# Atheist Dawkins: The debate-ducker



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

> Newsweek magazine's Oct. 5 edition devotes four full pages to Britain's atheist, Richard Dawkins.
> 
> Three of these pages are given to an article by Dawkins, under the headline "The angry evolutionist."
> 
> ...



Sasuske will give his eyes to Naruto


Yeeeeeeeeeeah


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

As much as I can see the validity in many an atheist's case, I always viewed Mr. Dawkins as an utterly arrogant douchebag.  He's the type that actually turns me off from atheism.


----------



## Hinako (Oct 7, 2009)

I will now mindfuck the atheists with this statement: God is science.


----------



## Jin-E (Oct 7, 2009)

Dawkins is certainly not a hero of mine. But i can understand him not wanting to be dictated by the whims of every PR horny preacher.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

I really don't understand all the Dawkins hating. His explanation for not debating creationists is simple enough: He's too busy debating flat-earthers and proponents of intelligent falling.



Hinako said:


> I will now mindfuck the atheists with this statement: God is science.



The god of some desert tribe is hardly science. How could he be science if he's not even scientific?


----------



## Rikudou (Oct 7, 2009)

Why should one of the most insightfull and brilliant scientists have to debate retards?
Dawkins has had more than his share of debates and they don't work. You can't remove the stupidity from religious people, they keep that shit for the rest of their lives


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

Rikudou said:


> Why should one of the most insightfull and brilliant scientists have to debate retards?
> Dawkins has had more than his share of debates and they don't work. You can't remove the stupidity from religious people, they keep that shit for the rest of their lives



Typically it's a sign that someone who makes point after point of their beliefs and refuses to enter a debate about them has either a weakness or a doubt.

Why not debate him?  It could generate untold amounts of lulz.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

How many Creationists, Young Earthers and the like want to debate with Dawkie-Chan?

He'd be fully booked.

This shit is a waste of his time.

Dawkins has been in a ton of debates, and his sparkling intellect can be put to better use than this.


----------



## Hinako (Oct 7, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> I really don't understand all the Dawkins hating. His explanation for not debating creationists is simple enough: He's too busy debating flat-earthers and proponents of intelligent falling.
> 
> 
> 
> The god of some desert tribe is hardly science. How could he be science if he's not even scientific?


He defys logic.


----------



## sadated_peon (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Typically it's a sign that someone who makes point after point of their beliefs and refuses to enter a debate about them has either a weakness or a doubt.
> 
> Why not debate him?  It could generate untold amounts of lulz.



Because you can't debate someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about. 

Ray Comfort doesn't understand evolution, so he can't debate evolution. All this would be is Dawkins explaining how Comfort is wrong about evolution, and comfort then making the same falsehood because he is too stupid to understand what Dawkins just told him.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Typically it's a sign that someone who makes point after point of their beliefs and refuses to enter a debate about them has either a weakness or a doubt.


Or maybe they're just tired, or don't have the time to entertain morons.


----------



## kazuri (Oct 7, 2009)

> Typically it's a sign that someone who makes point after point of their beliefs and refuses to enter a debate about them has either a weakness or a doubt.
> 
> Why not debate him? It could generate untold amounts of lulz.



Are you kidding? If he debated everyone that wanted to debate with him, he'd be doing it 24/7.


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

kazuri said:


> Are you kidding? If he debated everyone that wanted to debate with him, he'd be doing it 24/7.



Oh for God's sake (no pun intended) I meant just this guy.

Why not?  Why not just this once...for the lulz?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Typically it's a sign that someone who makes point after point of their beliefs and refuses to enter a debate about them has either a weakness or a doubt.
> 
> Why not debate him?  It could generate untold amounts of lulz.



Should Stephen Hawking debate a 5th grader who believes the earth stands on top of a giant turtle? Should the three chemists that just got the nobel prize debate alchemists?

Just to put things in perspective for you.


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Should Stephen Hawking debate a 5th grader who believes the earth stands on top of a giant turtle? Should the three chemists that just got the nobel prize debate alchemists?
> 
> Just to put things in perspective for you.



Ok, so maybe Dawkins doesn't like the lulz...so sue me.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Oct 7, 2009)

The Pink Ninja said:


> How many Creationists, Young Earthers and the like want to debate with Dawkie-Chan?
> 
> He'd be fully booked.
> 
> ...



If hes so smart why waste time on subject where you will never ever convince all people to go with one side, in fact I should say where you will never convince majorities. Why doesnt the guy go cure cancer or something instead spouting a bunch of stuff, which even if true doesnt amount to a hill of beans. The price of bread is not going to change tomorrow regardless of God existing or not.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> If hes so smart why waste time on subject where you will never ever convince all people to go with one side, in fact I should say where you will never convince majorities. Why doesnt the guy go cure cancer or something instead spouting a bunch of stuff, which even if true doesnt amount to a hill of beans. The price of bread is not going to change tomorrow regardless of God existing or not.



He doesn't have to cure cancer, he did his job as one of the most important biologists of the 20th century.

Anyways, one can always try to convince others. It's not a crime and he doesn't have to justify himself for writing books and trying to educate people.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> If hes so smart why waste time on subject where you will never ever convince all people to go with one side,



Was that his goal?

Should you not bother with the truth just because many won't listen?

How many other ideas were rejected for generations before becoming widely accepted?



> in fact I should say where you will never convince majorities.



A majority are already Christian.



> Why doesnt the guy go cure cancer or something instead spouting a bunch of stuff, which even if true doesnt amount to a hill of beans. The price of bread is not going to change tomorrow regardless of God existing or not.



Dawkins isn't a medical doctor. Curing cancer is outside his remit.

And the price of bread is not his responsibility or area either.


----------



## Fuzzly (Oct 7, 2009)

Just because you offer someone money doesn't mean they have to accept it. If some crackpot religious freak did this to me, it'd make me feel like a prostitute.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Oh for God's sake (no pun intended) I meant just this guy.
> 
> Why not?  Why not just this once...for the lulz?


Because "For the lulz" is the most retarded reason ever to do anything in the history of everything?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

Danny Lilithborne said:


> Because "For the lulz" is the most retarded reason ever to do anything in the history of everything?


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

Danny Lilithborne said:


> Because "For the lulz" is the most retarded reason ever to do anything in the history of everything?



Not quite.  Maybe by actually going into debate he can bring out further irrationality out of Mr. Comfort.  I call it a prime opportunity to expose his faults while you take pride in your truths.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Not quite.  Maybe by actually going into debate he can bring out further irrationality out of Mr. Comfort.  I call it a prime opportunity to expose his faults while you take pride in your truths.


Irrational people by definition don't listen to reason, so there's little point in making someone look stupid in a debate when they do a fine enough job of doing that on their own.


----------



## ameterasu_41 (Oct 7, 2009)

Jin-E said:


> Dawkins is certainly not a hero of mine. But i can understand him not wanting to be dictated by the whims of every PR horny preacher.



A PR horny biologist ought to jump at the chance to debate the people he loves to criticize so much.



Saufsoldat said:


> I really don't understand all the Dawkins hating. His explanation for not debating creationists is simple enough: He's too busy debating flat-earthers and proponents of intelligent falling.



Maybe he needs to stop debating altogether and do something useful.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Oct 7, 2009)

World Nut Daily publishes a book, then uses their news department to write an article favorable to their own author? And uses Amazon.com sales numbers to compare the books???

 Cool article, bro


----------



## kazuri (Oct 7, 2009)

> A PR horny biologist ought to jump at the chance to debate the people he loves to criticize so much.



He's obviously not that 'horny' then now is he? And, again, he debates/has debated plenty. If he debated everyone who wanted to debate with him, he'd be doing it all day every day.



> Maybe he needs to stop debating altogether and do something useful.



Fortunately what he does is none of your business, whether it be useful in your eyes or not.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 7, 2009)

ameterasu_41 said:


> A PR horny biologist ought to jump at the chance to debate the people he loves to criticize so much.



He's been famous for a good while now, but I have a feeling you don't know why...



> Maybe he needs to stop debating altogether and do something useful.



He does more than just debate, that's just one of his more publicized actions.


----------



## Draffut (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Typically it's a sign that someone who makes point after point of their beliefs and refuses to enter a debate about them has either a weakness or a doubt.
> 
> Why not debate him?  It could generate untold amounts of lulz.



He has been in the situation before when he was tricked into a debate, wasn't told he was being debated by creationists until he arrived, then the debaters dubbed new audio over the original in an attempt to make him look unsure of his answers and the like.

Ray Comfort IS an idiot.  This is the man who claimed that Banana's were created as they are today, made to perfect fit a humans hand to peal and eat.

You want an example of how he thinks Evolution works?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rw06Vwpo9Q&feature=channel_page[/YOUTUBE]

The start is on the Banana fiasco, which is entertaining.  The evolution bit starts at 2:18.  It's hilariously retarded.


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 7, 2009)

> Comfort's book "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think."


This sounds eerily similar to some political books I've seen.  And based on those books, I have very little confidence in the fairness of its contents in debating the subject.



> He also quotes physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University: "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific."


Though one would think that a true, real God would be quite lawful, natural, and maybe even scientific going by the look of things. 

I thought the most recent theory was that little crazy dense singularity had been around for forever? *needs to brush up on cosmology*


----------



## Draffut (Oct 7, 2009)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> If hes so smart why waste time on subject where you will never ever convince all people to go with one side, in fact I should say where you will never convince majorities. Why doesnt the guy go cure cancer or something instead spouting a bunch of stuff, which even if true doesnt amount to a hill of beans. The price of bread is not going to change tomorrow regardless of God existing or not.



He does do a lot of research in Biology.

But he is also a very proactive Atheist, who doesn't like to sit by while the religious fuck up everything they touch.  He knows he will never convert everyone, but sweing the seeds and converting a small amount of the population can have a large impact over time.


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

Given how it produces so much vitriol being one or the other, now I see why some take comfort in agnosticism.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

I skimmed. I loathe Richard Dawkins and believe him to be an idiot, but I'm inclined to take his side on this issue.

I also find it laughable that whatshisnuts selling more books than Dawkins' God Delusion is held up as proof that he's somehow better than Dawkins.

Does this mean that that Twilight skank author skank is better than both of them?



Saufsoldat said:


> Should Stephen Hawking debate a 5th grader who believes the earth stands on top of a giant turtle?



No, that's absurd because everyone knows the world is supported by four elephants that stand on the back of the giant turtle in question. 

Duuuuuh. 



Jin-E said:


> Dawkins is certainly not a hero of mine. But i can understand him not wanting to be dictated by the whims of every PR horny preacher.



I am incluned to agree.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> No, that's absurd because everyone knows the world is supported by four elephants that stand on the back of the giant turtle in question.
> 
> Duuuuuh.



Lies, it's turtles all the way down!


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Lies, it's turtles all the way down!



Ummmm...you quoted the wrong person.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Ummmm...you quoted the wrong person.



I didn't even say who the quote was from. Hawking was just an example for a smart physicist.

Also he's a cripple, which adds lulz.


----------



## Mael (Oct 7, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> I didn't even say who the quote was from. Hawking was just an example for a smart physicist.
> 
> Also he's a cripple, which adds lulz.



Well cripples are automatically worth their weight in lulz.  That is a known scientific fact.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 7, 2009)

Dawkins is a pretty horrible Atheist role model.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Being a world class scientist and intellect who battles tirelessly against lies about one of the most important idea in the world is a bad role model?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

No, being a prick is a bad role model.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 7, 2009)

The fact that he's yet another atheist who argues on the ideas in Holy Books and not the idea of gods.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Onomatopoeia said:


> No, being a prick is a bad role model.



Does being sometimes rude to some people outweigh a lifetime advancing human knowledge?

Most people are rude quite a bit of the time after all.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The fact that he's yet another atheist who argues on the ideas in Holy Books and not the idea of gods.



That's because the latter don't say anything, and thus are harmless.

All the dangerous bits are in the books.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

> Does being sometimes rude to some people outweigh a lifetime advancing human knowledge?



No, but neither do his accomplishments(such as they are) excuse him being a prick. Unless he's delightfully amusing like Gregory House. And let me tell you, Dawkins is no Gregory House.

He needs to take a page from the book of Constable Dorfl of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch. Always polite that Dorfl, even when someone chucks a lightning bolt at him.



> Most people are rude quite a bit of the time after all.


That's no excuse.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Yes it is.

There are no perfect people, no saints.

Many of those held up as role models are killers: Generals, soldiers, politicians.

Sometimes being rude (And tat is waaaay overstated) precludes being a good example to others?

Horse poop


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

> There are no perfect people, no saints.



Bull plop! I'm living proof that this is an untrue statement.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 7, 2009)

I like how a man can dedicate his whole professional career to academic subject and write several great books about it acessable to the layman and the only thing people know him as is "that douche who wrote the God delusion", which is quite mild and humorous as far as critical books go.

I wonder home many people complaining of Dawkin's arrogance and rudeness have actually bothered to read it.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

Well, he is a douche and he did write the God Delusion. It's an accurate description.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> I like how a man can dedicate his whole professional career to academic subject and write several great books about it acessable to the layman and the only thing people know him as is "that douche who wrote the God delusion", which is quite mild and humorous as far as critical books go.



This is what I'm talking about.

Does everyone focus on the fact newton was a tax collector and alchemist and thus just dismiss perhaps the greatest contribution to science ever made?


----------



## AmigoOne (Oct 7, 2009)

Where are you guys getting the \implication that dawkins is a douche?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

It's a meme, so it must be true.

Theists regard anyone who challenges them as offensive. The only respectable atheist is quiet, or better yet wishes they were a believer.


----------



## Esponer (Oct 7, 2009)

I skimmed the article. Can someone briefly explain to me where the 'news' is, though? I see a rant and no topical information.



			
				The Pink Ninja said:
			
		

> AmigoOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow.

You get the irony, right?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Esponer said:


> I skimmed the article. Can someone briefly explain to me where the 'news' is, though? I see a rant and no topical information.



Welcome to WND 



> Wow.
> 
> You get the irony, right?



No Oh-Great-One, please Enlighten us.

Better make it a good explanation though.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 7, 2009)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Welcome to WND
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dawkins coined the term "meme".


----------



## Hi Im God (Oct 7, 2009)

quite the wankfest in here.


----------



## Esponer (Oct 7, 2009)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> Dawkins coined the term "meme".


Well noticed. : )


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Oct 7, 2009)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> Dawkins coined the term "meme".



How did I forget that >____<


----------



## On and On (Oct 7, 2009)

I wouldn't want to debate with Ray Comfort either


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 7, 2009)

I fail to see how the guy is a douche.


----------



## perman07 (Oct 7, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The fact that he's yet another atheist who argues on the ideas in Holy Books and not the idea of gods.


Actually, in God Delusion he argues against both. Though the general belief that there are gods is pretty harmless compared to specific religions and their dangerous interpretation, so it's logical to bother more with religions.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Oct 7, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> I really don't understand all the Dawkins hating. His explanation for not debating creationists is simple enough: He's too busy debating flat-earthers and proponents of intelligent falling.
> 
> 
> 
> The god of some desert tribe is hardly science. How could he be science if he's not even scientific?



Intelligent falling   ahh yeah.....But anyway Dawkins is no hero of mine,he comes off as arrogant,and exemplify the stereotype that Atheist are angry people which they aren't.Though i do agree with him some times (Agnostics and Atheist right on)



really? banana man


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 7, 2009)

The Pink Ninja said:


> It's a meme, so it must be true.
> 
> Theists regard anyone who challenges them as offensive. The only respectable atheist is quiet, or better yet wishes they were a believer.


Uh, don't you think that's generalizing theists? 

It's been my observation that many if not most people have a tendency to feel threatened in some way by opposing views, opinions, and beliefs when said people feel strongly. 



			
				Sarutobi sasuke  said:
			
		

> I like how a man can dedicate his whole professional career to academic subject and write several great books about it acessable to the layman and the only thing people know him as is "that douche who wrote the God delusion", which is quite mild and humorous as far as critical books go.
> 
> I wonder home many people complaining of Dawkin's arrogance and rudeness have actually bothered to read it.


Controversy!  Science book vs atheism book, which wins the attention and memory of more people?

I haven't read the God Delusion so I can't say whether I find him arrogant or rude; I have seen a couple of harsh quotes from him, but it's not enough for me to say.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 7, 2009)

> really? banana man


The dumbass deserves it.

Seriously this is the same guy who defended that by saying big dogs were made by god for cars and cats for his wifes lap.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 7, 2009)

Dawkins is a douche because instead of debating like the intellectual he is coined to be, he frequently insults the other side's intelligence for one. He never offers true arguments against theism, more than poking fun at holy books and he writes books, claiming that the science in them crushes people's belief in an "invisible man" (his words on Bill Marr's show) when his books do nothing by reinforce a science that neither refutes or speaks on theism.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 7, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Dawkins is a douche because instead of debating like the intellectual he is coined to be, he frequently insults the other side's intelligence for one. He never offers true arguments against theism, more than poking fun at holy books and he writes books, claiming that the science in them crushes people's belief in an "invisible man" (his words on Bill Marr's show) when his books do nothing by reinforce a science that neither refutes or speaks on theism.



Full quote, please. People seems to love quote mining Dawkins.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 7, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Full quote, please. People seems to love quote mining Dawkins.




Full quote is "go look up the episode yourself." I don't have time to find a video quote from an hour long HBO show that comes on three times a week. You guys are the Dawkins fanboys, I figured most of you would have seen it.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 7, 2009)

CTK,just because you're black doesn't mean you have to "diss" the successful white man


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 7, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Full quote is "go look up the episode yourself." I don't have time to find a video quote from an hour long HBO show that comes on three times a week. You guys are the Dawkins fanboys, I figured most of you would have seen it.



You don't have like, 15 seconds to spare? The first two results that show up from searching "richard dawkins bill maher" on Youtube:

[YOUTUBE]PxFf0RYC9ZA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]4tRpbkpNpgw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 7, 2009)

He was on the show for like 40 minutes.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 7, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Dawkins is a douche because instead of debating like the intellectual he is coined to be, he frequently insults the other side's intelligence for one. He never offers true arguments against theism, more than poking fun at holy books and he writes books, claiming that the science in them crushes people's belief in an "invisible man" (his words on Bill Marr's show) when his books do nothing by reinforce a science that neither refutes or speaks on theism.



I thought the whole point of The God Delusion was to present actual arguments against theism. I haven't actually read it so I could be wrong but I doubt it.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

> In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.



Dawkins(and co.) are delusional in believing that he's not a douche. 



AmigoOne said:


> Where are you guys getting the \implication that dawkins is a douche?



It's not an implication. There's nothing being implied about Dawkins.  [[Insert implications that Dawkins is a Nazi sympathizer here]]. We're accusing him. The accusation is that he's a douchebag.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 7, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Dawkins is a douche because instead of debating like the intellectual he is coined to be, he frequently insults the other side's intelligence for one. He never offers true arguments against theism, more than poking fun at holy books and he writes books, claiming that the science in them crushes people's belief in an "invisible man" (his words on Bill Marr's show) when his books do nothing by reinforce a science that neither refutes or speaks on theism.





Onomatopoeia said:


> It's not an implication. There's nothing being implied about Dawkins. We're accusing him. The accusation is that he's a douchebag.




Now you guys know how I feel. 

You see, I am a sincere believer in dragons. I believe that dragons live in volcanoes, and are the true reason why volcanoes exist and occasionally erupt. The problem is that when I try to explain my belief to people, they refuse to engage in polite debate with me. They all act like I'm deluded and not worth arguing with! Well, okay, that's not entirely true, some of them sometimes ask me why I believe dragons live in volcanoes, to which I reply that I believe because I have faith in dragons. But then they laugh at me and say I'm being "irrational". I'm just as rational as they are! I mean, how do they know that dragons don't exist? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These militant a-dragonists are such douchebags. Dogmatic, fundamentalist, intolerant, strident, fanatical, arrogant douchebags!


----------



## Ra (Oct 7, 2009)

I think people need to balance both sides of the brain.

Atheists lefties: You guys really need to be a little intuitive. 

Theists righties: you guys need to stop throwing away logic. 

Atheist-Theist hybrid: We are balanced, stronger than both .

