Church of the Non-Believers

[ToadBrother]

If evolution (which is based on faith - atheistic faith) is being taught in school, then why shouldn't the opposing view of Intelligent Design be not included too?

It isn't. It's based on a vast body of evidence.

Other scientists have reluctantly admitted to being stumped by evolution, and are thinking outside the box! Only those scientists who remain firmly shackled to their faith prefer to be close-minded!

A very small handful, a meaningless fraction, disbelieve evolution. The overwhelming majority of scientists, and in particular those in fields related to evolution, support it.

You're just making things up, Betsy. You're bearing false witness. I realize you're doing so out of ignorance and fear, but never the less, what you've written above is a lie.

[betsy]

Out of curiosity, where is that in the Bible?

Luke 9:5

"And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them."

Matt 7:6

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

1 Tim 6:5

useless wranglings [fn] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. [fn

[betsy]

It's not based on atheism, it's based on agnosticism. That means "not knowing". When something is not known, then we ask "why". We come up with a hypothesis and test whether it makes sense. Eventually a consensus builds around a likely explanation. At a certain threshold of certainty, it becomes accepted as fact.

It might've started that way, based on "not knowing," but now it's more based on atheistic faith. That's thanks to the likes of Dawkins, Stenger et al.

Otherwise, if the goal is to know.....why dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design? Evolution is not a fact. How can that be when there are also other scientists who find the explanation full of gaps and therefore unlikely!

The reason why so many people believe in it is because that's what they've been taught in school.

We all know why it's being passed off as a fact!

From the article The Church of the Non-Believers...

Unsolved problems in diverse fields, along with a skepticism about knowledge in general, are used to demonstrate that a deity might not be impossible.

The problem with this, for defenders of faith, is that they've implicitly accepted science as the arbiter of what is real. This leaves the atheists with the upper hand.

That's because when secular investigations take the lead, sacred doctrines collapse. There's barely a field of modern research – cosmology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, psychology – in which competing religious explanations have survived unscathed.

It's because of secularism!

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

If evolution (which is based on faith - atheistic faith)

Evolution isnt based on faith its based 10's of millions of hours of hard work.

Faith would be more like...

"Hey! Lets just go with what the Roman Government published in a book thousands of years ago, because were too lazy to get up off our asses and think for ourselves!."

[betsy]

I must specify that pertaining to Intelligent Design, I also include the universe.

[guyser]

I must specify that pertaining to Intelligent Design, I also include the universe.

Busy 7 days huh ?

[DogOnPorch]

Busy 7 days huh ?

And time for Satan to falsify the fossil record, too. Quite amazing.

[betsy]

Since they've actually waged war, I like to know these men. It's only sensible to know the enemy.

I assume Dawkins is much more high-profiled - being the atheist poster boy - compared to the other 4 (two of whom where not included in the interview) who started the movement.

Dawkins was easy to "read" from just watching that debate with Wendy Wright. I think he'd make an interesting subject for psychologists. Anyway...

WHO IS PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS?

He is a self-confessed materialist. He says in his own words ‘paranormal is bunk’ i.e. it does not exist. He publicly stated that he does not believe in the afterlife.

Now this R. Dawkins (hereinafter Dawkins or RD) is expressing a personal view, not a scientific view, because he can never use science to show that the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. He is into conjecture and speculation. He’s into subjectivity. He’s into debunking. He’s into demeaning, denigrating and sarcasm. He’s into personal beliefs in his argument because he never comes to empirically based conclusions.

Further, because he is a self confessed materialist and has been actively anti-paranormal, he does not and cannot perceive empirical evidence for the paranormal with empirical equanimity. He’s deeply negatively prejudiced. His objectivity is negatively encumbered. And that is a huge problem for someone who keeps on saying he is a scientist.

Richard Dawkins is a zoologist – his university studies had nothing to do with physics. The paranormal is about non-physical energy – vibrations at higher speed than the physical. So that relative to and compared with those physicists who have accepted the link between quantum physics and post-physical consciousness Dawkins is inevitably underqualified.

