Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Funny how some here seem to confuse doubt and faith, when they are opposites. To doubt is not to have faith that something isn't true, it is a deliberate choice to consider as unlikely/ probably untrue every proposition that hasn't been conclusively proven. Atheism as a philosophy is founded on logic and critical thinking. Faith and religion - are not.

It is only wise to not have faith in something that isn't true.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

That's because the theory is rather lacking in a solid foundation; we are all aware of genetic mutations, but they always result in a lessening of the species, not a streghthening.
Anyway, according to those who expound evolution, which, by the way, Judaism has no problem with, one requires scientific knowledge well beyond the pale of ordinary physicists and chemists and biologists and just about every other scientific realm.
This leads to one of two conclusions on my part...
[1] How do I know the outstanding genius is REALLY such a genius when noone can prove he is a genius except for himself?
[2] Why is such a genius wasting his time on evulution when he could be making mankind changing strides in most other scientific fields?

I think evolutionists have made great contributions relating to various other sciences but I am dubious as to the benefits of waiting around for 100 million years until man becomes a somewhat intelligent creature.

Au contraire. Evolution has an extremely solid foundation. It is one of the "fundamental axioms of modern biology":

Biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Cells are the basic unit of life
2. New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution
3. Genes are the basic unit of heredity
4. An organism regulates its internal environment to maintain a stable and constant condition
5. Living organisms consume and transform energy.

Furthermore, genetic mutations have the ability to strengthen or weaken the species. Evolution claims that the weaker ones die off while the stronger ones eventually supplant the old species to form a new one.

It really has nothing to do with Homo sapiens possibly evolving into a new species, although that is certainly a possibility. It has to do with understanding biology in general. You might as well try to deprive physics of the notion of force and energy, or restrict chemistry from discussing elements, or try to overlook how geology shows the earth is actually millions of years old instead of thousands.

The Roman Catholic Church finally realized long ago that it is completely futile to try to create religious dogma regarding science. It is just unfortunate they didn't learn that lesson with Galileo.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the attitude of atheists and believers here. You guys believe, fine, we don't tell you why you believe, or that you shouldn't. You, on the other hand, just have to tell us why we're atheists, what and how we think, and how we're just like you. Well, we aren't, as would be obvious to you if thinking and believing were not mutually exclusive activities.

You will find that both atheists and theists have their emotionally charged preachers ... ready to push their beliefs down others throats. Thinking should be a part of both groups ... but I miss the intent of Santa Claus and a teapot circling the sun ... derision some would call it. Its not a matter of innocence and non-innocence ... more of a two way street.

Originally Posted by michael h

It is only wise to not have faith in something that isn't true.

Yes. Atheists may be wrong. And some may be atheists for wrong or foolish reasons. However, in the absence of evidence either way, the rational attitude is atheism, not belief. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does make absence the likelier theory.

Originally Posted by michael h

Pitiful response. Go study what a argument from ignorance is and come back ... when your more prepared.

Your posts have become one long, tedious ad-hominen argument. I can understand the longing that some people have to return to the Dark Ages, where arguments could be resolved by chopping off a head for breakfast, torturing a philosoper or burning a witch for fun. This still takes place today in some theocracies and dictatorships, but I think it's safe to safe that it is a dying practice. The reason that such actions ever took place -- and, to some extent, still do -- is because too many ordinary people cling to fairy tales about human nature, prefering mysticism to rational thinking. Just as the Enlightenment doomed such irrational thinking to an early death, so too will reason and the scientific method (the only real survival tools that humans have at their command) always win out over beliefs that have no foundation in reality.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Yes. Atheists may be wrong. And some may be atheists for wrong or foolish reasons. However, in the absence of evidence either way, the rational attitude is atheism, not belief. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does make absence the likelier theory.

I was an atheist for many years ... I fully understand the rationality of a Missouri attitude ... I was very much of a "show me" type mentality. :

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Your posts have become one long, tedious ad-hominen argument. I can understand the longing that some people have to return to the Dark Ages, where arguments could be resolved by chopping off a head for breakfast, torturing a philosoper or burning a witch for fun. This still takes place today in some theocracies and dictatorships, but I think it's safe to safe that it is a dying practice. The reason that such actions ever took place -- and, to some extent, still do -- is because too many ordinary people cling to fairy tales about human nature, prefering mysticism to rational thinking. Just as the Enlightenment doomed such irrational thinking to an early death, so too will reason and the scientific method (the only real survival tools that humans have at their command) always win out over beliefs that have no foundation in reality.