I've been bitten by a atheists and bitten by a theists and now I'm both. :ho


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> Now you guys know how I feel.
> 
> You see, I am a sincere believer in dragons. I believe that dragons live in volcanoes, and are the true reason why volcanoes exist and occasionally erupt. The problem is that when I try to explain my belief to people, they refuse to engage in polite debate with me. They all act like I'm deluded and not worth arguing with! Well, okay, that's not entirely true, some of them sometimes ask me why I believe dragons live in volcanoes, to which I reply that I believe because I have faith in dragons. But then they laugh at me and say I'm being "irrational". I'm just as rational as they are! I mean, how do they know that dragons don't exist? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These militant a-dragonists are such douchebags. Dogmatic, fundamentalist, intolerant, strident douchebags!


Do I detect a facetious undertone in your post?


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 7, 2009)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Do I detect a facetious undertone in your post?



Don't be a douchebag.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

The mystery deepens. Are you accusing me of being a douchebag for calling you out or for questioning the veracity of your beliefs?


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 7, 2009)

Onomatopoeia said:


> The mystery deepens. Are you accusing me of being a douchebag for calling you out or for questioning the veracity of your beliefs?



You're hurting my feelings!


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

That doesn't really answer my question.


----------



## Ra (Oct 7, 2009)

Let's debunk ray comfort.

God cannot experience creating a universe without first thinking " hey, let's create a fucking universe" and in God's case he had no place to think, so thought couldn't have catalyzed experience. 

Experiencing before thinking of doing said experience is illogical. Just like experiencing eating my cookies and drinking my milk before I thought eating my cookies and drinking my milk.


----------



## mystictrunks (Oct 7, 2009)

AmigoOne said:


> Where are you guys getting the \implication that dawkins is a douche?



Some people are just douchebags. He's int he same tier of douchebaggery as any other fanatic.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

> Experiencing before thinking of doing said experience is illogical.



I've experienced pain long before thinking of experiencing it. I can break logic! I now need a supervillain lair and a way to broadcast my demands to the world, so that I can threaten them. Since there is no such thing as superheroes I'll rule the world inside of a week.


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> As much as I can see the validity in many an atheist's case, I always viewed Mr. Dawkins as an utterly arrogant douchebag.  He's the type that actually turns me off from atheism.



Yes, I can see how even an atheist would be averse to this guy. He's basically giving us a nice stereotype of atheists as arrogant windbags who "don't have time to waste on ignorant people," a.k.a. everyone. Not that there aren't atheists like that, but I would hope the majority are more mellow.

I read a bit of _The God Delusion_, and I detest it. It's...well, arrogant.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 7, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> Now you guys know how I feel.
> 
> You see, I am a sincere believer in dragons. I believe that dragons live in volcanoes, and are the true reason why volcanoes exist and occasionally erupt. The problem is that when I try to explain my belief to people, they refuse to engage in polite debate with me. They all act like I'm deluded and not worth arguing with! Well, okay, that's not entirely true, some of them sometimes ask me why I believe dragons live in volcanoes, to which I reply that I believe because I have faith in dragons. But then they laugh at me and say I'm being "irrational". I'm just as rational as they are! I mean, how do they know that dragons don't exist? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These militant a-dragonists are such douchebags. Dogmatic, fundamentalist, intolerant, strident, fanatical, arrogant douchebags!



I was gonna do a bit where I proclaimed Narnia to be inside my wardrobe because a book told me but you beat us all to it.



> I read a bit of The God Delusion, and I detest it. It's...well, arrogant.



I detest the Bible because well its stupid and disturbing.


----------



## Ra (Oct 7, 2009)

> *I've experienced pain long before thinking of experiencing it.* I can break logic! I now need a supervillain lair and a way to broadcast my demands to the world, so that I can threaten them. Since there is no such thing as superheroes I'll rule the world inside of a week.



In the bold case Did your thought catalyze your pain? No

With the premise "nothing created everything" did thought catalyze the experience of creating a universe, in God's case?


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 7, 2009)

Take it to the Atheist debate thread. Or one of the many other threads basically debating the same thing. Or PMs. I guess the article frankly hasn't much left to be discussed. It wasn't really news in the first place IMO...

What I've gotten out of this is Dawkins doesn't want to hurt his brain debating people, especially people he considers to be completely and quite truly delusional, and he's debatably some rude kind of a cleanser for where the sun don't shine. Alrighty.


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 7, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> I detest the Bible because well its stupid and disturbing.


Although the Old Testament does have some pretty odd stuff in it, the Bible is full of applicable life lessons about morality and other such subjects, regardless of if one is a theist or not.

Conversely, _The God Delusion_ panders to an overarrogant atheist crowd  who are looking for more reasons to feel superior to the "ignorant" theists. It repeatedly insults various groups of people, provides precious little by way of actual science, and the overall theme seems to be "I'm smart, if you disagree with me you're a stupid twat."

So they aren't really comparable. At all.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 7, 2009)

GrandKitaro777 said:


> In the bold case Did your thought catalyze your pain? No



How do you know?



> With the premise "nothing created everything" did thought catalyze the experience of creating a universe, in God's case?



I couldn't say, I wasn't there. However, given the standard hypothetical assumptions present for God, I'd say that is was entirely possible, being that he is, after all, omnipotent.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 7, 2009)

Hinako said:


> I will now mindfuck the atheists with this statement: God is science.



I will now skull-fuck your soul -  Unicorns are Biology. 


Professor Dawkins doesn't have to debate anti-intellectual douchebags like Ray Comfort who completely distort and twist the evolutionist's standpoint and argue against a strawman. Dawkins would rather debate people who at least fundamentally understand his position.



UkkiThePlant said:


> Although the Old Testament does have some pretty odd stuff in it, the Bible is full of applicable life lessons about morality and other such subjects, regardless of if one is a theist or not.
> 
> Conversely, _The God Delusion_ panders to an overarrogant atheist crowd  who are looking for more reasons to feel superior to the "ignorant" theists. It repeatedly insults various groups of people, provides precious little by way of actual science, and the overall theme seems to be "I'm smart, if you disagree with me you're a stupid twat."
> 
> So they aren't really comparable. At all.




And what about the five or six books on science he wrote in the decades before that, or the new one he's writing about the high probability of evolution and the evidence for it? He wrote the God Delusion for a specific purpose and audience but he's a prolific author who's contributed a lot to science.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 7, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> Although the Old Testament does have some pretty odd stuff in it, the Bible is full of applicable life lessons about morality and other such subjects, regardless of if one is a theist or not.


O'rly!?

You mean like most of the ones a child could figure out?  Or the ones that legitimatize slavery and i*c*st?


----------



## Botzu (Oct 7, 2009)

How many times do you think Evolution has been thoroughly explained to comfort and yet he still misrepresents it? I wonder if it is willful ignorance, on the part of Comfort, or maybe it is calculated and he realizes that the only people who take him seriously are those that will likely never investigate his claims.


----------



## Verdius (Oct 7, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Not quite.  Maybe by actually going into debate he can bring out further irrationality out of Mr. Comfort.  I call it a prime opportunity to expose his faults while you take pride in your truths.



Someone of Dawkin's status accepting a debate by someone like Comfort would only give the poor fool an appearance of credibility, just by making the time for the guy. 

Either way, I find people too often judge Dawkins before giving him the time of day. I first heard of him from this very forum and got the impression of an egotistical jackass, only to find that he's very polite in the debates he does involve himself with and doesn't make blunt statements without there being merit to them. The comment regarding Ray Comfort is a good example. The Old Testament god being another, and rightly so, because that is without a doubt a monster by any other name.



UkkiThePlant said:


> Conversely, _The God Delusion_ panders to an overarrogant atheist crowd  who are looking for more reasons to feel superior to the "ignorant" theists. It repeatedly insults various groups of people, provides precious little by way of actual science, and the overall theme seems to be "I'm smart, if you disagree with me you're a stupid twat."



Have you even read the book? It's primary purpose is to encourage closet atheists or those otherwise quiet or sitting on the fence speak out and make themselves known instead letting the religious get away with all the stupid crap they get away with.


----------



## perman07 (Oct 7, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> Conversely, _The God Delusion_ panders to an overarrogant atheist crowd  who are looking for more reasons to feel superior to the "ignorant" theists. It repeatedly insults various groups of people, provides precious little by way of actual science, and the overall theme seems to be "I'm smart, if you disagree with me you're a stupid twat."


I just identified myself as an agnostic before reading that book, I realized atheism was more were I stood after reading the book.

I found the book very informative, it illustrated philosophically arguments for atheism, it applied probability theory to theism and atheism, and mentioned lots of other things that people not familiar with the actual philosophical work done on atheism wouldn't be familiar with.

Just because you find the book arrogant doesn't mean that's an objective fact. I think the parts you find arrogant are not arrogant, but more dismissive because Dawkins is a man that believes religion is detrimental to the world. I can't remember any quote that I found "I'm smart, if you disagree with me you're a stupid twat", they're more "this is why religious beliefs are illogical". If you believe saying that is arrogant, than I think you need to reexamine your views on arrogance. He is just stating his views in that book, I can't recall any name calling.


UkkiThePlant said:


> So they aren't really comparable. At all.


Yep, the God Delusion doesn't say you will suffer for all eternity for not believing it's contents, it just tries to convince you.


----------



## Ra (Oct 7, 2009)

> How do you know?





Because if your thought did catalyze your pain, then you would have known you experienced the pain, hence the quote below is idiotic.



> I've experienced pain long before thinking of experiencing it.





> I couldn't say, I wasn't there. However, given the standard hypothetical assumptions present for God, I'd say that is was entirely possible, being that he is, after all, omnipotent.



Logic can't break even for God standards, can he exist outside something that's omnipresent? No

Can he act before thinking of said act? No

Can he make numbers finite? No


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 8, 2009)

GrandKitaro777 said:


> Experiencing before thinking of doing said experience is illogical.


Um, actually, you have it backwards.  It's impossible to think of an experience unless you've had it.  Otherwise, all you are doing is imagining.


----------



## Ra (Oct 8, 2009)

> Um, actually, you have it backwards. *It's impossible to think of an experience unless you've had it*. Otherwise, all you are doing is imagining.



Experience in this context= action/act.

Can I experience doing a action before I think of doing a action?

Another meaning of what I'm saying: There’s no such thing as acting before said act was thought.


----------



## AmigoOne (Oct 8, 2009)

Here's an example.

Hmmhmm, just driving, like every-OHSHIT I RAN OVER A SQUIRREL.

Im pretty sure you dont think about that.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 8, 2009)

> Because if your thought did catalyze your pain, then you would have known you experienced the pain, hence the quote below is idiotic.



Or is it? *DUN DUN DUUUUUUNNNN!!*



> Logic can't break even for God standards,



Omnipotent, so yes.


> can he exist outside something that's omnipresent? No



Omnipotent, so yes.


> Can he act before thinking of said act? No



Omnipotent, so yes.



> Can he make numbers finite? No



Omnipotent, so yes.


----------



## Mintaka (Oct 8, 2009)

> Omnipotent, so yes.


Aka god is illogical.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Oct 8, 2009)

AronRa discusses just about everything you need to know about both Dawkins and Comfort. 

naruto shippuuden ending 7


----------



## superbatman86 (Oct 8, 2009)

Tokoyami said:


> Aka god is illogical.


omnipotence means logic is what you dictate it to be be.It doesn't have to make sense to lower beings.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 8, 2009)

GrandKitaro777 said:


> Experience in this context= action/act.
> 
> Can I experience doing a action before I think of doing a action?
> 
> Another meaning of what I'm saying: There?s no such thing as acting before said act was thought.


Ah, I see.  That means I had to think of my heart beating before it beat.  Or that my doctor was thwacking my knee with a hammer before jerking my leg.

Life is full of experiences that we... well, experience without thinking about them.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Oct 8, 2009)

heard bout him, seen him on tv he his a douche


*haha-south park episode bout him*


----------



## impersonal (Oct 8, 2009)

Dawkins is the Michael Moore of atheism.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 8, 2009)

Al-Yasa said:


> heard bout him, seen him on tv he his a douche
> 
> 
> *haha-south park episode bout him*



 A compelling argument - perfect example of the mental capacities of a creationist.


----------



## Ra (Oct 8, 2009)

> Ah, I see. That means I had to think of my heart beating before it beat. Or that my doctor was thwacking my knee with a hammer before jerking my leg.
> 
> Life is full of experiences that we... well, experience without thinking about them.



That's not what I mean.

If I wanted to create a car, does "creating the car" come before thinking the idea of "creating a car?"


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 8, 2009)

GrandKitaro777 said:


> That's not what, I mean.
> 
> If I wanted to create a car, does "creating the car" come before thinking the idea of "creating a car?"



Why would a god who knows everything have to think?

And why the fuck would he need to rest after creating the world? And why the hell would it take seven whole days?

And where the hell did Cain's wife come from?


----------



## impersonal (Oct 8, 2009)

GrandKitaro77, your argument isn't very compelling. God is often considered as having a very special kind of intellect.

To oversimplify things, our intellect allow us to pass judgement on reality based on incomplete and/or misleading sensory input, after which we can decide of a course of action. Thus our relation to the external world is that of a very inexact, subjective representation.

God on the other hand doesn't have to sense things. He _knows_ what is and what is right. As a "thinking" entity, he is different not just in capacities, but also in nature.

Thus you can't project on him reasonings that rely too much on the study of human thought.

Besides, you are presenting your argument in a very confusing manner; mixing passive "experiences" and active "actions".


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 8, 2009)

That's actually an interesting question. Can either humans or God or both take volitional action without thinking first? 

I suspect so...maybe. It has to do with the nature of pure "being" so one would have to ask someone familiar with the experience of being without thought. As far as the general population is concerned, thought (or feeling if that counts) precedes an intentional action. Whether this applies to a higher divine entity is slightly less certain.

The question really is can the volition to do something precede the thought of the volition to do something? If so, can one skip the thinking stage and go directly into the experience of doing that something? Could thought and action/creation be the same thing for God? Could this skipping of thought apply only to God or to everyone, or is it difference between worlds?

(lol, this belongs in the philosophical section)


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 8, 2009)

Tokoyami said:


> Or the ones that legitimatize slavery and i*c*st?


Find me some of those. Because I have studied theology, and the Bible was part of that study, and I'm pretty sure i*c*st and slavery on on the list of things God doesn't like.


----------



## Nodonn (Oct 8, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> Find me some of those. Because I have studied theology, and the Bible was part of that study, and I'm pretty sure i*c*st and slavery on on the list of things God doesn't like.



I'm pretty sure the only trouble Jesus had with slavery, was hitting your slaves so hard they died on the spot. Anything else was fair game.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> Find me some of those. Because I have studied theology, and the Bible was part of that study, and I'm pretty sure i*c*st and slavery on on the list of things God doesn't like.



God himself puts down rules on who you can and who you can't hold as a slave. Also creating adam and eve and then just letting them procreate... at least he did nothing to prevent i*c*st, same goes for noah's family after the flood.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 8, 2009)

Times change. Back then i*c*st wasn't a problem due to presumably, no complications resulting therefrom, e.g. children. Criticizing God for that is like criticizing him for not allowing women to wear bikinis in the Bible. Or for not buying into that whole gender equality thing. 

And really, singling out stories dealing with i*c*st and slavery in response to the claim that while there may be bad shit in there, there's still plenty of good stuff in the Bible, is just immature.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 8, 2009)

> And really, singling out stories dealing with i*c*st and slavery in response to the claim that while there may be bad shit in there, there's still plenty of good stuff in the Bible, is just immature.



There might be but aslong theres the, "or else you'll go to hell for eternity" clause there I won't take it seriously. As a race we've reached a point where we don't need a 2000 year old book to teach us whats right and wrong.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 8, 2009)

*shrug* nfkasdnfjkasn


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> There might be but aslong theres the, "or else you'll go to hell for eternity" clause there I won't take it seriously. As a race we've reached a point where we don't need a 2000 year old book to teach us whats right and wrong.



Really? You decided that all on your own? Too bad you're arguing against the Bible once again and not the actual idea of God, this is where Atheists fail and are better off keeping their mouths shut. There are plenty of books out there people use to get morals and more often than not they have a lot in common. 

But know what all of them do have in common? Disproving any amount of things in them, doesn't effect the idea of theism.



impersonal said:


> Dawkins is the Michael Moore of atheism.



Basically, I can't understand how either of them have credibility anymore.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 8, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Really? You decided that all on your own? Too bad you're arguing against the Bible once again and not the actual idea of God, this is where Atheists fail and are better off keeping their mouths shut.



And why can't an atheist or any non-christian point out the inconsistencies in the Bible to point out that the christian God is likley a myth? It's a perfectly logical thing to do.

What's the point in arguing against a deist, Islamic, Hindu or new age interpretation of God when debating a Christian?


----------



## Al-Yasa (Oct 8, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> A compelling argument - perfect example of the mental capacities of a creationist.



you can go eat dick


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2009)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> And why can't an atheist or any non-christian point out the inconsistencies in the Bible to point out that the christian God is likley a myth? It's a perfectly logical thing to do.
> 
> What's the point in arguing against a deist, Islamic, Hindu or new age interpretation of God when debating a Christian?



Because it still doesn't disprove the overall idea of God, really as many times as the Bible has been sliced up and edited, it doesn't prove anything at all anymore than your ability to read and understand text. 



Al-Yasa said:


> you can go eat dick



Yeah that's not how we argue.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Oct 8, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah that's not how we argue.



this isnt the debate corner


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2009)

Al-Yasa said:


> this isnt the debate corner




I mean on this forum, telling someone to go suck a dick or die in a fire isn't an argument. I don't even like Pilaf but you should respect him enough to know that what you're doing isn't just impolite and immature, but its against the rules.


----------



## Mael (Oct 8, 2009)

Al-Yasa said:


> this isnt the debate corner



He means that if you reply the way you did, you only give your opponents more ammunition.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Oct 8, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I mean on this forum, telling someone to go suck a dick or die in a fire isn't an argument. I don't even like Pilaf but you should respect him enough to know that what your doing isn't just impolite and immature, but its against the rules.



respect a guy who calls muslim rats ?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2009)

Pilaf did not at any point call muslims rats.


----------



## Mael (Oct 8, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Pilaf did not at any point call muslims rats.



You might wanna check CTK's sig.

Link removed


----------



## Adonis (Oct 8, 2009)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Times change. Back then i*c*st wasn't a problem due to presumably, no complications resulting therefrom, e.g. children. Criticizing God for that is like criticizing him for not allowing women to wear bikinis in the Bible. Or for not buying into that whole gender equality thing.
> 
> And really, singling out stories dealing with i*c*st and slavery in response to the claim that while there may be bad shit in there, there's still plenty of good stuff in the Bible, is just immature.



True, but aren't the people supposedly using the Bible as the basis of modern morality just as guilty more guilty of anachronism? Likewise, saying "there's still good in the Bible" is a frivolous thing to say because A)fundamentalists harp on the bad stuff and B)most of the "good stuff" is obvious, basic compassion that people shouldn't need pointers on. 

Where would we be if Jesus hadn't emphasized the Golden Rule *two millennia* after the Jains and Zoroaster? There are other, frankly superior, religious texts to derive philosophical insight from. The Bible's hardly mid-tier, especially when you realize Jesus' teachings aren't as profound or ahead-of-his-time as they're made out to be, yet we just sort of assume the Bible's not overrated because we're told it isn't. 

As for Dawkins, people always call him a douche or a prick, but they never elaborate. From what I've seen, he's soft-spoken, patient, and polite. The fact the people opposing him believe in stupid bullshit creates friction, sure, but that's their fault for believing in stupid bullshit. I'm sure we come off as haughty jerks to schizophrenics. Part of it is we've been socialized to believe that anyone who confronts us on our beliefs is a "big meanie head" and that anyone who takes a side on an issue is "biased" and a zealot. Good ol' Agnostic Fallacy.

All I see is a bunch of pussies bellyaching because they got their feelings hurt. Prescription: A DICK. Perhaps some balls if your HMO covers it (being an intellectual pussy is a pre-existing condition, I'm afraid, so your coverage may be limited.)


----------



## On and On (Oct 8, 2009)

Al-Yasa said:


> respect a guy who calls muslim rats ?



don't listen to either of then  Pilaf isn't worthy of respect, CTK hardly is, if at all.

but yea, an insult like "go eat a dick" does nothing but make you lose the argument faster.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> You might wanna check CTK's sig.
> 
> haruken



This is all a conspiracy of fascist meat-eaters.