Just three scientists I mention - physicists- who show continuity of the acceptance of the paranormal: Sir William Crookes in the nineteenth century, Sir Oliver Lodge in the twentieth and Professor Fred Alan Wolf in the twenty-first century. For Dr R Dawkins to impute that these physicists – and the hundreds of other leading scientists, empiricists and researchers who have been investigating psi for over a hundred years are fools and/or were into fraud, is something totally absurd. Neither R Dawkins nor any other scientist or debunker or closed minded skeptic on earth has proved this– and inevitably can never prove it.

Lawyer rebutts Dawkins

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

And time for Satan to falsify the fossil record, too. Quite amazing.

He's got his minions doing his dirty works for him. Including some in the science field.

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Making fossils to fool us?

[betsy]

Making fossils to fool us?

He is the master deceiver and the author

of idolatry, seeking to bring the whole

world under his dominion by

undermining faith in God, twisting

values, and promoting false ideologies.

He does this through infiltrating

institutions, government administrations,

communications media, educational

systems, and religious

bodies.

He seeks to divert humankind

from worship of their Creator

through substitution of money, fame,

power, pleasure, science, art, politics,

or religious idols.

http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/10_4_PDFs/05_Robb.pdf

[Michael Hardner]

It might've started that way, based on "not knowing," but now it's more based on atheistic faith. That's thanks to the likes of Dawkins, Stenger et al.

I would say that they formed a 'breakaway' church of Atheism - a different sect that perhaps is based on belief.

But I don't know that the basis of science has changed from Agnosticism to pure "belief in no gods" Atheism. Why do you think that's true ? What in the scientific method has changed due to the influence of Dawkins et al ?

[betsy]

I would say that they formed a 'breakaway' church of Atheism - a different sect that perhaps is based on belief.

But I don't know that the basis of science has changed from Agnosticism to pure "belief in no gods" Atheism. Why do you think that's true ? What in the scientific method has changed due to the influence of Dawkins et al ?

I'm still reeling from that article to tell you the truth, because it put into clear words what I was trying to say in previous posts. Who would've thought that these 3 would come out as they did in this interview. The other two are Hitchens and Stenger. This actually opened a new door for me.

Fair enough that this sect formed the breakaway and are no longer credible as scientists.

My statement was unfair to other scientists - most of whom do not hold the kind of popularity that these 5 founders enjoy - whose focus remain fixed in "wanting to know," and are not afraid to go beyond the limit in their quest.

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

He is the master deceiver and the author

of idolatry, seeking to bring the whole

world under his dominion by...etc

What is coal and how was it formed?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still reeling from that article to tell you the truth, because it put into clear words what I was trying to say in previous posts. Who would've thought that these 3 would come out as they did in this interview. The other two are Hitchens and Stenger. This actually opened a new door for me.

Fair enough that this sect formed the breakaway and are no longer credible as scientists.

My statement was unfair to other scientists - most of whom do not hold the kind of popularity that these 5 founders enjoy - whose focus remain fixed in "wanting to know," and are not afraid to go beyond the limit in their quest.

I think that the article shows that the mainstream is more tolerant of non-Atheistic faith than of Atheistic faith. It's understandable really, because one should expect these New Atheists seem to be smarter than falling into the trap of faith.

[pinko]

I have faith in the stupidity of religious zealots.

[DogOnPorch]

Hitchins is a scientist now? Better inform him.

[Pliny]

What exactly are you talking about here that you are defining as "science?" Do you think every scientist around the world gets together to ignore something like creationism? If so, I'd like to hear how this works; since there always seems to be rivals within every scientific discipline looking for flaws and errors in published research papers. Any hypothesis that has a shred of plausibility is going to find a supporter looking to advance his own position in the community by knocking down or challenging a popular theory.

Knock down and challenge a popular theory? Skeptics don't argue that evolution is a theory. They argue it is the best theory based upon the facts but they wish to present it as the only, don't think of anything else, fact.

The essential question is, does life create the environment or does the environment create life?

Which makes most sense?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

What is coal and how was it formed?

Coal originates from organic material.

A long time ago all the life forms used to go to the graveyard and jump on the big pile of dead things and die. Then, over time, sediments covered these dead life forms and the pressure of all that dirt on top of them created coal and if the pressure was really a lot then there were some diamonds. Coal and diamonds are really evolutionary forms of life.