I have a simple argument "null set" ... not so fancy unless your a preacher and need long winded poetry.

I'm curious ... since you note mysticism, what mystics were present in the Soviet Union and China where 10's of millions died from democide ... under the "rational" guidance of atheists. Probably only a hundred million between them. I wonder how many of these murders were of "intellectuals?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Really??? Who is "we"?:rolleyes:

Perhaps you meant "what is we"? In this case, we is a figure of speech that subsumes the many millions of people who demand objective definitions and evidence when discussing ideas.

We also wonder why you chose to shift the goal posts by asking a meaningless question, instead of simply providing evidence of what you call "God"? If you really want a serious discussion -- unlike, say, Michael h -- you have an obligation to define your terms and provide evidence for whatever it is you are claiming.

Originally Posted by michael h

I was an atheist for many years ... I fully understand the rationality of a Missouri attitude ... I was very much of a "show me" type mentality. :

In that case, tell me honestly that you think atheists in the US have an "agenda", that they want to destroy religion or some such nonsense. Atheists don't care, all they insist on is preserving the status quo, which is, no religion in school or politics. The reason for the current offensive by the religious right in the US is that they are no longer content with said status quo, hence all the Creationism and ID bullshit. Do you think that's a good thing?

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

In that case, tell me honestly that you think atheists in the US have an "agenda", that they want to destroy religion or some such nonsense. Atheists don't care, all they insist on is preserving the status quo, which is, no religion in school or politics. The reason for the current offensive by the religious right in the US is that they are no longer content with said status quo, hence all the Creationism and ID bullshit. Do you think that's a good thing?

I believe atheists just want to be left alone ... with the few exceptions of the preacher types. I believe that far right conservatives would like to see more religion in our lives. I think its a terrible idea to mix government and religion. The reason it seems more of an offensive is we have a weak field of republican candidates ... so they are pandering to the far right, making religion a front seat issue.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Perhaps you meant "what is we"? In this case, we is a figure of speech that subsumes the many millions of people who demand objective definitions and evidence when discussing ideas.

We also wonder why you chose to shift the goal posts by asking a meaningless question, instead of simply providing evidence of what you call "God"? If you really want a serious discussion -- unlike, say, Michael h -- you have an obligation to define your terms and provide evidence for whatever it is you are claiming.

No Russell's Teapot reference ... well done ... a little dabble in burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Perhaps you meant "what is we"? In this case, we is a figure of speech that subsumes the many millions of people who demand objective definitions and evidence when discussing ideas.

We also wonder why you chose to shift the goal posts by asking a meaningless question, instead of simply providing evidence of what you call "God"? If you really want a serious discussion -- unlike, say, Michael h -- you have an obligation to define your terms and provide evidence for whatever it is you are claiming.

I didn't think it was a serious question in light of the fact that you've been a member of the forum since 2006 and that probably 99.9% of the people in the US have some inkling about the Christian God. If I could "prove" He exists or you could prove He doesn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I used to think that some of the more outspoken atheists were greatly contributing to this problem. That Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were in many ways the opposite of Fred Phelps and Terry Jones, even though their rhetoric is not similarly hateful and demeaning. But I now think it is more a reaction to the incessant attacks on them and their own philosophy. That atheism and agnosticism has simply become more prevalent in Europe so it is natural that people are more openly discussing it.

So I am slowly coming to the conclusion that a massive educational program is what is actually needed in this country. That it is time for atheists and agnostics to no longer hide in the closet as much as they have in the past. Since most children continue to be subject to religious indoctrination by their parents, whether they are religious or not, something should be done to assure they understand that this is not their only option.

In many ways, negative reaction to atheism and agnosticism is quite similar to how some of the more fundamentalist Muslims respond to attacks on their own religious beliefs. While most Christians don't react violently to such matters anymore, it seems to upset some of them almost as much. That in the recent incident where the zombie Mohammed was physically attacked, there were likely many in the crowd who were just as offended with the zombie Pope. That this is particularly true if their own children learn about atheism and agnosticism, and with some to simply being exposed to evolution and even geology in school.

If Christians and others can poke fun at Muslims and their beliefs with reckless abandon, they should expect it in return.