----------



## Mael (Oct 8, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> This is all a *ZIONIST* conspiracy of fascist meat-eaters.



Fixed for greater accuracy.

*waits for Mega and Degelle to assemble*


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 8, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Basically, I can't understand how either of them have credibility anymore.


Because Dawkins is a respected scientist who is an expert in his field and liberals don't have a great connection with reality?


----------



## Adonis (Oct 8, 2009)

Diceman said:


> Because Dawkins is a respected scientist who is an expert in his field and liberals don't have a great connection with reality?



What constitutes having a great connection with reality?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 8, 2009)

Adonis said:


> What constitutes having a great connection with reality?



Not buying Michael Moore's crap would be a start,though I may have worded my thoughts a bit wrong


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 8, 2009)

Adonis said:


> What constitutes having a great connection with reality?



Agreeing with dice unconditionally.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 8, 2009)

Diceman said:


> Not buying Michael Moore's crap would be a start,though I may have worded my thoughts a bit wrong



I don't like Michael Moore.

Just because I may agree with his general sentiment doesn't mean I condone his shady editing and piss-poor, sentimental arguing. Even if your conclusion is right, I still expect you to cross your t's and dot your i's and show your work adequately. 

It's no different than political bands who only know 3 chords; just because you have "a message" doesn't mean you don't have to learn how to play fucking guitar.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 8, 2009)

Pilaf said:
			
		

> Osama Bin Laden has like 36 kids and 53 siblings. The problem with Muslims is they breed like the rats they are, and spread the disease of radical Islam with them.



Sounds about right, if by "Muslims" he means people who actually believe in and follow Islam, and don't just ignore the evil parts.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 8, 2009)

Adonis said:


> I don't like Michael Moore.
> 
> Just because I may agree with his general sentiment doesn't mean I condone his shady editing and piss-poor, sentimental arguing. Even if your conclusion is right, I still expect you to cross your t's and dot your i's and show your work adequately.


Meh,I remember a time when I liked Fahrenheit 9/11.Seems so long a go
The only good thing he has done is building the Sodomobile and presenting it to Fred Phelps


> It's no different than political bands who only know 3 chords; just because you have "a message" doesn't mean you don't have to learn how to play fucking guitar.


Agreed,it's quite close to the spandex rule "Just because you can,doesn't mean you should"


----------



## Ram (Oct 8, 2009)

Dawkins is one of the most awesome irl trolls ever.

Plus he destroys people in debates, so it's just a matter of him not being fucked.


----------



## Verdius (Oct 8, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> A compelling argument - perfect example of the mental capacities of a creationist.



Creationists have a mental capacity? Bollocks


----------



## Botzu (Oct 8, 2009)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Times change. Back then i*c*st wasn't a problem due to presumably, no complications resulting therefrom, e.g. children. Criticizing God for that is like criticizing him for not allowing women to wear bikinis in the Bible. Or for not buying into that whole gender equality thing.
> 
> And really, singling out stories dealing with i*c*st and slavery in response to the claim that while there may be bad shit in there, there's still plenty of good stuff in the Bible, is just immature.


 I wonder what would Jesus say to all the christians that totally ignore Mathew 5:17-18. You are talking about an unchanging god. If anything was morally correct in the old testament than it should be correct now. Its totally fair to point at stories where slavery was okay in the bible because that would mean they would be okay today.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 8, 2009)

Except that the given laws in question are Human laws, not the laws of God, and are governed by mortality, not definitive of it. Due to unavoidable changes in the so-called human condition between then and now, those laws have changed.

Jesus said that he would uphold the given laws as present rather than throw them out and try to make people follow something different.

If Jesus were alive today, do you suppose he would expect black people and/or women to be slaves? Given the standard assumptions that he was, in fact, Way Cool?


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 8, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because it still doesn't disprove the overall idea of God, really as many times as the Bible has been sliced up and edited, it doesn't prove anything at all anymore than your ability to read and understand text.



It shows the flaws in the proofs offered by Christians for their God. It not necessary to critically examine the arguments put forth by believers of more general and alternative God concepts because that is not what Christians believe in, they believe in the God that is depicted in and inspired the Bible.

And claiming that it has been edited dosen't let you weasel your way out of it either.

An all loving God would not want his book changed and his people mislead, An all knowing God would know it has been changed and an all powerful God could change it back or prevent it being changed in the first place.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 8, 2009)

None of which mandate that God would necessarily have to. What with that whole free will thing people are always harping about, maybe G-diddy is choosing not to keep the book the same because people chose to change it. 

Who knows? Well, me obviously, being that I know everything, but that doesn't count.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 8, 2009)

> Because it still doesn't disprove the overall idea of God, really as many times as the Bible has been sliced up and edited, it doesn't prove anything at all anymore than your ability to read and understand text.



Disproving the idea of an abrahamic God is about as difficult as disproving that theres a magical kingdom somewhere at the end of a rainbow. But I forget God is above logic just like Christians who tell us that God doesn't like sex, and that he's watching you play out your chastity.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 8, 2009)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Except that the given laws in question are Human laws, not the laws of God, and are governed by mortality, not definitive of it. Due to unavoidable changes in the so-called human condition between then and now, those laws have changed.
> 
> Jesus said that he would uphold the given laws as present rather than throw them out and try to make people follow something different.
> 
> If Jesus were alive today, do you suppose he would expect black people and/or women to be slaves? Given the standard assumptions that he was, in fact, Way Cool?


The passage I quoted was supposedly from Jesus. The laws in question about keeping slaves are part of the 613 said to be given by god. If you have an idea of which laws are from god and which are from humans tell us how you decipher between the two. Remember the laws you are denouncing as human laws include the 10 commandments, so you are venturing to a place I would think most Christians wouldn't agree.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 8, 2009)

Matthew 5:17-18:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. / For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Jesus is said to fulfill all the prophecies by allowing Himself to be crucified.  Taking passages out of context is cool and all, but He was obviously using symbolism when speaking of heaven and earth, if you read the other instances where He spoke of these things.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 8, 2009)

Danny Lilithborne said:


> Matthew 5:17-18:
> 
> "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. / For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
> 
> Jesus is said to fulfill all the prophecies by allowing Himself to be crucified.  Taking passages out of context is cool and all, but He was obviously using symbolism when speaking of heaven and earth, if you read the other instances where He spoke of these things.


Meh, I could argue that


> 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished


By "until everything is accomplished" meant until the end of days. That is for another topic  I don't want to completely derail this.

Also this:


> Luke 16:16-17 (New Living Translation)
> 16 “Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.[a] 17 But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 8, 2009)

Alright, I'll say one last thing then I'm done.

Jesus' death and resurrection = End of Days

Goodnight everybody!


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 8, 2009)

> Jesus' death and resurrection = End of Days



Supernova>Jesus

Anyway hasn't that already happened according to the so called great book?


----------



## dummy plug (Oct 8, 2009)

im not very fond of aggressive atheists. i mean cant we just get along without being a douche? apparently not


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Oct 8, 2009)

dummy plug said:


> im not very fond of aggressive atheists. i mean cant we just get along without being a douche? apparently not



Being an atheist myself, that's why I don't like Dawkin's. He seems to go out of his way to put forth this "I'm an atheist, therefore I'm smarter than you silly religious types" (and by "silly religious types" he generally means "Christians").

It's actually one of the reasons I never tell people I'm an atheist unless it's actually pertinent to the conversation. Nowadays (especially on the internet) being atheist has become almost synonymous with acting like some arrogant asshole.

It's not that atheists in general are that way, just like most Christians aren't fundamentalist far right wingers. Of course, it's always those in the extremist minority that tend to have the loudest voices (on both sides). 


On another note, the biggest problem I have with most of these debates, is that there seems to be this idea that evolution is somehow synonymous with atheism.


----------



## Mael (Oct 8, 2009)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Being an atheist myself, that's why I don't like Dawkin's. He seems to go out of his way to put forth this "I'm an atheist, therefore I'm smarter than you silly religious types" (and by "silly religious types" he generally means "Christians").
> 
> It's actually one of the reasons I never tell people I'm an atheist unless it's actually pertinent to the conversation. Nowadays (especially on the internet) being atheist has become almost synonymous with acting like some arrogant asshole.
> 
> ...



Oh my God (or science if you're an atheist ), this.  This, this and this again.

This is what I've tried to say before.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 8, 2009)

Danny Lilithborne said:


> Alright, I'll say one last thing then I'm done.
> 
> Jesus' death and resurrection = End of Days
> 
> Goodnight everybody!



I don't think that I've ever heard any scholar say that. So I'm going to have to go with no. 



Ennoea said:


> Supernova>Jesus
> 
> Anyway hasn't that already happened according to the so called great book?



Looks like you not only fail at religion, you fail at science. The sun can't supernova. But way to fail again. 



stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Being an atheist myself, that's why I don't like Dawkin's. He seems to go out of his way to put forth this "I'm an atheist, therefore I'm smarter than you silly religious types" (and by "silly religious types" he generally means "Christians").
> 
> It's actually one of the reasons I never tell people I'm an atheist unless it's actually pertinent to the conversation. Nowadays (especially on the internet) being atheist has become almost synonymous with acting like some arrogant asshole.
> 
> ...



Evolution neither belongs solely to atheists nor disproves theism. But we need more Atheists like you who don't think their singular disbelief in one thing doesn't make them better than everyone else.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 9, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think that I've ever heard any scholar say that. So I'm going to have to go with no.


I don't care what scholars have to say on a topic as irrational as religion.


----------



## Holadrim (Oct 9, 2009)

dummy plug said:


> im not very fond of aggressive atheists. i mean cant we just get along without being a douche? apparently not



But you mean theological douche bags are all right? Riiiight. 

Same shit different name but at least aggressive Atheists have some actual proof to put on the table.


----------



## Mael (Oct 9, 2009)

Holadrim said:


> But you mean theological douche bags are all right? Riiiight.
> 
> Same shit different name but at least aggressive Atheists have some actual proof to put on the table.



No that's not what he meant.  Actually, he didn't even mention theist douchbags at all.  See that right there is the problem.  You can call an atheist celebrity a douchebag for simply being one but it turns right around saying theist douchebags are even worse.  There's no one-upmanship in the realm of being a dick.

Douchers are douchers no matter who or what they are.  You can be right on point but not act like a prick about it.  Dawkins puts himself on a platform of superiority just because he doesn't believe in a deity or faith.  Whoop dee doo, that doesn't make you the best human being alive.  Again, it goes with my mantra of doing what you like but leaving me alone with it.  I don't care if you're the world's biggest atheist, but don't come berating me if I have a slight difference of opinion.  That's what a douchebag does.


----------



## perman07 (Oct 9, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Evolution neither belongs solely to atheists nor disproves theism. But we need more Atheists like you who don't think their singular disbelief in one thing doesn't make them better than everyone else.


Speaking as one of those atheists who are sometimes construed as arrogant:
Just because you bring forth arguments about why you believe others are wrong, that doesn't mean you think you are better than them. I don't think I am better than religious people just like how I don't think I am better than people I disagree with politically or philosophically.


----------



## Garfield (Oct 9, 2009)

Right, coz his experience with the past Ray Comforts has been the most comfortable.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2009)

Dawkins isn't better than other because he is an atheist, he's better than other people because he's a biology professor.


----------



## Mael (Oct 9, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Dawkins isn't better than other because he is an atheist, he's better than other people because he's a biology professor.



Well someone finally said it.  Academic credentials can offer you leeway to act the way you are...but it doesn't hurt to be modest.


----------



## Esponer (Oct 9, 2009)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> It's actually one of the reasons I never tell people I'm an atheist unless it's actually pertinent to the conversation. Nowadays (especially on the internet) being atheist has become almost synonymous with acting like some arrogant asshole.
> 
> It's not that atheists in general are that way, just like most Christians aren't fundamentalist far right wingers. Of course, it's always those in the extremist minority that tend to have the loudest voices (on both sides).


This is actually exactly why I always tell people I'm an atheist if there's a decent opportunity to. Atheism shouldn't be synonymous with arrogant asshole, and I'm not going to abandon the right term to describe what I am because of the connotation other people are giving it. Instead I'd rather try to be upfront about being an atheist and then just be nice.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 9, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Well someone finally said it.  Academic credentials can offer you leeway to act the way you are...but it doesn't hurt to be modest.



This begs the age old question:Why?


----------



## Mael (Oct 9, 2009)

Diceman said:


> This begs the age old question:Why?



So people aren't hurling things at you for being the most arrogant prick imaginable?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 9, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> So people aren't hurling things at you for being the most arrogant prick imaginable?



Considering most of those people are retards,why would you even try?I mean seriously,why would be kind to creationists who try to disprove your lifelong studies and works by using fallacies and archaic texts?
Would you be kind to Code Pink?


----------



## Mael (Oct 9, 2009)

Diceman said:


> Considering most of those people are retards,why would you even try?I mean seriously,why would be kind to creationists who try to disprove your lifelong studies and works by using fallacies and archaic texts?
> Would you be kind to Code Pink?



Hmmm...good point.  Shall I subscribe to your newsletter?

I mean you can always counter a douche by being an anti-douche and then there are times to fight fire with fire.  I merely speak of not being an ass to those who don't ask for it.  For people like Mr. Comfort, fire away.  Yes because Code Pink is outside the bounds of rationale, I'd rant at them too.  They're a special case away from your typical anti-war protester.  For your average citizen who's just trying to raise a family, state your case and move on.


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 9, 2009)

Nodonn said:


> I'm pretty sure the only trouble Jesus had with slavery, was hitting your slaves so hard they died on the spot. Anything else was fair game.


No, actually.


Saufsoldat said:


> God himself puts down rules on who you can and who you can't hold as a slave. Also creating adam and eve and then just letting them procreate... at least he did nothing to prevent i*c*st, same goes for noah's family after the flood.


Adam and Eve weren't related, and anyway your point would only have validity if the Book of Genesis was purely factual. And it isn't.

Ray Comfort goes off the rails a lot, but Dawkins is just being a jerk to refuse to debate him on grounds of "he's an ignorant moron."


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 9, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> No, actually.
> 
> Adam and Eve weren't related, and anyway your point would only have validity if the Book of Genesis was purely factual. And it isn't.
> 
> *Ray Comfort goes off the rails a lot, but Dawkins is just being a jerk to refuse to debate him on grounds of "he's an ignorant moron."*



Again,why is he a jerk if he doesn't want to debate a retard who tries to disprove things he has studied and contributed to his whole life,with fallacies and archaic texts?


----------



## Watchman (Oct 9, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> Adam and Eve weren't related, and anyway your point would only have validity if the Book of Genesis was purely factual. And it isn't.



Well actually, there'd be no way out of that situation without i*c*st (assumign the book _is_ factual) I'll leave it at that since I don't want to hi-jack the thread.



> Ray Comfort goes off the rails a lot, but Dawkins is just being a jerk to refuse to debate him on grounds of "he's an ignorant moron."



To be frank, I'd rather be called a jerk than have to sit through two hours of a retard like Ray Comfort blathering on about a subject he knows nothing about and acting as if his opinion was equal to mine (assuming I was Dawkins)


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 9, 2009)

Genesis is about 85% allegorical, unless you ask a fundamentalist.



Watchman said:


> To be frank, I'd rather be called a jerk than have to sit through two hours of a retard like Ray Comfort blathering on about a subject he knows nothing about and acting as if his opinion was equal to mine (assuming I was Dawkins)


So you'd rather be disliked for being an arrogant prick than for being dumb? Stupidity is not a controllable quality -- IQ doesn't change -- but arrogance is. It's a choice to be condescending to people.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> Adam and Eve weren't related, and anyway your point would only have validity if the Book of Genesis was purely factual. And it isn't.



Firstly, if Eve was created from a part of Adam, she is related to him and even if not, all of their kids are related, that's enough to make the third generation of humans consist entirely of i*c*st children. And it's not my problem that you don't believe in the bible, I was just pointing out inconsistencies.

Besides, all the cruel laws god gives moses are not in genesis, they're mostly in leviticus.



> Ray Comfort goes off the rails a lot, but Dawkins is just being a jerk to refuse to debate him on grounds of "he's an ignorant moron."



How is he a jerk for not doing something that you want him to do? That's ridiculous.


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 9, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Firstly, if Eve was created from a part of Adam, she is related to him and even if not, all of their kids are related, that's enough to make the third generation of humans consist entirely of i*c*st children. And it's not my problem that you don't believe in the bible, I was just pointing out inconsistencies.
> 
> Besides, all the cruel laws god gives moses are not in genesis, they're mostly in leviticus.


The cruel laws of which you speak include warnings against i*c*st, so there. Also, how can you have inconsistencies between allegory?


> How is he a jerk for not doing something that you want him to do? That's ridiculous.


I don't personally care if he does. It's because Comfort wants to debate him that I think he should; it's simple bad manners to refuse for such a flimsy reason. _Especially_ if the guy is so dumb and wrong should Dawkins be jumping at the chance to excercise his apparent intellectual superioirty.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> The cruel laws of which you speak include warnings against i*c*st, so there.



If god didn't want i*c*st, he should have created more than two people. Also I don't give a rats ass if they include a few laws that still make sense today, that doesn't change the fact that god himself puts down laws that even Iran wouldn't pass nowadays. Stop ignoring that, please.



> Also, how can you have inconsistencies between allegory?



As I said, you're the one who chooses to ignore certain parts of your holy book, not me. If science hadn't advanced as far as it did until today, you wouldn't say that the parts which have been proven wrong are just allegorical.



> I don't personally care if he does. It's because Comfort wants to debate him that I think he should; it's simple bad manners to refuse for such a flimsy reason. _Especially_ if the guy is so dumb and wrong should Dawkins be jumping at the chance to excercise his apparent intellectual superioirty.



So first he's a douche because he thinks he's right and gets in everyone's face with it, then he's a jerk for not getting in gloating  over being smarter than a retard. Great job at giving him opportunities to be nice.


----------



## UkkiThePlant (Oct 9, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> If god didn't want i*c*st, he should have created more than two people. Also I don't give a rats ass if they include a few laws that still make sense today, that doesn't change the fact that god himself puts down laws that even Iran wouldn't pass nowadays. Stop ignoring that, please.


I'm not ignoring anything; I've already said the Old Testament is full of weird things.


> As I said, you're the one who chooses to ignore certain parts of your holy book, not me. If science hadn't advanced as far as it did until today, you wouldn't say that the parts which have been proven wrong are just allegorical.


So? If science hadn't advanced as far as it had today, you would still believe God existed (I assume you don't).



> So first he's a douche because he thinks he's right and gets in everyone's face with it, then he's a jerk for not getting in gloating  over being smarter than a retard. Great job at giving him opportunities to be nice.


I'm saying he would be less of a douchebag if he just did the damn debate.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 9, 2009)

UkkiThePlant said:


> I'm not ignoring anything; I've already said the Old Testament is full of weird things.



"Weird" doesn't quite cut it. God is a bigger douchebag than Dawkins could ever be.



> So? If science hadn't advanced as far as it had today, you would still believe God existed (I assume you don't).



So you'll just retreat verse by verse like all the other moderate christians? At least fundamentalists are consistent and don't try to squeeze their faith into whatever reality has left for it.



> I'm saying he would be less of a douchebag if he just did the damn debate.



Yes, you're saying that. Others would call him a douchebag if he did the debate.


----------



## Fuzzly (Oct 9, 2009)

When Cain kills Able he is given a mark so that the other peoples won't kill him. So it's implied that there are other tribes/families/populaces besides Adam and Eve by that time.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2009)

Fuzzly said:


> When Cain kills Able he is given a mark so that the other peoples won't kill him. So it's implied that there are other tribes/families/populaces besides Adam and Eve by that time.



There are other tribes and people, as explained by Lilth's offspring and some other things. The Bible is missing huge tracts of time in Genesis and even then I don't think most Atheists are able to argue from a valid place because most people who they would argue against wouldn't take Genesis literally.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 9, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There are other tribes and people, as explained by Lilth's offspring and some other things. The Bible is missing huge tracts of time in Genesis and even then I don't think most Atheists are able to argue from a valid place because most people who they would argue against wouldn't take Genesis literally.