We're all really diamonds in the rough.

[DogOnPorch]

Coal originates from organic material.

A long time ago all the life forms used to go to the graveyard and jump on the big pile of dead things and die. Then, over time, sediments covered these dead life forms and the pressure of all that dirt on top of them created coal and if the pressure was really a lot then there were some diamonds. Coal and diamonds are really evolutionary forms of life.

We're all really diamonds in the rough.

Buddy...I know where coal comes from. The question is: does betsy?

Edited April 2, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

I find that Oleg and Bloodyminded have seen and understood some of the crucial points in this article.

I don't know how that is - I only read the title, then I rant in my own self absorbed and prejudical way. Everything is based on a belief..money - religion - god...all this stuff in the big picture is really not in existance...God is so vast that he is un-believable for most - It's easier to believe in little understandable things..that's why hard core atheists go for the gusto when it comes to believing in not believing - It's simply easier.

[betsy]

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

October 19, 2009 Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.

Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.

Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross.

"I wouldn't want this on my wall," says Stuart Jordan, an atheist who advises the evidence-based group Center for Inquiry on policy issues. The Center for Inquiry hosted the art show.

"It's really a national debate among people with a secular orientation about how far do we want to go in promoting a secular society through emphasizing the 'new atheism,' " Jordan says. "And some are very much for it, and some are opposed to it on the grounds that they feel this is largely a religious country, and if it's pushed the wrong way, this is going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown respect even if we don't agree with them on all issues."

Jordan believes the new approach will backfire.

Jordan is a volunteer at the center and therefore could speak his mind. But interviews for this story with others associated with the Washington, D.C., office were canceled a curious development for a group that promotes free speech.

Ronald Lindsay, who heads the Center for Inquiry, based in Amherst, N.Y., says he didn't know why the interviews were cancelled. As for the art exhibit and other Blasphemy Day events the group promoted:

"What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of religion," he says. "We were not trying to insult believers."

But others are perfectly happy to. New atheists like Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins and journalist Christopher Hitchens are selling millions of books and drawing people by the thousands to their call for an uncompromising atheism.

But others are perfectly happy to. New atheists like Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins and journalist Christopher Hitchens are selling millions of books and drawing people by the thousands to their call for an uncompromising atheism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251

Anti-all religion my foot!

Notice that all these gross insults were done on Christian God. Did anyone say boo against Mohammed or the Quran? It's just plain and simple anti-Christian faith!

Surely Dawkins and cohorts show they are not afraid of offending Christians knowing that forgiveness, and turning-the-other-cheek is at the core of the doctrine. So never mind this posturing of having bodyguards just because they get hate-mails wishing them to burn in hell!

You see, for some reason these folks and their flocks are afraid of Christianity. Otherwise why would you waste your one chance at life devoted to so much bitterness and angst.

Furthermore,

Ronald Lindsay, who heads the Center for Inquiry, based in Amherst, N.Y., says:

"What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of religion," he says. "We were not trying to insult believers."

EHHH?

Is he stupid? Or he thinks atheists are all morons? Or both?

Oh we know why Dawkins and cohorts are doing this. Because of the kaching and the bling! I'm beginning to suspect that the flocks are being taken for a ride by these evangelistic quartet....to the tune of book sales, speaking engagements and what other lucrative deals may be had.

Ohhhh such cruel irony....talk about blind faith. Sad....sad...sad.

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Since fossils are fake: What is coal, how was it made and how long ago?

[betsy]

Apparently...

ScienceDaily (May 15, 2005) — ITHACA, N.Y. -- Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor, and even today 99 percent of the two species' DNA is identical.

Clearly that 1% makes quite a big difference.

Then Dawkin says...

The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small.

He should've been Agnostic. The probability is still there.

And yet he is "confident" that God does not exists. I guess it's more lucrative to be an atheist!

Edited April 2, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

He should've been Agnostic. The probability is still there.

So if the right answer is agnosticism, why have you not moved to that camp yet? You are painting all atheists with the same brush here which eventually destroys your agruments, and it has several times in several threads now.