectly possible to have an entire set of religious beliefs that does not in any way conflict with science. Thus, religion is not hostile to science - some religions are.

The ones that make conflicting statements however are vastly in the majority. If I were to pull a figure out of the air I would put it above 90% even.

The original author didn't give the type of context you are trying to add on. I am using the context of reality.

As soon as you can point out how all religion is hostile to science, you'll have a point.
Not "all" religion, just religion itself as defined by the author.

I was hoping to get you to be able to see the context, so that we wouldn't have to butt heads so often.

The author clearly sees no purpose for religion - his opinion, but opinion nonetheless. Science, by its very definition, can only have purpose within the natural. If the author sees it differently, he's just wrong.
"Science, by its very definition...," in itself supplies a different context than the author's. He used science by his definition.

Nothing. That's the point. There are a few religions that are hostile to these ideas, but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority have no problem with science, logic, or open-mindedness.
Yes, something. You're just not seeing it. You take his opinion and objectify it. It's not about any particular religion, it's "religion by his definition" that he's talking about.

Because I know of no religion that says nothing whatsoever about life in this universe. The Abrahamic religions, the Greco-Romanic ones, ancient Egypt, Hinduism etc etc - they all made statements which *could* be tested by the scientific method. And science got different answers.

You are trying to assume that your uninformed views of specific religions represent all religions. I am a Christian, but my religion says nothing that can be tested by the scientific method, nor does it in any way contradict science. Try again.

I am intruiged. What is your religion ?

Christianity.

The ones that make conflicting statements however are vastly in the majority. If I were to pull a figure out of the air I would put it above 90% even.

Have you spoken to 90% of all people with religious views?

Not "all" religion, just religion itself as defined by the author.

If I say "Philosophy is stupid," am I not referring to all philosophy? Of course I am (and I don't agree with that statement)! If I meant some of it, or a subset of it, I would not say, "Philosophy is stupid," but "Nihilistic philosophy is stupid," or something like that.

"Religion itself" is equivalent to "all religion".

I was hoping to get you to be able to see the context, so that we wouldn't have to butt heads so often.

There is no context that I haven't seen. You are trying to pretend that the author was referring to some subset of religion, even though the author said nothing to suggest such a thing.

"Science, by its very definition...," in itself supplies a different context than the author's. He used science by his definition.

Science is defined by the scientific method, not by individuals.

Yes, something. You're just not seeing it. You take his opinion and objectify it. It's not about any particular religion, it's "religion by his definition" that he's talking about.

Exactly the problem! He isn't being specific to an entire religion, but is referring to religion in its entirety! If he were being specific to a particular religion, I would have no problem with his statement (unless the particular religion in question was not actually hostile to science).

Edit: If you are meaning to suggest that the author defines religion as "that which is hostile to science, logic, etc." then it is circular and useless. It's like me saying, "Smiling is hostile to happiness because I define smiling as being unhappy."