So why take any of the Bible literally? Who gets to decide which sections are metaphor and which ones really happened? It either all did or none of it did.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 9, 2009)

I do find that odd how people seem to pick and choose what has happened in the Bible and what hasn't...maybe God was just a fictional character in a fictional story and Jesus never really existed, but was just a symbolic character for an ideal of mankind...


----------



## LoboFTW (Oct 9, 2009)

^ Indeed. It will be interesting what CTK says about this.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> So why take any of the Bible literally? Who gets to decide which sections are metaphor and which ones really happened? It either all did or none of it did.



Because hardly anyone does take the whole Bible literally? Where the fuck did you see someone with sense doing that. Much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament is written to demonstrate morality. Not to be taken as historic fact. 

Do you think when Jesus talks about the prodigal son anyone in the room was like "Oh yeah, I knew that guy!" No, and you're a fucking idiot if you do. He's talking in parables and demonstrating something. 

No one believes that David really went around gathering up foreskins or that the whole world was flooded (although parts of it might have been at a time under water). And even if it was or wasn't isn't the important part. 

Genesis gives separate creation accounts, gives small things that are often ignored and references to books that predate it that aren't even in the Bible. If you don't look at the whole group of documents you don't know what you're doing. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> I do find that odd how people seem to pick and choose what has happened in the Bible and what hasn't...maybe God was just a fictional character in a fictional story and Jesus never really existed, but was just a symbolic character for an ideal of mankind...



People don't pick and chose what happened, they understand that whether it happened or not is not the real message. Adam and Eve being real people isn't important, the lessons that the story convey is. 

Which is the problem that many people here don't seem to understand. All Christians aren't Evangelicals or the type to take the Bible literally. While some of the Bible might be factual accounts.

But look at it this way, the Bible talks about the creation of man and woman in an area of the Middle East, which is where life began for us. It talks of an ordering of animals and how humans came last, which is true. It talks of other things which turned out to be mechanisms to ward of disease and illness (not eating pork, not touching blood, etc).


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 9, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People don't pick and chose what happened, they understand that whether it happened or not is not the real message. Adam and Eve being real people isn't important, the lessons that the story convey is.



The message isn't also exactly consistent either, I mean the same god who came to earth as Jesus and said nice things to the effect of "You're all sinners so stop throwing the stones ffs" murdered a shit load of new borns in Egypt because the Pharoah wouldn't let the jews go. Ends justify the means more?




> But look at it this way, the Bible talks about the creation of man and woman in an area of the Middle East, which is where life began for us. It talks of an ordering of animals and how humans came last, which is true. It talks of other things which turned out to be mechanisms to ward of disease and illness (not eating pork, not touching blood, etc).



It also has things like killing birds and lambs to use their blood for curing lepers...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 9, 2009)

Rob` said:


> The message isn't also exactly consistent either, I mean the same god who came to earth as Jesus and said nice things to the effect of "You're all sinners so stop throwing the stones ffs" murdered a shit load of new borns in Egypt because the Pharoah wouldn't let the jews go. Ends justify the means more?



Jesus and God the Father aren't taken to be the same person, God the Father isn't ever as understanding as Jesus. 

And I see nothing wrong with the thing in Egypt, the put lambs blood on your door or die seems like a pretty easily done thing after all the shit that came before. If you didn't want to looks like you sided with the wrong people. 



Rob` said:


> It also has things like killing birds and lambs to use their blood for curing lepers...



Chemistry has its roots in Alchemy, do we throw it all out because of this?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 9, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Jesus and God the Father aren't taken to be the same person, God the Father isn't ever as understanding as Jesus.



The holy trinity thing is just slightly confusing. But there's a huge difference between preaching peace and understanding and committing mass-murder. 



> And I see nothing wrong with the thing in Egypt, the put lambs blood on your door or die seems like a pretty easily done thing after all the shit that came before. If you didn't want to looks like you sided with the wrong people.



You don't see anything wrong with things like this

"And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the Council of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses supposed to be good guy, does something like that. Definetely a bed-time story for the kids right there...

And you seriously don't see anything wrong with killing all the male first-borns? Of course killing the people actually responsible for the slavery would be just ridiculous, killing the sons however is A-OK!

It doesn't even matter if this is literal or metaphorical. What life lessons am I getting from this exactly. 



> Chemistry has its roots in Alchemy, do we throw it all out because of this?



I'm just pointing out that for all the bible scientific accuracies (which are largely ambiguous) there exist plenty which are scientifically innacurate. Besides I thought humans started in Africa, the only reason humans come last in the bible is because we're supposed to be above all the other animals. In reality there's no reason to presume that we came after all the other species around today (I'm sure some evolved after we did). 

As a matter of fact scroll down to the little table with evolution vs genesis.
Rinnegan > Sharingan? & Other issues!

Not eating pork was because they thought pigs were impure, or perhaps they just noticed that the pork eaters tended to get ill. Also the not touching blood thing, if it's just on your skin then you're not going to get anything and anyway this is the same bible which teaches that animal blood is cleansing.


----------



## mystictrunks (Oct 9, 2009)

Rob` said:


> The holy trinity thing is just slightly confusing. But there's a huge difference between preaching peace and understanding and committing mass-murder.
> 
> 
> .



Well that's just because the Old and New testaments aren't really related.


----------



## Fuzzly (Oct 9, 2009)

The Bible should not be taken literally. If I want spiritual solace, I may go to the Bible, if I want to know how the world works, I'll go to a science textbook.


----------



## αce (Oct 9, 2009)

Best video on youtube:


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Xd2VSkjSs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fuzzly (Oct 9, 2009)

Dawkins is a dick as well. Unfortunately, it seems that it's really hard to have moderate views and get published. It's not religion or God that's all those awful things Dawkins described, we create Gods in our own image.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 9, 2009)

perman07 said:


> Speaking as one of those atheists who are sometimes construed as arrogant:
> Just because you bring forth arguments about why you believe others are wrong, that doesn't mean you think you are better than them. I don't think I am better than religious people just like how I don't think I am better than people I disagree with politically or philosophically.


This~
Honestly though, Any insults Ray comfort receives are justly earned. If Dawkins is arrogant its not because he insults people like Ray Comfort. Just look at the name of Comforts book "you can lead an atheist to water but you can't make him think" and tell me who the arrogant one is. Comfort uses the "are you a good person" test quite often too, which is a dick move.


----------



## Ennoea (Oct 9, 2009)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Best video on youtube:
> 
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Xd2VSkjSs[/YOUTUBE]



No more needs to be said.


----------



## Teren_Kanan (Oct 9, 2009)

The only reason I can't blame him for ducking debates, is because I've seen 100 debates before. They all amount to the same thing. I've also seen Dawkins himself debate theists multiple times, it's always the same. 

Atheist: I think it unlikely that a god exists, because of "Insert facts and evidence"
Theist: You're wrong! God exists because of "Insert belief backed by little or no fact or evidence".
Atheist: That doesn't make any sense.
Theist: You're an ignorant fool.
Atheist: ...

And even if you think it's the completely opposite, it doesn't change anything. The argument remains a stalemate every single time.

The problem with the debates is one is arguing a certainty based on belief, while another is arguing a likely hood with evidence to support it. 

If you've ever read The God Delusion, Dawkins himself even states that he can not possibly disprove god, only that given the evidence, it is extremely unlikely. He gives a nod of his head towards the Deistic belief, saying that if ever a god were to have existed, it would surely be a deistic god. 

His main problem is with the Theists and religions. A Theist religion has Laws, unnatural moral guidelines, and a god who interacts with the world, rewarding or punishing as he sees fit. There isn't any proof to any of this, and all evidence supports otherwise.

While a deist believes in a god or a supreme entity, they merely believe in it as an answer to how the universe was created. Something did it, but that something no longer has anything to do with us, and most certainly does not interact with us. Deists laugh just as hard at a Theist as an Atheist does.

I got off topic and rambled, but as for the OP.

Atheist vs Religions debates never solve anything, nor do they accomplish anything.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Oct 11, 2009)

> only that given the evidence, it is extremely unlikely



He of course, means that, being that there is no real evidence to support or deny the existence of a god or gods, he believes quite firmly that said god or gods don't exist. The No God Delusion, if you will. 

I haven't had any confirmation on his attitude towards Thor, but I assume the same applies, though why anyone would want to deny the existence of someone as cool as Thor is beyond me.

All well and good, to each his own and all that, but throwing around evidence on this subject is like throwing monkey poop, no fun for anyone involved other than the thrower(s) and leaves a distinct stench behind.



> The God that Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in doesn't exist. The God of the Bible is the God of righteousness and holiness and justice and truth and love and mercy



He's right, but only partly. More specifically, they're both wrong. In the Bible, God's not the supreme evil jackass of jackassery purported by Dawkins, but nor is he squeaky clean god of squeaky cleanliness purported by...what'shisnuts. Comfort. The hell kind of last name is that?

But I digress, I support Dawkins' decision to not debate with Comfort.


----------



## Evil (Oct 11, 2009)

I think Dawkins has partly become a misanthrope, I believe this is why people call him arrogant. His early works and debates were much more neutral, but I guess years of dealing with people are who are anti-intellectual has taken their toll on him and he's become a world class flame artist.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 11, 2009)

I read recently that he refuses to debate young earth creationists because to debate them would legitimize their pathetic views , as if they were equal to his own. It would be like a person who teaches gravity debating against "intelligent falling" or a sex health expert debating against "stork theory".


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Oct 11, 2009)

Evil said:


> I think Dawkins has partly become a misanthrope, I believe this is why people call him arrogant. His early works and debates were much more neutral, but I guess years of dealing with people are who are anti-intellectual has taken their toll on him and he's become a world class flame artist.



Honestly, if I was in his place I'd be a bit misanthropic myself.


----------



## Epif (Oct 11, 2009)

I can completely understand his hesitation to debate this guy. He's got a life to live after all, and probably doesn't want to waste his time trying to convince people who can't be convinced. And yeah, he is an assshole, but at least he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 12, 2009)

Something Dawkins may want to consider, before he enters into any debate.

If Dawkins concept of a "perfect world" would be a place where everyone is an atheist, how is that any different from religious oppressionists whose wet dreams include a world where everyone is religious?

The church of new england back in the era of the pilgrims _forced_ everyone to conform to their religious views and it was religious oppression.  Likewise, suggesting that everyone should be an atheist because its "the logical view" or any such nonsense, is likewise a form of religious oppression.

So, while Dawkins and others may claim to be about "free thought" and "logic" it would seem they stand poised to merely replace one form of religious indoctrination and oppression with another.

And, that's something he needs to address before he can be a serious contender in any debate, because its only 1 out of about a million weak points in his atheist worldview.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Something Dawkins may want to consider, before he enters into any debate.
> 
> If Dawkins concept of a "perfect world" would be a place where everyone is an atheist, how is that any different from religious oppressionists whose wet dreams include a world where everyone is religious?



You might as well ask, how are people who believe that Elvis Presley is dead any different from those who believe he's still alive and hiding somewhere in Minnesota?

The difference is that the former are sane, and the latter are insane.


And, of course, it shouldn't even need to be said, but Dawkins (and the other 'New Atheists') don't want to force anyone to believe anything. Are people who believe Elvis is still alive "forced" to believe otherwise? No, of course not, nor is anyone proposing that they should be. It's a belief that deserves to be ridiculed, like all other crazy beliefs, but nothing more is needed (or desired).


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Something Dawkins may want to consider, before he enters into any debate.
> 
> If Dawkins concept of a "perfect world" would be a place where everyone is an atheist, how is that any different from religious oppressionists whose wet dreams include a world where everyone is religious?



Trying to convince people that you're right through logical arguments does not constitute religious indoctrination and oppression.



> The church of new england back in the era of the pilgrims _forced_ everyone to conform to their religious views and it was religious oppression.  Likewise, suggesting that everyone should be an atheist because its "the logical view" or any such nonsense, is likewise a form of religious oppression.



Trying to convince people that you're right through logical arguments does not constitute "religious indoctrination and oppression.



> So, while Dawkins and others may claim to be about "free thought" and "logic" it would seem they stand poised to merely replace one form of religious indoctrination and oppression with another.



Trying to convince people that you're right through logical arguments does not constitute religious indoctrination and oppression.



> And, that's something he needs to address before he can be a serious contender in any debate, because its only 1 out of about a million weak points in his atheist worldview.



Trying to convince people that you're right through logical arguments does not constitute religious indoctrination and oppression.


----------



## Taco (Oct 12, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> I read recently that he refuses to debate young earth creationists because to debate them would legitimize their pathetic views , as if they were equal to his own. It would be like a person who teaches gravity debating against "intelligent falling" or a sex health expert debating against "stork theory".



You never cease to amuse me.

It's because the only argument he has against people like Bill O'Reily is "We be workin' on findin' out how it all started, chum!"


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 12, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> You never cease to amuse me.
> 
> It's because the only argument he has against people like Bill O'Reily is "We be workin' on findin' out how it all started, chum!"



And that's bad because? You don't know how it all started either, the difference is that Dawkins doesn't make up random crap just so he has something to believe in.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 12, 2009)

Rob` said:


> Trying to convince people that you're right through logical arguments does not constitute religious indoctrination and oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Someone get the canned air, I think his lens is dirty.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 12, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> You might as well ask, how are people who believe that Elvis Presley is dead any different from those who believe he's still alive and hiding somewhere in Minnesota?
> 
> The difference is that the former are sane, and the latter are insane.
> 
> And, of course, it shouldn't even need to be said, but Dawkins (and the other 'New Atheists') don't want to force anyone to believe anything. Are people who believe Elvis is still alive "forced" to believe otherwise? No, of course not, nor is anyone proposing that they should be. It's a belief that deserves to be ridiculed, like all other crazy beliefs, but nothing more is needed (or desired).



Well, one thing I have noticed about this game -- everyone thinks all belief systems are crazy, with the exception of their own.  This isn't necessarily behavior reserved for religious, agnostics or even atheists.

The belief that 'God doesn't exist' is just as crazy as the belief that he does.  Yet, being the ego-centrists we are, we all have a tendency to look down on people with differing points of view.  We all think that anyone who thinks or believes differently than us is 'crazy'.

That's pretty ridiculous, I think.  At some point, we'll have to get over ourselves and admit that even if we don't agree with what people believe, they do have a right to believe in it, and that right should be respected.

Likewise, I think that the notion of thinking anyones belief system is "superior" should be discouraged.  Because, let's be honest, everyone thinks their belief system is the "one true belief system" and its ridiculous.  We all try very hard to convince ourselves that we are different and that we aren't like those crazy people, and yet we do look a lot alike.  In fact, in many cases, we look exactly the same.  



Rob` said:


> Trying to convince people that you're right through logical arguments does not constitute religious indoctrination and oppression.



"Logical arguments" is more accurate a term.  Everyone on earth thinks their arguments are "logical".  This doesn't necessarily make them so.  

I saw your reply in the free will thread.  And, I can't say I would be certain you would recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## mystictrunks (Oct 12, 2009)

I never knew Richard Dawkins had so many Stans .


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 12, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> You might as well ask, how are people who believe that Elvis Presley is dead any different from those who believe he's still alive and hiding somewhere in Minnesota?
> 
> The difference is that the former are sane, and the latter are insane.


You might as well ask, how are people who believe the world is flat any different from those who believe it's round and floating around the sun, which is actually a star?

The difference is that the former are sane, and the latter are insane... 1000 years ago.

(This is not an argument for the existence of God, only against the pointlessness of bringing up sanity.)


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Something Dawkins may want to consider, before he enters into any debate.
> 
> If Dawkins concept of a "perfect world" would be a place where everyone is an atheist, how is that any different from religious oppressionists whose wet dreams include a world where everyone is religious?
> 
> ...




Because Dawkins nor most atheists don't want to "force" atheism on anyone...we believe that religion is only so widespread because it's forced on children at a young age, and that atheism or at least nonreligiosity would be a natural side effect of letting children think for themselves and question unprovable things.


Matter of fact, how does one go about preaching atheism? Do you knock on somebody's front door and say "have you heard the Bad News?" and hand them a little atheist pamphlet? Nobody told me! Where do I sign up? I wanna preach atheism.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> "Logical arguments" is more accurate a term.  Everyone on earth thinks their arguments are "logical".  This doesn't necessarily make them so.



Uhuh you know I thought this was kind of completely obvious but the logic in Richard Dawkins arguments is actually completely irrelevant, what everybody (atheist, theist, deist, pantheist etc) should be able to agree on is that he thinks his arguments are logical and therefore he is trying to persuade people with logical arguments. If his arguments are illogical then that's just a pity. In either case he isn't engaging in religious indoctrination and oppression like you seem to believe.



> I saw your reply in the free will thread.  And, I can't say I would be certain you would recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.



This coming from Mr. Argument from consequence/Tries to refute my argument By completely missing the point/Thinks that if a system becomes complex enough it suddenly becomes exempt from the laws of nature.

And I'm not quite sure what my understanding of logic has to do with this thread.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The belief that 'God doesn't exist' is just as crazy as the belief that he does.



The point is many people who describe themselves as Atheists, Dawkins included don't hold that position. 

They hold that the arguments and evidence presented in favour of God existing are flawed and inconclusive. Dawkins Holds this position.

They may also argue that a defined interpretation God exiting is unlikely. For example "An all-loving, all powerful God existing is unlikely because suffering happens." Dawkins has attempted to do this.

However I have never seen Dawkins try to prove that God does not exist, I've only seen that from philosophically naive teenagers on youtube.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 12, 2009)

You don't have to prove God doesn't exist...for the same reason you don't have to prove Smurfs or Orcs don't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer, especially if it's something that fantastic.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Oct 12, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> You don't have to prove God doesn't exist...for the same reason you don't have to prove Smurfs or Orcs don't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer, especially if it's something that fantastic.



If the person who doesn't believe won't show up to the debate, how is it supposed to even be on anyone? 

I'm sorry but this is possibly the stupidest argument ever. People idolize this man as some sort of Atheist Messiah when he has the same means of arguing that many of you here do which is name calling, petty insults and other stupid things that wouldn't fly at most high school debates. 

The guy is just a fucking joke.


----------



## Watchman (Oct 12, 2009)

I think Pilaf's suggesting for the "does God exist or not" debate in general, not this Comfort/Dawkins debate.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 12, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If the person who doesn't believe won't show up to the debate, how is it supposed to even be on anyone?



It's quite simple to put your cards on the table even outside of a debate. If Comfort had any groundbreaking argument, he wouldn't have to withhold them until a debate.



> I'm sorry but this is possibly the stupidest argument ever. People idolize this man as some sort of Atheist Messiah when he has the same means of arguing that many of you here do which is name calling, petty insults and other stupid things that wouldn't fly at most high school debates.
> 
> The guy is just a fucking joke.



That's just bullshit. I respect the man and everything he has achieved but I've yet to see anyone idolize him or treat him like a messiah. You're the fucking joke.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Well, one thing I have noticed about this game -- everyone thinks all belief systems are crazy, with the exception of their own.



This isn't true at all. A big fraction of religious believers, if not the majority, readily admit that their belief is nothing more than faith, i.e. that it's utterly or mostly baseless but they believe it anyway. This is an admission that they are insane, even if they wouldn't put it that way.



> The belief that 'God doesn't exist' is just as crazy as the belief that he does.  Yet, being the ego-centrists we are, we all have a tendency to look down on people with differing points of view.  We all think that anyone who thinks or believes differently than us is 'crazy'.



Do you think it's egocentrical to "look down" on people who believe in the existence of Peter Pan, the immortality of Elvis Presley, and that the world will end in 2012?

You see, those who believe these things _are_ crazy. They're crazy not because their beliefs are different from yours, but because they don't have a shred of evidence to support them. In this regard, belief in Peter Pan is exactly like belief in God.



> That's pretty ridiculous, I think.  At some point, we'll have to get over ourselves and admit that even if we don't agree with what people believe, they do have a right to believe in it, and that right should be respected.



Have you read anything I've written? *Of course* we all have the right to believe whatever we want. We also have the right to ridicule ridiculous beliefs.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 12, 2009)

All new Mr. Deity episode, with PZ Myers as the science advisor and a reference to Ray Comfort's banana 'argument'!

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Clm6nlWxzc&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Draffut (Oct 12, 2009)

> The church of new england back in the era of the pilgrims *forced* everyone to conform to their religious views and it was religious oppression. Likewise, *suggesting* that everyone should be an atheist because its "the logical view" or any such nonsense, is likewise a form of religious oppression.



There is a massive difference here, that you yourself stated.  The later is in no way oppression.


----------



## Hwon (Oct 12, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If the person who doesn't believe won't show up to the debate, how is it supposed to even be on anyone?
> 
> I'm sorry but this is possibly the stupidest argument ever. People idolize this man as some sort of Atheist Messiah when he has the same means of arguing that many of you here do which is name calling, petty insults and other stupid things that wouldn't fly at most high school debates.
> 
> The guy is just a fucking joke.



If someone is trying to provide evidence to satisfy their burden of proof a public debate is just about the last place you want to do it.  Its a type of informal debate because neither side is really provided enough time to build an adequate rebuttal thus relying almost completely on prepared responses.  In other words just because either Comfort or Dawkins produced an argument the other wasn't prepared to counter at a public debate doesn't mean they couldn't have made a valid one given enough time. 

In an intellectual debate the winner is the one who has produced the most sound argument with evidence.  In a public debate the winner is the one who has best persuaded the public.  For example, look at the presidental debates.  An event where the best lie will get you elected.  

Dawkins and Comfort probably understand that its never to the advantage of science to go against religion in a public debate.  Religion has a simplistic appeal while science is often counter-intuitive.  It's hard to persuade people when they can't even understand the argument. 

As for people idolizing Dawkins I doubt there are too many people who actually do.  I think people who demonize him equate people who don't or those who agree with his viewpoint as being in the polar opposite position to their own.  I really don't follow Dawkins that much and I've haven't read even one of his books.  Not even the God Delusion.  Still I can't recall hardly one time where he directly insults a person.  So again I think people equate the criticism of their beliefs with an insult to themselves.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 12, 2009)

It's really quite unbelievable that pointing out that a belief is incorrect is seen as a form of "oppression", just because this belief happens to religious. Dawkins and Harris are absolutely right to say that the taboo that protects religious beliefs from criticism needs to be destroyed.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 12, 2009)

Some people in this thread are giving Ray Comfort way too much credit. He's a nut, a moron, and a complete ignoramus even by religious fundamentalist standards.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 12, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> Because Dawkins nor most atheists don't want to "force" atheism on anyone...we believe that religion is only so widespread because it's forced on children at a young age, and that atheism or at least nonreligiosity would be a natural side effect of letting children think for themselves and question unprovable things.
> 
> Matter of fact, how does one go about preaching atheism? Do you knock on somebody's front door and say "have you heard the Bad News?" and hand them a little atheist pamphlet? Nobody told me! Where do I sign up? I wanna preach atheism.



Despite what you may think, I actually don't like a large number of religious people.

The reason I don't like them is because they are ego-centric to where they think that "everyone who doesn't think like me or share my religious views is going to hell".  Atheists attribute this as being one of the methods by which religious people -force- their beliefs on others.

Now, believe it or not, I happen to not like a number of atheists for the very same reason.

Some atheists say "everyone who doesn't think like me or share my views is illogical".  It may not be as blatantly obvious or honest a method of forcing a point of view on others, but it is more or less exactly the same.  Anyone who isn't a atheist is illogical, because atheists are the only logical people on earth.  Anyone who isn't an atheist is unscientific.  See the similarity between that point of view and the point of view that anyone who doesn't believe in religion is going to hell?

It more or less has to do with individuals who are so full of shit they think the way they think about things is the *only* way of thinking about them.  Its not about free thought or open mindedness or even tolerance.  Its about prejudice and convincing the weak minded to think as you do.  That's really what it comes down to in terms of religion and atheism, most times.



Rob` said:


> Uhuh you know I thought this was kind of completely obvious but the logic in Richard Dawkins arguments is actually completely irrelevant, what everybody (atheist, theist, deist, pantheist etc) should be able to agree on is that he thinks his arguments are logical and therefore he is trying to persuade people with logical arguments. If his arguments are illogical then that's just a pity. In either case he isn't engaging in religious indoctrination and oppression like you seem to believe.



Name 1 thing or 1 argument he has that is logical.  If you have to google it or look it up on an atheist website, go headbutt a wall for me.



Rob` said:


> This coming from Mr. Argument from consequence



Wow.  Its sad when someone who pretends to care about logic cannot properly identify an argument to consequence.  

An argument to consequence says -- if you don't think as I do, something bad will happen.  That's not what I did at all.  

I merely asked how you would reconcile your personal belief with a judicial system who presumes to punish people based on the notion that free will does exist and that people are therefore responsible for their actions.

How is that an argument to consequence?  



Rob` said:


> /Tries to refute my argument By completely missing the point/Thinks that if a system becomes complex enough it suddenly becomes exempt from the laws of nature.
> 
> And I'm not quite sure what my understanding of logic has to do with this thread.



Heh, none of you provided anything of substance.  And, when I did provide something of substance you made lame, weak ass, excuses for not answering me directly.  You're in denial, you don't realize it, but you were pretty much wrong about everything.



Sarutobi sasuke said:


> The point is many people who describe themselves as Atheists, Dawkins included don't hold that position.
> 
> They hold that the arguments and evidence presented in favour of God existing are flawed and inconclusive. Dawkins Holds this position.
> 
> ...



Dawkins doesn't take a scientific approach in his attempts to rationalize religion.  He takes more of a political approach in my opinion.  He chooses his ground, carefully.  He doesn't cover all the issues and ignore the ones which have the potential to make him and his beliefs look bad.

I think he's more of a politician than a scientist as far as religion or atheism go.



Pilaf said:


> You don't have to prove God doesn't exist...for the same reason you don't have to prove Smurfs or Orcs don't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer, especially if it's something that fantastic.



If a person wanted to say "gravity doesnt exist" they would have to prove it.  Yes, people who say "God doesn't exist" would likewise have to prove their point of view as well.  

The fact that its impossible to prove such things indicates that those who say "God doesn't exist" act upon a belief, or take a leap of faith in order to substantiate their point of view.

Therefore, there is nothing really logical or scientific about it.  Its as much a belief as beliving in smurfs or orcs.  And, those who try to twist this usually probably don't do it a whole lot different from the religious people they like to criticize.

And, maybe that's the real reason why people don't intend to debate this type of thing.  The truth and things like facts have a way of coming out eventually, despite the efforts of some to keep people in the dark.



PhlegmMaster said:


> This isn't true at all. A big fraction of religious believers, if not the majority, readily admit that their belief is nothing more than faith



If you can't prove God doesn't exist, what do you think your own belief is based on?

What makes you or your beliefs any better than theirs?



PhlegmMaster said:


> Do you think it's egocentrical to "look down" on people who believe in the existence of Peter Pan, the immortality of Elvis Presley, and that the world will end in 2012?



I think Elvis and Peter Pan are very bad analogies to use in making comparisons to religion.  

But, thank you for providing one of the methods by which atheists attempt to force their beliefs on others.  That being, by ridiculing and dehumanizing all opposing belief systems.



PhlegmMaster said:


> You see, those who believe these things _are_ crazy. They're crazy not because their beliefs are different from yours, but because they don't have a shred of evidence to support them. In this regard, belief in Peter Pan is exactly like belief in God.



You sound a lot more crazy than some religious people I have talked to.  At least they know enough about religion and are educated enough to know why peter pan and elvis aren't necessarily valid comparisons to religious figures.



PhlegmMaster said:


> Have you read anything I've written? *Of course* we all have the right to believe whatever we want. We also have the right to ridicule ridiculous beliefs.



Ridicule away.  I don't think you're really bothering anyone.  

But, at some point you may want to ask yourself what makes you any different from radical extremist muslims in their professing hostility against christianity or any other tensions and conflicts which arise as a result of differences of opinion in the matter of religion and or spiritualism.

What makes you different from someone willing to fly a 747 into a building.  There's the same hostility towards differing points of view, differing beliefs and the same intent to do harm.

And, no, considering the long history of theology, neither you, nor your offensive nature towards people who think different than you, are contributing anything.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> A whole lotta text was here


I think your whole argument boils down to this.
Theists want you to believe what they believe.
Atheists want you to believe what they believe.
So hah hah! they are equally bad!

There are two very wrong things with what you said. First off, if you did not think that what you believe was more logical then what others believe then what the hell are you doing believing it. How can it be a point against atheists for thinking that what they believe is logical, everyone thinks what they believe is logical, or they are deluding themselves. Second there is a very big difference between:



> "everyone who doesn't think like me or share my religious views is going to hell"
> 
> "everyone who doesn't think like me or share my views is illogical"


One is a threat.


----------



## Danny Lilithborne (Oct 12, 2009)

Botzu said:


> Second there is a very big difference between:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both achieve the effect of ostracizing the person who doesn't believe like you do, though.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 12, 2009)

Danny Lilithborne said:


> Both achieve the effect of ostracizing the person who doesn't believe like you do, though.


I can agree with that. It doesn't help to stereotype any group. I would hope that it is more that they think the belief itself is illogical and not the people.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 12, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> If you can't prove God doesn't exist, what do you think your own belief is based on?
> 
> What makes you or your beliefs any better than theirs?



You know, every single time a person asks me that question, I can't help but be completely and utterly amazed.

If you can't prove dragons don't exist, what do you think your own belief is based on?
If you can't prove Elvis isn't dead, what do you think your own belief is based on?
If you can't prove our universe isn't a simulation running on a teenager's PC in his parents' basement, what do you think your own belief is based on?

The 'default' belief about ANY implausible concept that's not supported by evidence isn't agnosticism, it's belief in its negation. It's the way all rational minds work, and it's something that is so ridiculously obvious that no one would consider thinking otherwise... except where religious beliefs are concerned, because religious delusions have been so popular for so long.




> I think Elvis and Peter Pan are very bad analogies to use in making comparisons to religion.



Why? What's the difference? Compared to, say, Christianity, the belief that Elvis is alive isn't very popular, or very old, or very comforting, nor is it tied to a moral code, nor have there been (as many) books of obscurantist nonsense written about Elvis. But those things have absolutely nothing to do with the probability that these beliefs are *true*.

That wasn't a rhetorical question, by the way. _What's the difference?_




> But, thank you for providing one of the methods by which atheists attempt to force their beliefs on others.  That being, by ridiculing and dehumanizing all opposing belief systems.



Oh, I'm not dehumanizing anything. Self-deception is a very human behavior. But then, so is theft.




> You sound a lot more crazy than some religious people I have talked to.  At least they know enough about religion and are educated enough to know why peter pan and elvis aren't necessarily valid comparisons to religious figures.



Lol. Of course religious people won't acknowledge that Peter Pan is a valid comparison. If they did, they'd have to become atheists.



> Ridicule away. I don't think you're really bothering anyone.



Lol. If religious people weren't bothered by ridicule, no one would call Richard Dawkins "strident", or "arrogant", or "a douchebag".



> But, at some point you may want to ask yourself what makes you any different from radical extremist muslims in their professing hostility against christianity or any other tensions and conflicts which arise as a result of differences of opinion in the matter of religion and or spiritualism.



There are many differences, but the most important one is that the beliefs of radical Muslims about reality are wrong. They believe that Allah exists, that the Qur'an and Hadith are true, and therefore that the Creator of the Universe and Source of all Morality hates non-Muslims and will reward those who fight the enemies of Islam. This, like belief in Peter Pan, is an implausible belief that is not supported by any evidence. It is therefore extremely likely to be false, which means the reason why they kill and oppress people doesn't exist. 

However, if the beliefs of radical Muslims about reality were _right_, their hostility towards non-Muslims would be perfectly justified.



> What makes you different from someone willing to fly a 747 into a building.  There's the same hostility towards differing points of view, differing beliefs *and the same intent to do harm*.





You're completely impervious to reason, aren't you?


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> You know, every single time a person asks me that question, I can't help but be completely and utterly amazed.
> 
> If you can't prove dragons don't exist, what do you think your own belief is based on?
> If you can't prove Elvis isn't dead, what do you think your own belief is based on?
> ...



The bottom line is, unless you have proof 'God doesn't exist' you are no better than those who cannot prove 'God does exist'.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between 'not believing in God' and saying 'God doesn't exist'.  A negation of belief in God won't allow you to say 'God doesn't exist'.  It doesn't translate.

Its simply a weak bit of political maneuvering some atheists utilize in a vain attempt to avoid having their position defined as being a belief or something that is based on faith.  Which it undoubtedly is.  Even if it were a negation of belief it would still need to be justified by evidence if we're talking about a burden of proof or science.

So, there's really no way around it.

*edit*  I'll elaborate more.  There are 3 possible positions in regard to belief.

1.  Positive.
2.  Negative.
3.  Neutral.

In regard to religion it would look like this:

1.  Positive.  (God exists)
2.  Negative.  (God doesn't exist)
3.  Neutral.  (No position taken regarding God's existence)

A _lack of belief_ in God is a neutral position.  Thus its #3.

A common error is for some atheists to incorrectly attempt to use a neutral position in an attempt to justify a negative one.  Its a logical contradiction, really.



PhlegmMaster said:


> Why? What's the difference? Compared to, say, Christianity, the belief that Elvis is alive isn't very popular, or very old, or very comforting, nor is it tied to a moral code, nor have there been (as many) books of obscurantist nonsense written about Elvis. But those things have absolutely nothing to do with the probability that these beliefs are *true*.
> 
> That wasn't a rhetorical question, by the way. _What's the difference?_



See, now I don't much like to educate people on matters when they presume to speak on them as if they were already educated.  I think its better if you keep talking, as if you know what you're talking about.

I know Dawkins says something similar, but the context in which Dawkins says it, and the context in which you say it, are two different things.



PhlegmMaster said:


> Oh, I'm not dehumanizing anything. Self-deception is a very human behavior. But then, so is theft.



Do you even know what "dehumanizing" is?



PhlegmMaster said:


> Lol. Of course religious people won't acknowledge that Peter Pan is a valid comparison. If they did, they'd have to become atheists.



Heh, do you really think that you're "so smart" that you're the only one to come up with an idea like that over the thousands of years religion has existed?

If it were that easy, don't you think that someone would have disproved religion a long time ago?

Why do you think that hasn't happened?

Maybe because its not as good an argument as you think it is?



PhlegmMaster said:


> Lol. If religious people weren't bothered by ridicule, no one would call Richard Dawkins "strident", or "arrogant", or "a douchebag".



Stereotypes.



PhlegmMaster said:


> There are many differences, but the most important one is that the beliefs of radical Muslims about reality are wrong. They believe that Allah exists, that the Qur'an and Hadith are true, and therefore that the Creator of the Universe and Source of all Morality hates non-Muslims and will reward those who fight the enemies of Islam. This, like belief in Peter Pan, is an implausible belief that is not supported by any evidence. It is therefore extremely likely to be false, which means the reason why they kill and oppress people doesn't exist.
> 
> However, if the beliefs of radical Muslims about reality were _right_, their hostility towards non-Muslims would be perfectly justified.



The point I was trying to make is in the past, it used to be common for atheists to criticize religious people in saying: "you're killing each other over who has the best imaginary friend".

How do you criticize religious people for the conflicts, arguments and disagreements that arise out of a difference of belief systems, when atheists themselves are participating in the very same conflicts, arguments and disagreements.

In regard to violence and bloodshed, there have been a number of cases where churches were set on fire and burnt to the ground and there were a few cases where gunmen walked into a church with firearms and began gunning people down.  Why?  Extremely militant atheism.

So, even if the violence and or negativity associated with atheism isn't as prevalent or as advertised as that which occurs by say extremist muslims, it does happen.  

So, rather than maintain an aloof and neutral stance like say agnostics, it would seem religious people and atheists are more alike then they may care to admit.  



PhlegmMaster said:


> You're completely impervious to reason, aren't you?



Heh, watch out, you may wind up eating those words.

*edit*:  I'm not happy about the way this thread turned out.  It should probably be about things like facts and science and logic.  But, for some reason it always has to turn into a lame brained, my belief is better than your belief, pissing fest.  

That's soo lame.  And depressing.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Oct 13, 2009)

I give up. This is worse than arguing with a conspiracy theorist. At least they have some understanding of the concept of _truth_.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

PhlegmMaster said:


> I give up. This is worse than arguing with a conspiracy theorist. At least they have some understanding of the concept of _truth_.



Yeah, I totally don't blame you.

In some cases, I have tried to debate this type of thing with atheists, and there will be 20-40 atheists on one side, and just me on the other.  And, they'll give up trying to hold a civil discussion with me.

Considering you are just 1 atheist, you never had a prayer.  But, atheists don't pray.  So, its a non-issue.


----------



## mystictrunks (Oct 13, 2009)

mystictrunks said:


> I never knew Richard Dawkins had so many Stans .



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGQADSJPx0E[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

mystictrunks said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGQADSJPx0E[/YOUTUBE]



Weak troll is weak


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Name 1 thing or 1 argument he has that is logical.  If you have to google it or look it up on an atheist website, go headbutt a wall for me.



Reading comprehension could be better in this man...


----------



## Botzu (Oct 13, 2009)

> In regard to violence and bloodshed, there have been a number of cases where churches were set on fire and burnt to the ground and there were a few cases where gunmen walked into a church with firearms and began gunning people down. Why? Extremely militant atheism.
> 
> So, even if the violence and or negativity associated with atheism isn't as prevalent or as advertised as that which occurs by say extremist muslims, it does happen.


I know it has been said many times before, but you can't get to burning down churches from atheism. Atheism offers no rules/morals/codes to live by/etc, as it is just a lack of belief in god or a belief that gods don't exist...I don't care about arguing definitions here. You can't get from "I don't believe in gods" to  "therefore I will commit x atrocity" without something other than atheism. I wish this argument would just die. If you really think that you can, I challenge you to show the logical path from atheism to burning down churches.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

Botzu said:


> I know it has been said many times before, but you can't get to burning down churches from atheism. Atheism offers no rules/morals/codes to live by/etc, as it is just a lack of belief in god or a belief that gods don't exist...I don't care about arguing definitions here. You can't get from "I don't believe in gods" to  "therefore I will commit x atrocity" without something other than atheism. I wish this argument would just die. If you really think that you can, I challenge you to show the logical path from atheism to burning down churches.



1.  Mr. atheist is a happy man.
2.  Mr. atheist eventually becomes bitter about religion.  He begins to blame religion and religious people for everything that is wrong in the world.
3.  Mr. atheist decides this world would be a better place without religious people.  He decides that anything bad that happens to religion or religious people is good for the world in general.
4.  Mr. atheist follows through.  He starts out with some minor arson.  Graffiti on churches, maybe a few small fires.
5.  Mr. atheist's crimes escalate.  He begins slashing tires and torturing cats and other pets on church premises.  Eventually, he's burning them down, and gunning down church-goers.

I don't know why that is considered an impossibility, but tell me if I need to come up with a better "logical path" I guess..


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> 1.  Mr. atheist is a happy man.
> 2.  Mr. atheist eventually becomes bitter about religion.  He begins to blame religion and religious people for everything that is wrong in the world.
> 3.  Mr. atheist decides this world would be a better place without religious people.  He decides that anything bad that happens to religion or religious people is good for the world in general.
> 4.  Mr. atheist follows through.  He starts out with some minor arson.  Graffiti on churches, maybe a few small fires.
> ...



That has nothing to do with him being atheist. There are atheistic religions, too, in case you didn't know.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> That has nothing to do with him being atheist. There are atheistic religions, too, in case you didn't know.



Wut.

Ok, I'll try to tie his atheism in, better.  

1.  Mr. atheist, lets give him a name.  His name is Bill.
2.  Bill believes atheism is the height of knowledge, virtue and excellence in this world.  Bill believes that for atheism to spread, and for the world to progress in science and education and ethics, religion's influence must be decreased, neutralized or de-stroyed.
3.  Bill, therefore, intent on spreading atheism and diminishing religion's role in this world, becomes a cannabilistic, mass murdering, psychopath.  He goes on a rampage, thinking that even if killing is wrong, he's making the world a better place by ending the lives of religious people who he sees as being a corruptive and negative influence to his fellow atheists.

~The end.

If you don't like this one, I can come up with a better one.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Wut.
> 
> Ok, I'll try to tie his atheism in, better.
> 
> ...



That has nothing to do with him being atheist. There are atheistic religions, too, in case you didn't know.


----------



## Mael (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> 1.  Mr. atheist is a happy man.
> 2.  Mr. atheist eventually becomes bitter about religion.  He begins to blame religion and religious people for everything that is wrong in the world.
> 3.  Mr. atheist decides this world would be a better place without religious people.  He decides that anything bad that happens to religion or religious people is good for the world in general.
> 4.  Mr. atheist follows through.  He starts out with some minor arson.  Graffiti on churches, maybe a few small fires.
> ...



Yes but Mr. Atheist still also has to contend with the man-made entity known as *the law*.  Should his crimes be offensive enough, he will be wiped from existence and thus that will be the motivation to stay in line.  An eternity of nothingness sounds pretty harsh when you actually think about it.  Even atheists fear death.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 13, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Yes but Mr. Atheist still also has to contend with the man-made entity known as *the law*.  Should his crimes be offensive enough, he will be wiped from existence and thus that will be the motivation to stay in line.  An eternity of nothingness sounds pretty harsh when you actually think about it.  Even atheists fear death.



Well of course we fear death... because we believe it to be final. We have more reason to enjoy life and fear death than those who believe their spirit goes on.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> That has nothing to do with him being atheist. There are atheistic religions, too, in case you didn't know.



Oh.  You're saying atheists have no holy book nor teachings which can be used to dupe them into violent acts?  But, then again, you do.  You have a teaching which suggests religion is one of the main causes of evil and suffering in the world.  This can be used to justify violence against said people.  Likewise, even if it isn't explicitly written somewhere that something is bad or undesirable, you guys are far from being neutral in a lot of ways.

Also, whether or not something is explicitly stated doesn't matter.  For some, the concept of a belief being different from their own is more than enough to justify violence.  Just as in some cases, a difference of tribe or clan or ethnic background is more than enough to justify violence.

Therefore, virtually anything can be used as a justification for violence regardless of whether or not it has the traditional religious facets attached.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> You have a teaching which suggests religion is one of the main causes of evil and suffering in the world.



No, we don't. There are atheistic religions, in case you didn't know.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, we don't. There are atheistic religions, in case you didn't know.



Instead of a bible, you have books written by Dawkins and others.    I don't think it would be too hard to find something written in one of those books that could be used to justify violence...

I'm not sure the term atheistic religion can be considered a legitimate one.

If you're referring to something like buddhism, then it can be said some branches of buddhism believe in things like reincarnation which is a supernatural concept which may be difficult to reconcile with atheism which in many cases takes the position that the supernatural does not exist.

Atheistic religion is a difficult concept to consider..


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Instead of a bible, you have books written by Dawkins and others.



Christians are required to accept the bible (or at least the new testament) as fact, an atheist can choose which books to read, which to agree with and which to disagree with.

There is no defining book or dogma for atheists. I think that's mainly because it would be hard to sell a book with only the sentence "I don't believe in gods" in it.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 13, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Christians are required to accept the bible (or at least the new testament) as fact, an atheist can choose which books to read, which to agree with and which to disagree with.
> 
> There is no defining book or dogma for atheists. I think that's mainly because it would be hard to sell a book with only the sentence "I don't believe in gods" in it.



Ok, back for a second.

Christians aren't required to read the entire bible.  And, many of them pick and choose specific parts to follow and completely ignore other parts.  And, they have their favorite verses, and things they identify with, etc, etc.  In that, its not unlike atheism's relationship to its most prevalent writers.

Anyway, hopefully this will be the last thing I say on the topic of religion or atheism, on these forums.

I really don't intend to rain on anyone's parade.  So, have at it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Ok, back for a second.
> 
> Christians aren't required to read the entire bible.  And, many of them pick and choose specific parts to follow and completely ignore other parts.  And, they have their favorite verses, and things they identify with, etc, etc.  In that, its not unlike atheism's relationship to its most prevalent writers.
> 
> ...



Bullshit. Christians are required to believe in the godhood of Jesus of Nazareth, the only evidence for which can be found in the bible. So on some level christians must believe in the bible.

For atheism there's nothing even close to that.


----------



## Nodonn (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi must be a poe.
This much stupidity in one person should be lethal.


----------



## Xion (Oct 13, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> The god of some desert tribe is hardly science. How could he be science if he's not even scientific?



Woah.

How can you call that logic if it's not even logical?

How can you call that juice if it's not even juicy?

How can you call that dirt if it's not even dirty?

You get the point.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Dawkins doesn't take a scientific approach in his attempts to rationalize religion.  He takes more of a political approach in my opinion.  He chooses his ground, carefully.  He doesn't cover all the issues and ignore the ones which have the potential to make him and his beliefs look bad.
> 
> I think he's more of a politician than a scientist as far as religion or atheism go.



My post was not addressing Dawkin's position on Religion it was about his position on God's existence. Most notably how he does not hold the position that "God does not exist"


----------



## Botzu (Oct 13, 2009)

> 1. Mr. atheist is a happy man.
> 2. Mr. atheist eventually becomes bitter about religion. He begins to blame religion and religious people for everything that is wrong in the world.
> 3. Mr. atheist decides this world would be a better place without religious people. He decides that anything bad that happens to religion or religious people is good for the world in general.
> 4. Mr. atheist follows through. He starts out with some minor arson. Graffiti on churches, maybe a few small fires.
> ...


Neither of those are logical paths -.-. You failed your example right from the start, where you say that "x is an atheist" and then 2 is "x is now bitter about religion" that does not logically follow. The second one doesn't even try, height of knowledge? It does not follow from "I don't believe in god" to "atheism is the heght of knowledge and now I want to spread it around the world"
Here let me give you an example of a logical path

1. Bob is a christian.
2. Because Bob is a christian he believes in the inerrancy of the bible
3. Because Bob believes in the inerrancy of the bible he believes the verses are accurate, truthful and free of error.
4. Because the bible says that disobedient children should be taken to the edge of town and stoned, bob believes this is also truthful and free of error, due to the bibles inerrancy.

Edit: to add I realize that not all Christians believe the bible is inerrant, replace christian with bible literalist, or any sect that holds doctrine proclaiming the inerrancy of the bible. It was just an example


----------



## LoboFTW (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Instead of a bible, you have books written by Dawkins and others.    I don't think it would be too hard to find something written in one of those books that could be used to justify violence...
> 
> I'm not sure the term atheistic religion can be considered a legitimate one.
> 
> ...



You are adding extra things to atheism. It is simply the lack of a belief in God. It is not any of these other things you add to it. Atheism has no dogma with which to justify any action at all. No action can be justified by "There is no God".


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I'm not sure the term atheistic religion can be considered a legitimate one.



An atheistic religion is any religion that does not require a believe in God, an example would be Buddhism



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> If you're referring to something like buddhism, then it can be said some branches of buddhism believe in things like reincarnation which is a supernatural concept which may be difficult to reconcile with atheism which in many cases takes the position that the supernatural does not exist.



You are confusing atheism with naturalism.
An Atheist is anyone who does not hold to the position that God exists, nothing more nothing less.

One is not required to believe only in the natural to be an atheist.




1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Atheistic religion is a difficult concept to consider..



Not really.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Atheistic religion is a difficult concept to consider..



Athestic religion is religion that doesn't include a deity. 

Atheism doesn't necessarily reject the notion of all supernaturalism. Modern atheism, which is rooted in naturalism and scientific method, usually does. In the classical world atheism simply meant no belief in god or gods. Buddhism in many of its forms is an atheist religion.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 13, 2009)

Xion said:


> Woah.
> 
> How can you call that logic if it's not even logical?
> 
> ...



Logic is logical, juice is juicy, dirt is dirty. God is unscientific, therefore he cannot be science.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 13, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Anyway, hopefully this will be the last thing I say on the topic of religion or atheism, on these forums.



Any viewpoint worth having is worth defending till the day you die.


----------



## Fuzzly (Oct 13, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> Any viewpoint worth having is worth defending till the day you die.



That statement kinda loses it's "oomph" when you consider the battleground is an internet forum.


----------



## Taco (Oct 13, 2009)

Botzu said:


> I know it has been said many times before, but you can't get to burning down churches from atheism. Atheism offers no rules/morals/codes to live by/etc, as it is just a lack of belief in god or a belief that gods don't exist...I don't care about arguing definitions here. You can't get from "I don't believe in gods" to  "therefore I will commit x atrocity" without something other than atheism. I wish this argument would just die. If you really think that you can, I challenge you to show the logical path from atheism to burning down churches.



And I challenge you (or other atheists with the belief) to prove that Islam or Christianity or whatever religion you want to blame is the source of xyz problems in the world (terrorism, for example).

Atheists do it in the name of not believing in a god and the thought religions are silly. Religious folks supposedly do it in the name of their god/God, too. So where's the difference?



Fuzzly said:


> That statement kinda loses it's "oomph" when you consider the battleground is an internet forum.



Internet or not, it's a war, man!!!!!!


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 13, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> And I challenge you (or other atheists with the belief) to prove that Islam or Christianity or whatever religion you want to blame is the source of xyz problems in the world (terrorism, for example).
> 
> Atheists do it in the name of not believing in a god and the thought religions are silly. Religious folks supposedly do it in the name of their god/God, too. So where's the difference?



However the difference is religions like Islam or Christianity have directly caused violence in the past and continue to cause violence (e.g. The Inquisition or more recently, the fucked up desert otherwise known as The Middle East). Find me a single case of atheism directly causing violence.


----------



## Taco (Oct 13, 2009)

Rob` said:


> However the difference is religions like Islam or Christianity have directly caused violence in the past and continue to cause violence (e.g. The Inquisition or more recently, the fucked up desert otherwise known as The Middle East). Find me a single case of atheism directly causing violence.



Atheism doesn't directly cause violence is what I'm trying to point out, the same way religion doesn't cause violence as well. The problem lies with the extremists of all groups. Saying Christianity is the source of evil in the world is an incorrect statement since Christianity itself promotes NO violence whatsoever, just as atheism doesn't promote violence as well.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 13, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> And I challenge you (or other atheists with the belief) to prove that Islam or Christianity or whatever religion you want to blame is the source of xyz problems in the world (terrorism, for example).
> 
> Atheists do it in the name of not believing in a god and the thought religions are silly. Religious folks supposedly do it in the name of their god/God, too. So where's the difference?
> 
> ...


Your post confuses the hell out of me. 

You are basically saying "Prove to me Christianity is the source of xyz problems"... then the very next line is "Christianity and Atheism are both the source of problems due to their belief or non belief in god, so whats the difference?". 

To your challenge:
Do past events count?

Salem Witch trials


> Since it's start, Christianity has been an embattled faith. Persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire helped to foster an adversarial tone in the religion. This quality was instilled into early theology, and it remains to this day. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Devil was most often called by the biblical name "Satan," which actually means "the adversary," (Levack, 27). Although Satan played little role in the Old Testament, he takes up a prominent role in the New Testament, tempting people and leading them away from Christ. There was seen to exist a great struggle between the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of Satan, each attempting to gain control of men's souls.
> 
> Christianity demonised the gods of other religions, particularly those of converts. In fact, attributes of many pagan deities were used to describe the Devil. The process by which an old local deity was caricatured as evil had been a common result of the combining of cultures since ancient times (Murray, 15). Both Roman and Celtic deities were thus incorporated into the Christian Devil's identity. *Accordingly, people were taught to fear and loathe pagan deities and their remaining adherents. Fertility gods were particularly recognised as demonic, including Pan (Roman) and Cernunnos (Celtic)-who gave the Devil his often goat-like appearance-and Diana (Roman), from whom Satan was sometimes described as having a woman's breasts (Levack, 28). These details were often described in the confessions of accused witches, probably at the prompting of the inquisitor.*
> 
> ...


On second thought  just read the whole thing here, I am tired of reading through it and copy pasting.
Oh lol, a name change right before debut


> The witch trials in Early Modern Europe came in waves and then subsided. There were trials in the 15th and early 16th centuries, but then the witch scare went into decline, before becoming a big issue again and peaking in the 17th century. Some scholars argue that a fear of witchcraft started among intellectuals who believed in maleficium: that is, harm committed by magic. What had previously been a belief that some people possessed supernatural abilities (which were sometimes used to protect the people) now became a sign of a pact between the people with supernatural abilities and the devil. To justify the killings Christianity and its proxy secular institutions deemed witchcraft as being associated to wild Satanic ritual parties in which there was much naked dancing, orgy sex, and cannibalistic infanticide.


Oh lol, a name change right before debut

I would bring up the Crusades too but I think this is enough.


----------



## Taco (Oct 13, 2009)

You missed the whole point of my post.

Christianity doesn't encourage people to burn witches at the stake or force people through violence to convert.



Forbidden Truth said:


> The problem lies with the extremists of all groups.



What part of that do you find confusing?


----------



## Botzu (Oct 13, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> You missed the whole point of my post.
> *
> Christianity doesn't encourage people to burn witches at the stake or force people through violence to convert.
> *
> ...





> The Bible contains many passages exhibiting intolerance towards other religions, and almost no passages which actively promote inter-religious tolerance. Wicca is certainly a religion that is very different from Judaism and Christianity. Wicca, as well as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Native Spirituality, Taoism, and hundreds of other religions are thus equally condemned by many verses in the Bible.


Questions Raikage

My point is that unlike atheism, christianity has dogma which can be used to justify these actions. In Exodus 22:17 "You shall not suffer a witch to live". They used the bible to justify burning the people to death.

To the bold part I specifically cited a verse that says to kill witches, I hope you can see that you are mistaken here.


----------



## Taco (Oct 13, 2009)

Botzu said:


> Questions Raikage
> 
> My point is that unlike atheism, christianity has dogma which can be used to justify these actions. In Exodus 22:17 "You shall not suffer a witch to live". They used the bible to justify burning the people to death.



From the same page,



> The term "witchcraft" in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) refers to (mostly) women who used spoken curses to injure other people or destroy their property.



Yes, because women trying to inflict harm onto others through the use of what they believed to be demonic chants should be allowed to live.

Do you honestly think society in general would let someone like this be alive?

Also from the same page,



> The term, "witchcraft" in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) refers to murderers who use poisons to kill people.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 13, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> From the same page,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will leave it at that, a defense of the murdering of women and children.


----------



## Taco (Oct 13, 2009)

Botzu said:


> I will leave it at that, a defense of the murdering of women and children.



Do you not understand the fact that highly superstitious people living at this time aren't going to want someone CURSING them and wishing for harm upon them to be alive? 

If you can't understand that, then debating is useless.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 14, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Do you not understand the fact that highly superstitious people living at this time aren't going to want someone CURSING them and wishing for harm upon them to be alive?
> 
> If you can't understand that, then debating is useless.



I can't think of atheism justifying murder, you here clearly justify it with christianity.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 14, 2009)

Fuzzly said:


> That statement kinda loses it's "oomph" when you consider the battleground is an internet forum.



No it doesn't. Why would it? The internet is probably the most effective means of spreading ideas and of debating in the modern world.


----------



## Xion (Oct 14, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Logic is logical, juice is juicy, dirt is dirty. God is unscientific, therefore he cannot be science.



I wouldn't refer to anything (except the definition) as "science" per se, I would define things as being within a scientific set, but I wouldn't call them science.

Wasn't criticizing your argument, just the presentation.

I give it a C-.



Botzu said:


> I will leave it at that, a defense of the murdering of women and children.



a.) Simplification of argument. Check.

b.) Appeal to emotion. Check.



Pilaf said:


> No it doesn't. Why would it? The internet is probably the most effective means of spreading ideas and of debating in the modern world.



True.

But inflexible ideas are a trademark of the ignorant. Those that are open-minded and are bold enough to change their opinions when new, unknown, or better evidence comes to light are the real heroes. Not those who don't change them.


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 14, 2009)

Xion said:


> But inflexible ideas are a trademark of the ignorant. Those that are open-minded and are bold enough to change their opinions when new, unknown, or better evidence comes to light are the real heroes. Not those who don't change them.



I'm pretty sure my ideas are more flexible and based on better evidence than people who adhere to religious dogma.


----------



## Adonis (Oct 14, 2009)

Xion said:


> But inflexible ideas are a trademark of the ignorant. Those that are open-minded and are bold enough to change their opinions when new, unknown, or better evidence comes to light are the real heroes. Not those who don't change them.



True, but this assumes that people who don't "change their mind" are being stubborn as opposed to simply having never been met with a better claim. Not to beat this parallel dead, but I've been consistently atoothfairyist since I was 6. I've held this view strongly. Does that make me close-minded?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Oct 14, 2009)

Hinako said:


> I will now mindfuck the atheists with this statement: God is science.



No it's not, God is a huge contradiction to science. I remain un-mindfucked.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Oct 14, 2009)

I don't understand how an entity can be science. I mean apes definetely exist but I wouldn't call them science. I would definetely call a scientific theory or hypothesis science but I don't think those are really entities...

Or is he saying that science is god? (which sounds suspiciously like pantheism)


----------



## LoboFTW (Oct 14, 2009)

Adonis said:


> True, but this assumes that people who don't "change their mind" are being stubborn as opposed to simply having never been met with a better claim. Not to beat this parallel dead, but I've been consistently atoothfairyist since I was 6. I've held this view strongly. Does that make me close-minded?
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/YOUTUBE]



Thanks for posting that vid, it is very informative. I find it very frustrating when people commit such fallacies.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 14, 2009)

Xion said:


> a.) Simplification of argument. Check.
> 
> b.) Appeal to emotion. Check.


I'm fine with using an appeal to emotion. If it shocks somebody to realize how bad the argument they are making is. 

Honestly, lets just assume that FT was correct and that the women(every single one of them) who died in the witch trials all believed that they were demon chanting in order to inflict harm on other people(they idea that every women who died was demon chanting is stupid and preposterous). It would still be wrong to burn even one of them alive. Add to that the fact that surely many of them were not trying to demon enchant harm onto others.


----------



## perman07 (Oct 14, 2009)

Adonis said:


> True, but this assumes that people who don't "change their mind" are being stubborn as opposed to simply having never been met with a better claim. Not to beat this parallel dead, but I've been consistently atoothfairyist since I was 6. I've held this view strongly. Does that make me close-minded?
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/YOUTUBE]


Wow, that is one of the best youtube-videos I've ever seen..


----------



## Xion (Oct 14, 2009)

Adonis said:


> True, but this assumes that people who don't "change their mind" are being stubborn as opposed to simply having never been met with a better claim. Not to beat this parallel dead, but I've been consistently atoothfairyist since I was 6. I've held this view strongly. Does that make me close-minded?



Well my analysis included the point you made with the reference to better ideas and more evidence, correct?


----------



## Adonis (Oct 14, 2009)

Xion said:


> Well my analysis included the point you made with the reference to better ideas and more evidence, correct?



Yes, but your claim that heroes are those who change their minds doesn't leave open the possibility that people never took on demonstrably false beliefs in the first place. Making the act of changing one's mind the stipulation for admiration precludes this possibility.


----------



## Xion (Oct 14, 2009)

Adonis said:


> Yes, but your claim that heroes are those who change their minds doesn't leave open the possibility that people never took on demonstrably false beliefs in the first place. Making the act of changing one's mind the stipulation for admiration precludes this possibility.



I implied those who do so when presented with such evidence as opposed to those who don't when they are not.

Though of course, one man's evidence is another man's toilet paper.


----------



## Draffut (Oct 14, 2009)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Atheists do it in the name of not believing in a god and the thought religions are silly.



evidence please


----------



## Watchman (Oct 14, 2009)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> evidence please



This is Forbidden Truth you're talking with - it has no evidence, just trolling.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 14, 2009)

Watchman said:


> This is Forbidden Truth you're talking with - it has no evidence, just bitching



Fixed for greater accuracy


----------



## EJ (Oct 14, 2009)

perman07 said:


> Wow, that is one of the best youtube-videos I've ever seen..



I was surprised I watched the whole thing, interested start to finish.

Favorites/


----------



## Fuzzly (Oct 14, 2009)

Pilaf said:


> No it doesn't. Why would it? The internet is probably the most effective means of spreading ideas and of debating in the modern world.



Note I said internet forum, not internet. You have to pick and choose your battles. Which do you think has more tangible impact, the debate on a particular topic on Narutoforums, or the  U.S. supreme court? 

Posting on a forum isn't something I do often. There's only one other forum I regularly participate on, because it's a small group and I respect the intelligence of most of the posters. Here, I can't possibly know everybody, so unless their mental firepower is obvious from a few posts I may read in a thread, I have no assurance that it's worth my time. 

I mean, isn't this whole thread an example of why Dawkins doesn't want to debate? Nobody is going to change their mind, and half the time the Christians seem to be having a different argument. I mean, they don't even care if it makes sense, they just repeat it over and over again as if it did. This argument usually devolves into "atheists Vs Christians" as well, which is irritating from my perspective, since I consider myself a Christian, and tell everyone I can that Evolution is not a religious matter.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Yes but Mr. Atheist still also has to contend with the man-made entity known as *the law*.  Should his crimes be offensive enough, he will be wiped from existence and thus that will be the motivation to stay in line.  An eternity of nothingness sounds pretty harsh when you actually think about it.  Even atheists fear death.



Religious people contend with the law.  They even fear death.  How are atheists different, exactly?



Saufsoldat said:


> Bullshit. Christians are required to believe in the godhood of Jesus of Nazareth, the only evidence for which can be found in the bible. So on some level christians must believe in the bible.
> 
> For atheism there's nothing even close to that.



Sure, there is.  

When you say "for atheism there's nothing even close to that" try backing it up with facts, please.  If you can.



Nodonn said:


> 1mmortal 1tachi must be a poe.
> This much stupidity in one person should be lethal.



So say'eth the man who lacking a legitimate counter-argument resorts to kindergarden name calling to compensate for the lack of a brain.



Sarutobi sasuke said:


> My post was not addressing Dawkin's position on Religion it was about his position on God's existence. Most notably how he does not hold the position that "God does not exist"



When someone says "those who believe in God do so out of delusion" one might think otherwise.



Botzu said:


> Neither of those are logical paths -.-. You failed your example right from the start, where you say that "x is an atheist" and then 2 is "x is now bitter about religion" that does not logically follow. The second one doesn't even try, height of knowledge? It does not follow from "I don't believe in god" to "atheism is the heght of knowledge and now I want to spread it around the world"
> Here let me give you an example of a logical path



First, atheism isn't defined as a lack of belief in God.  Its defined as believing God does not exist.  I challenge you to show otherwise.

Second, it does logically follow.  Atheism is a minority, and its common for minorities to feel hostility towards or oppressed towards majorities and religion is a majority.

The issue here is, you actually buy into the propaganda that says being an atheist spontaneously makes you more "logical" or "scientific" than people who are not atheists.  Therefore, you actually do think that being an atheist means you will win every single argument that comes up against atheism.

So, what we have is the religious equivalent of people who think that because they're from the "west side" they are inherently better than people from "east side" and vice versa.



Botzu said:


> 1. Bob is a christian.
> 2. Because Bob is a christian he believes in the inerrancy of the bible
> 3. Because Bob believes in the inerrancy of the bible he believes the verses are accurate, truthful and free of error.
> 4. Because the bible says that disobedient children should be taken to the edge of town and stoned, bob believes this is also truthful and free of error, due to the bibles inerrancy.
> ...



1.  Where in the bible does it say children should be "stoned"?



LoboFTW said:


> You are adding extra things to atheism. It is simply the lack of a belief in God. It is not any of these other things you add to it. Atheism has no dogma with which to justify any action at all. No action can be justified by "There is no God".



Atheism is dogma.

3 options:

Positive (Belief in God)
Negative (Belief God doesn't exist)
Neutral (Lack of belief in the existence of non-existence of a God)

Neutral or lack of belief in God is typically associated with agnosticism.  

Atheism is typically associated with a belief God does not exist.

Basically if you claim a lack of belief in God, you cannot infer that God does not exist.  Its simple logic, but amazing how many people abuse it for the sake of substantiating their own prejudices against religion.



Sarutobi sasuke said:


> An atheistic religion is any religion that does not require a believe in God, an example would be Buddhism
> 
> You are confusing atheism with naturalism.
> An Atheist is anyone who does not hold to the position that God exists, nothing more nothing less.
> ...



There's a huge difference between saying you don't believe in the existence of God, and saying you don't believe God exists.

Its difficult to group atheists together as a whole and generalize because like religious people they all do not agree.

But, a good number of them do not believe in the superantural.  Therefore its not illogical or inherently incorrect to suggest that things like buddhism cannot be reconciled with atheism.



Pilaf said:


> Athestic religion is religion that doesn't include a deity.
> 
> Atheism doesn't necessarily reject the notion of all supernaturalism. Modern atheism, which is rooted in naturalism and scientific method, usually does. In the classical world atheism simply meant no belief in god or gods. Buddhism in many of its forms is an atheist religion.



Atheism is judged on the behavior and deeds of atheists, moreso then the wannabe official sounding rhetoric you guys like to toss around as if it actually meant something.

Therefore, when atheists commonly make fun of "zombie jesus" and UFO's and people who have beliefs different than your own, then I think what you'll find is that no one will take you seriously when you say things like this.

And, that is why I will not take you seriously, now.



Pilaf said:


> Any viewpoint worth having is worth defending till the day you die.



Heh.  Defense from what, exactly?


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Botzu said:


> Salem Witch trials
> 
> On second thought  just read the whole thing here, I am tired of reading through it and copy pasting.
> Here's a website about HOW to make your pubes into a design.
> ...



The typical counter-argument to this is to point out that Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were all atheists.  

Your problem is you actually buy into the mind numbing, brain washing prejudice that says "only religious people can be immoral and or commit atrocious deeds".

History says otherwise.



Forbidden Truth said:


> You missed the whole point of my post.



Of course he did, he's an atheist who like many atheists believe they are the only source of logic and science in this world.  How ironic that many of them fail to utilize even the base fundamentals of either thing they profess to be a source of.



Saufsoldat said:


> I can't think of atheism justifying murder, you here clearly justify it with christianity.



How do you justify murder with a religion for which one of its main precepts are "thou shalt not kill"?

Atheism lacking a defined moral code may very well be more susceptible to immorality considering its believers have no explicitly defined code of conduct upon which they can be judged.

Anyway, if you guys would stop replying to my posts, I can stop pointing out the numerous contradictions and inaccuracies in your posts.

Thanks.


----------



## Hwon (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> First, atheism isn't defined as a lack of belief in God.  Its defined as believing God does not exist.  I challenge you to show otherwise.



*"Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities."
​* First link on google... truly challenging.  



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Second, it does logically follow.  Atheism is a minority, and its common for minorities to feel hostility towards or oppressed towards majorities and religion is a majority.



*"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was derogatorily applied to anyone thought to not believe in the accepted gods, or to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions."*
*​*
It's also common for minorities to feel oppressed or hostility towards majority groups that were oppressive and hostile.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The issue here is, you actually buy into the propaganda that says being an atheist spontaneously makes you more "logical" or "scientific" than people who are not atheists.  Therefore, you actually do think that being an atheist means you will win every single argument that comes up against atheism.
> 
> So, what we have is the religious equivalent of people who think that because they're from the "west side" they are inherently better than people from "east side" and vice versa.



No, but it's interesting that you think so.  One has to wonder if that's what religion does for you and that you just can't see atheism for what it is.  



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Atheism is dogma.
> 
> 3 options:
> 
> ...



*"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."*
*-Wiki*​
3 options doesn't seem that established to me.  Even if it was the dogma would only contain the defining belief about God and nothing else.  



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Neutral or lack of belief in God is typically associated with agnosticism.


*
"Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist."
​ *

Wrong again.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Basically if you claim a lack of belief in God, you cannot infer that God does not exist.  Its simple logic, but amazing how many people abuse it for the sake of substantiating their own prejudices against religion.



Finally, you actually made some sense.  An atheist cannot hide behind the lack of belief in God while making an existential claim about God.  Of course the reason its illogical to do so is because when making a claim one has to provide evidence, which makes inferring that God exists without doing the same just as illogical.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 15, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Botzu  View Post
> 1. Bob is a christian.
> 2. Because Bob is a christian he believes in the inerrancy of the bible
> 3. Because Bob believes in the inerrancy of the bible he believes the verses are accurate, truthful and free of error.
> ...





> 1. *Where in the bible does it say children should be "stoned"*?





> Deuteronomy:
> 21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, 37   21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city. 21:20 They must declare to the elders 38  of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.” 21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out 39  wickedness from among you, and all Israel 40  will hear about it and be afraid.


ninja world

I am going to have to ask you guys to start conceding your points or we are not going to get anywhere. I would like to see you concede the point that the bible, in the case of disobedient children, in fact states that they are to be stoned.



> First, atheism isn't defined as a lack of belief in God. Its defined as believing God does not exist. I challenge you to show otherwise.
> 
> Second, it does logically follow. Atheism is a minority, and its common for minorities to feel hostility towards or oppressed towards majorities and religion is a majority


1. doesn't matter I don't think you can get to an atrocity from either definition.
2. Back your claim up, that being a member of a minority causes you to feel hostility.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Hwon said:


> *"Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities."
> ​* First link on google... truly challenging.



Heh, that definition should be disputed, because it is illogical.

Its the equivalent of a theist saying -- "Its not so much that I believe in God, so much as I have no belief in the non-existence of a God".

Maybe in 5 years, if you manage to develop some common sense by then, you'll understand what I'm talking about.



Hwon said:


> *"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was derogatorily applied to anyone thought to not believe in the accepted gods, or to believe in false gods, no gods, or doctrines that stood in conflict with established religions."*
> *​*
> It's also common for minorities to feel oppressed or hostility towards majority groups that were oppressive and hostile.



And?



Hwon said:


> No, but it's interesting that you think so.  One has to wonder if that's what religion does for you and that you just can't see atheism for what it is.



I think of the two of us, you are the one who is blind.  

But, let's say you dislike religion.  And, one of the reasons you dislike religion is that religious people have the audacity to think they are the only source of morality in this world.

So, what do you do, you go and believe in a doctrine that says atheists are the only source of logic and science in the world.  And, now we have a number of people who know nothing about either logic or science who think that being an atheist will somehow cause them to spontaneously inherit either quality.

Double fail.

But, that wasn't enough, apparently.  Atheists had to go and convince themselves that what they were doing was actually "different" from what the religious people they disliked, were doing.

Triple fail.  



Hwon said:


> *"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."*
> *-Wiki*​
> 3 options doesn't seem that established to me.  Even if it was the dogma would only contain the defining belief about God and nothing else.



Heh:

1.  A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
*2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: *

*-Wiki*



Hwon said:


> *
> "Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims ? particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality ? are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist."
> ​ *
> 
> Wrong again.



Wrong how.  It makes perfect sense to take a neutral position in instances where the end result is inherently unknowable, doesn't it.

Even if the entry says nothing explicitly, it is inferred.



Hwon said:


> Finally, you actually made some sense.  An atheist cannot hide behind the lack of belief in God while making an existential claim about God.  Of course the reason its illogical to do so is because when making a claim one has to provide evidence, which makes inferring that God exists without doing the same just as illogical.



The problem is, that on an official level atheists pretend to adhere to the concept that they merely have a "lack of belief in a deity".

But, in the real world, the vast majority of atheists take the position that there is no deity.  So, not only do you manage to contradict yourselves and go against the very things you claim believe in, but also you resort to petty political maneuvering and cheapshot tactics in a vain effort to validate your position.

Prove that we aren't all in the matrix, and I'll prove that God exists. 

Deal?



Botzu said:


> *-Wiki*
> 
> I am going to have to ask you guys to start conceding your points or we are not going to get anywhere. I would like to see you concede the point that the bible, in the case of disobedient children, in fact states that they are to be stoned.



Good find.

But, it doesn't even matter.  You're attempting to judge laws that existed thousands of years ago based on the laws of the present.

Basically, you're out of context.  



Botzu said:


> 1. doesn't matter I don't think you can get to an atrocity from either definition.



Why not?



Botzu said:


> 2. Back your claim up, that being a member of a minority causes you to feel hostility.



That's not how it works.  Either you agree with my claim, or you provide a counter claim for why you think its false.  I'm not required to prove things like sociological nor cultural observations nor interpretations based on data, empirically.


----------



## Botzu (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Good find.
> 
> But, it doesn't even matter.  You're attempting to judge laws that existed thousands of years ago based on the laws of the present.
> 
> Basically, you're out of context.


My point was that the bible says to stone disobedient children. Will you concede that point before we move on? Say it is old and no longer applies today, but at least concede that the bible says to stone disobedient children.



> Why not?


Because Atheism in and of itself doesn't tell you what to do based on that belief. I would say you can't get from Theism to any atrocity either. Its only when you get down to sub categories of atheism and theism(such as Buddhism and Christianity) where you can justify actions based on the dogma, tenets, rules and holy books.



> That's not how it works.  Either you agree with my claim, or you provide a counter claim for why you think its false.  I'm not required to prove things like sociological nor cultural observations nor interpretations based on data, empirically.


How am I supposed to respond to your claim before you back it up? I don't know whether it is true because you did not give me any source to verify it.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Botzu said:


> My point was that the bible says to stone disobedient children. Will you concede that point before we move on? Say it is old and no longer applies today, but at least concede that the bible says to stone disobedient children.



I'll concede the point that the law applied to an era of history.

Whether or not it applies within the present, however, is a different story.

I would like to remind you - fundamentalists are criticized for attempting to interpret their religion literally.  And, if you attempt to interpret it literally as to say it applies to present day society, just because, no brainer, you'll be not much different from a fundamentalist, yourself.



Botzu said:


> Because the belief that god does not exist tells you nothing about how you should act based on that belief. I would say you can't get from Theism to any atrocity either. Its only when you get down to sub categories of atheism and theism(such as Buddhism and Christianity) where you can justify actions based on the dogma, tenets, rules and holy books.



Yeah, it really may be up to the individual.  I guess such things would probably be considered more "contributing factors" or something. 

Maybe it has to do with common or shared belief.  A majority of people who believe in the same thing makes it easy to unite them in a common cause.  Whether the cause is violence or something humanitarian, it is the most likely appeal that would be made in an effort to influence the masses..  blahbity blah blah



Botzu said:


> How am I supposed to respond to your claim before you back it up? I don't know whether it is true because you did not give me any source to verify it.



My "claim" is an opinion or an interpretation.  Its not necessarily intended to be something etched in stone.  Human behavior is hardly uniform and generalizing is difficult at best, much less actually attempting to prove such things occur with any specific frequency.

I would say that people don't need a reason for violence or war.  Therefore anything and everything can be used as a "reason" for violence.  Its just a matter of what is considered culturally or socially acceptable and what people think they can get away with that determines which "reasons" are more or less popular than others.

But, you wanted a specific type of causal arrangement, so I tried to give you one.  I don't think its too farfetched..


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Sure, there is.
> 
> When you say "for atheism there's nothing even close to that" try backing it up with facts, please.  If you can.



The only requirement for being an atheist is absence of belief in any form of gods. Please, try to write a book about that. Besides, the burden of proof is still on you. Richard Dawkins could hardly have written any sort of atheist bible, since he's only been alive since the 20th century, about 200,000 years late for defining atheism.



> How do you justify murder with a religion for which one of its main precepts are "thou shalt not kill"?
> 
> Atheism lacking a defined moral code may very well be more susceptible to immorality considering its believers have no explicitly defined code of conduct upon which they can be judged.
> 
> ...



Oh yes, we've seen that work out perfectly. Because atheists aren't minorities in prisons. And because more atheist countries don't have lower crime rates than religious countries.

Riiiiiight.

And of course atheists have a defines code of conduct. If you've never heard of the law, you might want to get yourself checked. The law is much more clear about not killing than the bible is, by the way.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> The only requirement for being an atheist is absence of belief in any form of gods. Please, try to write a book about that. Besides, the burden of proof is still on you. Richard Dawkins could hardly have written any sort of atheist bible, since he's only been alive since the 20th century, about 200,000 years late for defining atheism.



Heh.

If you're belief is an absence of belief in God.

My belief is an absence of belief in the non-existence of God.

Considering many "religious people" do not even their bible, Dawkins may be 10 times more influential then any holy book, considering there are atheists who actually do bother to read the things he writes.



Saufsoldat said:


> Oh yes, we've seen that work out perfectly. Because atheists aren't minorities in prisons. And because more atheist countries don't have lower crime rates than religious countries.
> 
> Riiiiiight.
> 
> And of course atheists have a defines code of conduct. If you've never heard of the law, you might want to get yourself checked. The law is much more clear about not killing than the bible is, by the way.



And, the majority of prison inmates admit to having smoked marijuana at some point in their life.

Are you going to tell me next, that marijuana leads to crime?

And, why would you create such a double standard?


----------



## perman07 (Oct 15, 2009)

@Imortal Itachi:
You are just plain wrong about the definition of an atheist. I was surprised to when I heard that "lack of belief" was actually part of the definition, but it makes sense when you think about it. Atheists are commonly sceptics who require proof to believe in something, we don't have beliefs in God because we haven't gotten any reason to do so. We haven't gotten any reason to believe he doesn't exist either, but since the same can be said about tooth fairies and goblins, the default position with God as well as with tooth fairies and goblins is a lack of belief.

When something is a-anything, lingually that essentially is a negation, so lingually it makes perfect sense that an atheist is a non-theist, even if it doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions.

What you should be focusing on is whether someone is a weak or a strong atheist. The definition for those 2 is that weak atheists have a lack of belief in God, while strong atheists have an active disbelief in God. It doesn't really matter which one you are IMO, either way you don't believe in God.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Heh.
> 
> If you're belief is an absence of belief in God.
> 
> My belief is an absence of belief in the non-existence of God.



Sure, like my belief in the absence of the easter bunny, santa clause and the tooth fairy...



> Considering many "religious people" do not even their bible, Dawkins may be 10 times more influential then any holy book, considering there are atheists who actually do bother to read the things he writes.



That still doesn't make it anything like dogma for atheists, because there's still no requirement for any atheist to agree with it, to read it or even to know it. You can be atheist even without ever having read a single book in your life, without ever having talked to another human being. On the other hand, you cannot possibly be a christian without having heard of of the bible.



> And, the majority of prison inmates admit to having smoked marijuana at some point in their life.
> 
> Are you going to tell me next, that marijuana leads to crime?



No, I didn't even say that religiousness leads to crime. Just that it doesn't prevent crimes.



> And, why would you create such a double standard?



What double standard?


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

perman07 said:


> @Imortal Itachi:
> You are just plain wrong about the definition of an atheist. I was surprised to when I heard that "lack of belief" was actually part of the definition, but it makes sense when you think about it. Atheists are commonly sceptics who require proof to believe in something, we don't have beliefs in God because we haven't gotten any reason to do so. We haven't gotten any reason to believe he doesn't exist either, but since the same can be said about tooth fairies and goblins, the default position with God as well as with tooth fairies and goblins is a lack of belief.
> 
> When something is a-anything, lingually that essentially is a negation, so lingually it makes perfect sense that an atheist is a non-theist, even if it doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions.
> ...



LOL  Who do you think you're fooling?

I swear, you guys get all self-righteous and serious when it comes down to this type of debate.

But, the second things de-volve into normal conversation, you guys are all...  hurrr, zombie Jesus..  hurr.  Thinking that you can justify your dislike for religion and belief that God does not exist by utilizing cheap tricks.

Hurr.



Saufsoldat said:


> Sure, like my belief in the absence of the easter bunny, santa clause and the tooth fairy...



Heh.  I don't think either the easter bunny, santa claus or the tooth fairy have thousand year old texts written about them.  Nor, do I think that either of those entities you mentioned have made prophecies which came close to being true, nor have managed to create their own religions.  Good try, though.



Saufsoldat said:


> That still doesn't make it anything like dogma for atheists, because there's still no requirement for any atheist to agree with it, to read it or even to know it. You can be atheist even without ever having read a single book in your life, without ever having talked to another human being. On the other hand, you cannot possibly be a christian without having heard of of the bible.



Likewise, there's no requirement for religious people to do any of those things, either.  How do you think it is that religious people come up this "God is love" stuff?  In some ways it represents a severe dumbing down of beliefs for people who are unwilling to take the time to study them properly.



Saufsoldat said:


> No, I didn't even say that religiousness leads to crime. Just that it doesn't prevent crimes.



Haven't you heard religious people talk about how many people they would assault, maim and possibly kill if they didn't believe in a religion?  

What's your take on that?



Saufsoldat said:


> What double standard?



Exactly.  Which out of a million possible double standards am I referring to?

Maybe this one?:

-Marilyn Manson isn't a bad influence on the youth of america.
-Violent movies and video games aren't a bad influence on the youth of america.
-Neither pornography nor sex in movies or tv are a bad influence on the youth of america.

Yet, according to atheists religion IS a bad influence on the youth of america.

Double standard, much?

Anyway, I know there are a lot of double standards that could be applied to anyone on earth--including atheists.  But, the one I was referring to was the double standard where atheists criticize the prison population for having admitted to being baptized or stepping in a church at some point in their lives...  While, completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the prison population has admitted to using marijuana at some point in their life.

So, basically, you're blaming religion and exonerating marijuana even though both have the very same precedent and alleged statistical correlation among prison in-mates.  Hardly the type of behavior I would expect from a "scientific" and "logical" group of people.

Of course, this saying nothing in regard to how strongly correlated things like drugs or religious beliefs can be tied to crime -- which possibly makes it even worse for those who attempt to correlate religion and criminal activity.

But, suffice it to say that in a region where the majority of the population per capita is of a specific religious demographic, it would not be uncommon for the majority of a prison population or otherwise to likewise follow this trend.

So, are atheists thinking logically or even objectively about these issues or are they merely looking for cheap ways in which to validate their prejudices or dislike/hatred of groups with differing beliefs?

Cases can be made.

Likewise, in these types of "discussions" I think that you'll find I might as well be made of rock, while you people might as well be made of glass.  What do you think happens when concrete meets glass in a head on collision?

I think you'd best stop replying to my posts, so I can go back to ignoring the atheist and religious issues.  

And, you can go back to pretending you're *better* than people with differing points of view and think that anyone who doesn't think like you is a "insert deprecatory term* here.

What do you say?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 15, 2009)

If you guys didn't have a reason to put Immortal Itachi on the ignore list,you have one now


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Heh.  I don't think either the easter bunny, santa claus or the tooth fairy have thousand year old texts written about them.  Nor, do I think that either of those entities you mentioned have made prophecies which came close to being true, nor have managed to create their own religions.  Good try, though.



For every prophecy which came "close to true" there are two that were just plain wrong. Besides, having texts written about it proves nothing unless you think that there is a wizard school called hogwarts because it was written down. Jedi have their own religion, yet we know that the force is purely fiction.

There are dozens of Greek, Roman and Norse gods which fulfill all these requirements, yet you don't believe in them.



> Likewise, there's no requirement for religious people to do any of those things, either.  How do you think it is that religious people come up this "God is love" stuff?  In some ways it represents a severe dumbing down of beliefs for people who are unwilling to take the time to study them properly.



 You are - again - treating atheism like it is the opposite of religion. Christianity for example is dogmatic and it requires you to have heard about the bible. Every religion requires you to believe something that you have heard from someone else. Sometimes in written form, like in the Torah or the Koran, sometimes through childhood indoctrination from your parents, sometimes through missionaries or whatever. The point is that you cannot come up with religion on your own. It requires some form of doctrine, which atheism doesn't require.



> Haven't you heard religious people talk about how many people they would assault, maim and possibly kill if they didn't believe in a religion?
> 
> What's your take on that?



If they are serious (which they of course aren't) that would mean they are criminally insane people who should be put in some mental institution for therapy.



> Exactly.  Which out of a million possible double standards am I referring to?
> 
> Maybe this one?:
> 
> ...



I never claimed the above, so I don't see the double standard.



> Anyway, I know there are a lot of double standards that could be applied to anyone on earth--including atheists.  But, the one I was referring to was the double standard where atheists criticize the prison population for having admitted to being baptized or stepping in a church at some point in their lives...  While, completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the prison population has admitted to using marijuana at some point in their life.
> 
> So, basically, you're blaming religion and exonerating marijuana even though both have the very same precedent and alleged statistical correlation among prison in-mates.  Hardly the type of behavior I would expect from a "scientific" and "logical" group of people.



I don't remember blaming religion for the high religious population in prisons. You'll have to point to the post in which I said that.



> Of course, this saying nothing in regard to how strongly correlated things like drugs or religious beliefs can be tied to crime -- which possibly makes it even worse for those who attempt to correlate religion and criminal activity.
> 
> But, suffice it to say that in a region where the majority of the population per capita is of a specific religious demographic, it would not be uncommon for the majority of a prison population or otherwise to likewise follow this trend.
> 
> ...



I say you've done nothing but misrepresent, generalize and whine here. I don't think I'm better than people with different opinions, I just think that I'm right and more knowledgeable than they are, which is a basic requirement for an opinion. If I didn't think that I was right, what's the point of having your own opinion?


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Diceman said:


> If you guys didn't have a reason to put Immortal Itachi on the ignore list,you have one now



And what reason would that be?  

I like how *some* people pretend to have a monopoly on things like science and logic.

Where's your "science" and "logic" now, mr. I'm gonna hide behind an ignore feature?  



Saufsoldat said:


> For every prophecy which came "close to true" there are two that were just plain wrong. Besides, having texts written about it proves nothing unless you think that there is a wizard school called hogwarts because it was written down. Jedi have their own religion, yet we know that the force is purely fiction.
> 
> There are dozens of Greek, Roman and Norse gods which fulfill all these requirements, yet you don't believe in them.



You're just parroting what you heard on some atheist website, as far as I can tell.  If I ask you which prophecy you're referring to, I would expect you would google it. 



Saufsoldat said:


> You are - again - treating atheism like it is the opposite of religion. Christianity for example is dogmatic and it requires you to have heard about the bible. Every religion requires you to believe something that you have heard from someone else. Sometimes in written form, like in the Torah or the Koran, sometimes through childhood indoctrination from your parents, sometimes through missionaries or whatever. The point is that you cannot come up with religion on your own. It requires some form of doctrine, which atheism doesn't require.



Atheism is dogmatic for the same reasons christianity is considered dogmatic.

And, I don't think atheism is the opposite in religion.  Like I said, I think religious people and atheists are a lot alike.

And, you talk about every religion requiring someone to believe in something they heard from someone else.

Well, that's ok, I have come across many atheists who believe in something because they heard from someone else on an atheist website.

Let's call atheist websites and other such things "doctrine".  That's what it should be called, anyway, considering none of it can be proven.



Saufsoldat said:


> If they are serious (which they of course aren't) that would mean they are criminally insane people who should be put in some mental institution for therapy.



Well, if we all have thoughts about sex and masturbation, maybe we all have thoughts about murder at some point.  In which case it may be rather cruel to simply dub anyone who thinks of such things as 'criminally insane'.



Saufsoldat said:


> I never claimed the above, so I don't see the double standard.



Yes, you did.  And, if you didn't what did you mean in bringing it up?

I think you thought you were making a good argument, and didn't realize you weren't.  Now, you're backpedaling and resorting to weak political maneuvering?  Hmm?



Saufsoldat said:


> I don't remember blaming religion for the high religious population in prisons. You'll have to point to the post in which I said that.



If that's not what you intended to imply, then why did you bring it up?



Saufsoldat said:


> I say you've done nothing but misrepresent, generalize and whine here. I don't think I'm better than people with different opinions, I just think that I'm right and more knowledgeable than they are, which is a basic requirement for an opinion. If I didn't think that I was right, what's the point of having your own opinion?



Pift.

Seriously?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> And what reason would that be?


You being a dolt and a complete waste of time



> I like how *some* people pretend to have a monopoly on things like science and logic.


I don't,and I don't give a darn who does.


> Where's your "science" and "logic" now, mr. I'm gonna hide behind an ignore feature?



Adding you to the ignore list is a completely logical move,unless you're a masochist and like having headaches.It's not much hiding ,it's more like sending your troubles away from you.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Diceman said:


> You being a dolt and a complete waste of time
> 
> I don't,and I don't give a darn who does.
> 
> Adding you to the ignore list is a completely logical move,unless you're a masochist and like having headaches.It's not much hiding ,it's more like sending your troubles away from you.



Ok, Dice.  I don't want to hurt your feelings.  Ignore me, please.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Ok, Dice.  I don't want to hurt your feelings.  Ignore me, please.



Aww,isn't that cute?Thinking you can hurt me


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> You're just parroting what you heard on some atheist website, as far as I can tell.  If I ask you which prophecy you're referring to, I would expect you would google it.



Aren't you quick to judge others? I happen to know that there are wrong prophecies in the bible because I read it. Take for example the prophecy Jesus made that the second coming would happen within the generation of those who witnessed one of his speeches. But yes, I'd probably google the exact verses, so sue me.



> Atheism is dogmatic for the same reasons christianity is considered dogmatic.



A chair is a fruit for the same reason a banana is considered a fruit. Am I making sense, yet? No? Well then I'll just repeat it in every post like you do.



> And, I don't think atheism is the opposite in religion.  Like I said, I think religious people and atheists are a lot alike.



Maybe in an atheistic religion, other than that no.



> And, you talk about every religion requiring someone to believe in something they heard from someone else.
> 
> Well, that's ok, I have come across many atheists who believe in something because they heard from someone else on an atheist website.
> 
> Let's call atheist websites and other such things "doctrine".  That's what it should be called, anyway, considering none of it can be proven.



It hurts my brain to read your posts.

You are - *again* - comparing a requirement for *all* religions to what may be the experience of some atheists, maybe even the majority of atheist, but is still not a requirement for being atheist.



> Well, if we all have thoughts about sex and masturbation, maybe we all have thoughts about murder at some point.  In which case it may be rather cruel to simply dub anyone who thinks of such things as 'criminally insane'.



Having thoughts about something =/= Saying you'd do something if there was no eternal punishment threat

Just throwing the logic out there, pick it up if you want to.



> Yes, you did.  And, if you didn't what did you mean in bringing it up?



I already told you, I meant to show that religion doesn't prevent crime.

Not preventing =/= Encouraging



> I think you thought you were making a good argument, and didn't realize you weren't.  Now, you're backpedaling and resorting to weak political maneuvering?  Hmm?



No, I think you were trying to to be a dick as usual, making a nice man of straw, tearing it apart and wondering why no one else cares.



> Pift.
> 
> Seriously?



Yes, seriously. Of course it doesn't matter how much you embarrass yourself here, you'll just commit the same logical fallacies in your next post and again proclaim victory. It's quite exhausting.


----------



## perman07 (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> LOL  Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> I swear, you guys get all self-righteous and serious when it comes down to this type of debate.
> 
> ...


Is any of this a reponce to what I actually wrote?

We have provided you with the definition of atheism, but you just refuse to accept it. Normally when I'm discussing with people and they're winning, I get defensive. But when they definitively prove me wrong, I concede and admit I was wrong in that instance.

You should just admit you were wrong in this instance. But you seem too stubborn and close-minded to do such a thing.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Saufsoldat said:


> Aren't you quick to judge others? I happen to know that there are wrong prophecies in the bible because I read it. Take for example the prophecy Jesus made that the second coming would happen within the generation of those who witnessed one of his speeches. But yes, I'd probably google the exact verses, so sue me.



You're interepreting things literally like a fundamentalist again.

Besides, there is more precedent for the other prophecies like say the one concerning Tyre.

*edit*  oh, and...  if I'm judgmental, its only because by far the majority of people I have come across who have tried to argue with me on topics like this one have been website atheists.  The ones who spam post after post about the problem of evil because they saw it somewhere, and spam memes and other things they saw somewhere else.

So, if I'm in error I apologize its like..  a reflex action.



Saufsoldat said:


> A chair is a fruit for the same reason a banana is considered a fruit. Am I making sense, yet? No? Well then I'll just repeat it in every post like you do.



Heh.  Are you trying to talk like me?



Saufsoldat said:


> Maybe in an atheistic religion, other than that no.



No, not atheistic religion, I mean real atheists.  I think Dawkins and damn, whose a certifiable religious person?  I think....  Dawkins and...  uh, Jehovah's Witnesses are a lot alike.  And, I don't necessarily mean that as an insult.



Saufsoldat said:


> It hurts my brain to read your posts.
> 
> You are - *again* - comparing a requirement for *all* religions to what may be the experience of some atheists, maybe even the majority of atheist, but is still not a requirement for being atheist.



Its not a requirement for being "religious" either.  Remember, a lot of "religious people" haven't even read the bible.  Then, there are people like me who have read through the entire thing 3 times and don't even remember a lot of it.

Anyhow, its difficult if not impossible to infer a standard of requirements, I would say.



Saufsoldat said:


> Having thoughts about something =/= Saying you'd do something if there was no eternal punishment threat
> 
> Just throwing the logic out there, pick it up if you want to.



Considering Jesus was the one who said that committing adultery in a person's mind was the same as committing adultery period, I hope the irony of you suggesting talking about violence is the same as committing violence is not lost on anyone.



Saufsoldat said:


> I already told you, I meant to show that religion doesn't prevent crime.
> 
> Not preventing =/= Encouraging



Ok, so marijuana doesn't prevent crime either.

I think the correlation there may be questionable.



Saufsoldat said:


> No, I think you were trying to to be a dick as usual, making a nice man of straw, tearing it apart and wondering why no one else cares.



Actually, I'm not trying to be a dick, this is me trying to be nice.  

And, I'm not really trying to tear anything apart.  I simply want to get this over with as quickly and directly as possible because it is unpleasant and the conversation topics are infinitely boring and nothing I have not heard before numerous times.



Saufsoldat said:


> Yes, seriously. Of course it doesn't matter how much you embarrass yourself here, you'll just commit the same logical fallacies in your next post and again proclaim victory. It's quite exhausting.



Embarrass myself?  Heh?



perman07 said:


> Is any of this a reponce to what I actually wrote?
> 
> We have provided you with the definition of atheism, but you just refuse to accept it. Normally when I'm discussing with people and they're winning, I get defensive. But when they definitively prove me wrong, I concede and admit I was wrong in that instance.
> 
> You should just admit you were wrong in this instance. But you seem too stubborn and close-minded to do such a thing.



Not only did I refuse to accept it, I gave you reasons why I chose not to.

Go back and tell me why my reasons are wrong, please.

Shouldn't be hard, right?


----------



## perman07 (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Not only did I refuse to accept it, I gave you reasons why I chose not to.
> Go back and tell me why my reasons are wrong, please.
> 
> Shouldn't be hard, right?


Oh, you gave me reasons? Then the definition can't be true, can it

Do you even know what a definition is? It's merely a description of something. A definition can by definition neither be wrong or right, it just is.

The only way a definition can be wrong is if it's not actually a definition for whatever it's supposed to be a definition for.

So when you reject a definition and say it is something else, you are essentially just inventing a new definition. Just because you yourself think the definition is lame doesn't mean it isn't the *consensus*.

And a word can have several definition, people redefine terms all the time. It just so happens that the definition I brought is the most common one, so by all accounts, you are using the wrong one.

Should another definition be used though? I personally don't think so, not when we consider the word a-theist which is as I have already said, non-theist is the lingual sense. Your definition can fit with anti-theism or something, so go try to impose your definition on them if you feel compelled to.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

perman07 said:


> Oh, you gave me reasons? Then the definition can't be true, can it
> 
> Do you even know what a definition is? It's merely a description of something. A definition can by definition neither be wrong or right, it just is.



In some instances it has the potential to be right and wrong, or neither.  This has to do with inherent limitations of language.

Want an example?

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Now, in Orwellian terms it may be common for some to think the usage if not definition of some of these terms is wrong.  Therefore, possibly its not difficult to see how easily definitions can be right or wrong, despite your contention they can be neither.



perman07 said:


> The only way a definition can be wrong is if it's not actually a definition for whatever it's supposed to be a definition for.



What?



perman07 said:


> So when you reject a definition and say it is something else, you are essentially just inventing a new definition. Just because you yourself think the definition is lame doesn't mean it isn't the *consensus*.



That makes no sense.  If a definition can be wrong, then you contradicted your earlier notion that it cannot be.  

And, if you admit a definition can be wrong, then at least you are willing to admit there is a criteria which may be utilized in order to determine whether a definition is correct.  Progress!

Also, I would like to introduce another idea -- consensus doesn't necessarily determine accuracy anymore than a consensus believing in a _geocentric_ model where the sun circles the earth, validates it.

Consensus ≠ fact.



perman07 said:


> And a word can have several definition, people redefine terms all the time. It just so happens that the definition I brought is the most common one, so by all accounts, you are using the wrong one.
> 
> Should another definition be used though? I personally don't think so, not when we consider the word a-theist which is as I have already said, non-theist is the lingual sense. Your definition can fit with anti-theism or something, so go try to impose your definition on them if you feel compelled to.



Consensus ≠ fact.

I apologize for not reading your entire post and for giving you a lame answer.

Though, I do think that a lack of belief in insufficient grounds upon which to base a campaign that suggests the non-existence of a deity.  And, that's more or less the only thing I was concered with.


----------



## Draffut (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> And, the majority of prison inmates admit to having smoked marijuana at some point in their life.
> 
> Are you going to tell me next, that marijuana leads to crime?
> 
> And, why would you create such a double standard?



No, that just shows that those in prison and more willing to admit the crime.

While on the other hand, the fact that atheist states and countries have lower divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, and violent crime rates (for starters) is fact.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Oct 15, 2009)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> You're interepreting things literally like a fundamentalist again.
> 
> Besides, there is more precedent for the other prophecies like say the one concerning Tyre.
> 
> ...



You manage to write so much and say so little, it's amazing. Where are those great prophecies that came true? Show me one, link one, whatever. And it had better not be something like predicting the fall of an empire.



> Heh.  Are you trying to talk like me?



So you admit that you're talking bullshit? I listed a number of reasons for why atheism is not and cannot be dogmatic and you just go on to say that it's dogmatic, without any reason of justification. It's annoying to say the least.



> No, not atheistic religion, I mean real atheists.  I think Dawkins and damn, whose a certifiable religious person?  I think....  Dawkins and...  uh, Jehovah's Witnesses are a lot alike.  And, I don't necessarily mean that as an insult.



Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dawkins behaves like a religious zealot. Let's assume that there are millions of people following him and doing everything he says with great piety. Would that make atheism a religion? *No*, of course not. It's like having a book club, and then turning it into a religion. Would that make reading a religion? No, just this specific book club.



> Its not a requirement for being "religious" either.  Remember, a lot of "religious people" haven't even read the bible.  Then, there are people like me who have read through the entire thing 3 times and don't even remember a lot of it.



You have to have heard of the teachings of Jesus Christ to be christian, so yes it is a damn requirement. Get that through your thick skull. You cannot be christian without ever having heard of jesus christ.



> Anyhow, its difficult if not impossible to infer a standard of requirements, I would say.



I just did and I gave conclusive evidence for it. Ignoring me and repeating yourself won't help your case. Not one bit.



> Considering Jesus was the one who said that committing adultery in a person's mind was the same as committing adultery period, I hope the irony of you suggesting talking about violence is the same as committing violence is not lost on anyone.



Jesus saying something has no logical connection to me accepting something as fact. And please read before responding. Talking about committing a crime can still be a crime and I never said otherwise.



> Ok, so marijuana doesn't prevent crime either.
> 
> I think the correlation there may be questionable.



I'll make it really easy for you: Person A says that atheists have no dogma from which to derive their morals, therefore they are more suspectible to criminal behavior. Person B says that statistics clearly show that atheist countries are less criminal and that atheists generally constitute a smaller portion of prison inmates, compared to their ratio in the entire population of a country.

Did Person B now say that religion leads to criminal behavior? Nooooo, he just said that atheism doesn't lead to criminal behavior.



> Actually, I'm not trying to be a dick, this is me trying to be nice.
> 
> And, I'm not really trying to tear anything apart.  I simply want to get this over with as quickly and directly as possible because it is unpleasant and the conversation topics are infinitely boring and nothing I have not heard before numerous times.
> 
> Embarrass myself?  Heh?



Then leave, nobody will stop you.


----------



## Sanity Check (Oct 15, 2009)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> No, that just shows that those in prison and more willing to admit the crime.
> 
> While on the other hand, the fact that atheist states and countries have lower divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, and violent crime rates (for starters) is fact.



Not really.  Its possible those statistics are cyclical in nature.  Every now and then a Nero or a Stalin will pop up, and the figures will tilt in the opposite direction.

And, if you were to go for all time stats, then its quite possible that between Nero, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot atheists would by far have accounted for far more casualties, murders, deaths and other negative status indexes than theists.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Oct 15, 2009)

We have the Atheist thread for this sort of argument. Take your arguments there


----------

