Church of the Non-Believers

GostHacked · April 3, 2011

The New Atheism is great! It consists of those that dispise religion and value God and goodness...they are actually true believers. They will pretend to put God in the same box as relgion - but in their hearts they know different. Most atheists (the non-aggressive kind) are good people - I just don't like fanatics...religious or atheistic.

I don't despise religion, and can't despise god because he/she/it does not exist. My morals are fairly high, I am not 100% innocent, and no one really is, so we should stop striving for that charade. We are human and we make mistakes, the real problem lies in situations where we do not learn from our mistakes. Since many believe Christ died for our sins, allows many of us to be saved from our sins, is the same thing as learning from our mistakes. 'Oh man I screwed up, but at least it will never happen again, I've learned my lesson'. You also have to own your mistakes and not shuffle them off onto someone who can't ever die for your sins. Your sins are your own and can be forgiven, but never forgotten.

Oleg Bach · April 3, 2011

I don't despise religion, and can't despise god because he/she/it does not exist. My morals are fairly high, I am not 100% innocent, and no one really is, so we should stop striving for that charade. We are human and we make mistakes, the real problem lies in situations where we do not learn from our mistakes. Since many believe Christ died for our sins, allows many of us to be saved from our sins, is the same thing as learning from our mistakes. 'Oh man I screwed up, but at least it will never happen again, I've learned my lesson'. You also have to own your mistakes and not shuffle them off onto someone who can't ever die for your sins. Your sins are your own and can be forgiven, but never forgotten.

Can't remember Christ saying...hey guys I am dying for your sins...someone made that up. Repeated bad behaviour and a pattern of making repeated errors is called mental or spiritual illness. "A dog returns to it's vomit" - people do not learn. As for my sins...there is no greater sinner in the world than me. No they will not be forgotten...nor will they be forgiven...My greatest mistake was having faith in humaity.

WIP · April 3, 2011

Well, many lifeforms do modify their environment to better suit themselves. Obviously the most prevalent example of this is humans, but there are many others as well. Not that that has much relevance to this thread.

Maybe it was a Zen koan: life creates its environment, or the environment creates life.....I'll await further details before trying to figure it out.

pinko · April 3, 2011

Army group 'coming out of the atheist closet'

Nonbelievers at Fort Bragg launch effort to get recognition, equal treatment on base

RALEIGH, N.C. — The cliche notwithstanding, there are atheists in foxholes.

In fact, atheists, agnostics, humanists and other assorted skeptics from the Army's Fort Bragg have formed an organization in a pioneering effort to win recognition and ensure fair treatment for nonbelievers in the overwhelmingly Christian U.S. military.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42391558/ns/us_news-military/

Hello

WIP · April 3, 2011

It is you who automatically thinks of violence. You think "war" is only waged through violence.

Yes! Just like I consider placing bullseye targets over the pictures of people, or shooting them in effigy to be promoting violence. Spiritual warfare is a crock promoted by religions that seek to drive a wedge between people, rather than promote a common understanding.

What's with you members of the flock? Your emminence Dawkins and company refuse to think and look outside the box with anything about origin....remaining close-minded. You parrot the same.

No, you should have already noticed that there is a lot I don't like about Dawkins's style of promoting his views...even many of his fellow evolutionary biologists, such as David Sloan Wilson, Lyn Margulis and the late Stephen J. Gould, considered him to be too aggressive and dogmatic in promoting his own gene-centered model of natural selection, and working to discredit any and all alternatives. But, what I really disagree with is his foray into philosophy, where he was indulged by philosopher friends like A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett...who should have known better! Many philosophers of science consider biology the last of the "hard sciences," where there are few mysteries and demands for non-linear thinking to solve problems. The biologists who find their way in to philosophy seem to have a knack for trying to compartmentalize everything into neat little categories.

Why, should I only not agree with him when it's about God? Anyway, in the Bible it's been acknowledged that there are mediums or those who deal in the occult. Christians are supposed to stay away from those. There are quacks. And there are quacks. But who's to say there's not a real one?

The difference is that the only instance in your Bible where contacting the dead is approved of is where King Saul consults a medium to conjure up the spirit of the Prophet Samuel. Aside from that, they are all supposed to be burned as witches....which is what modern-day fundamentalists will have to return to if they want to truly following a literal interpretation of scriptural laws.

Besides we've not fully understood the capacity of the the human brain. To dismiss everything is irresponsible to say the least. Dawkins is blinded by his faith in no-God.
He's so afraid to come face to face with the possibility of anything supernatural. He's crippled or paralyzed by this fear. He's no longer credible as a scientist.

Simple rule: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So, if any supernatural claim is going to be offered as factual evidence, it has to pass a process of scientific testing. After about 30 years, magician - James Randi retired his offer of one million dollars for anyone who could prove psychic phenomena. If any of these psychic claims had a basis in fact, there would have been at least one psychic of whatever sort able to claim the prize. These supernatural phenomena are just a product of fraud and/or the limitations of the human mind,which can create its own illusions and hallucinations that appear real. And of course there's always confirmation bias of so many people who want to believe in supernatural healing, contacting dead loved ones, having a soul that will continue after the body dies etc. etc. Wherever there are strong desires for a certain belief, there will be plenty of people willing to believe it.

Mumbo-jumbo, Dawkins also has a knack for that. From scientist to quack (?). Either he's become a mad scientist....or it's just more lucrative to be an atheist!

Are you serious? That's one thing you can't accuse atheists of, is doing it for the money; since there is no real money to be made here. Dawkins may have made a little money from book sales, but he'd be lucky if the atheist/humanist/ and freethought groups he speaks to on the lecture circuit can cover his hotel and traveling expenses! Atheists don't get talked in to, or suckered in to, giving 10% of their net income to an atheist club, like the fundamentalists have had to do ever since some preacher several decades back noticed that the Temple in Jerusalem collected tithes from the people. Giving to the Lord is a lot more lucrative than giving to freethought causes....actually most atheists I've come across are the stingiest people I know. One thing's for sure, if Richard Dawkins shouts Hallelujah tomorrow and announces that he's seen the light and the glory of Jesus, he'd be picking up so much cash he wouldn't know what to do with all of the money!

Whether he accurately identified Dawkin as a zoologist or not doesn't matter. You're grasping at anything it seems to muddy the waters. His point is still there!

NO, besides not knowing what Dawkins's day job is, he doesn't offer any rebuttals with supporting evidence...there would be links all over the place in these so called rebuttals if that was the case.

It's not much of a rebuttal to you perhaps. But that's not surprising you'd say that...since yours is not much of a rebuttal either. You've lost your whole argument with that term, "war."

Once again, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. These are the people making the claims. But if you want to delve into one or two of them specifically, I'd be happy to show you just how bad the case is that the phenomena actually exists outside of people's minds.

cybercoma · April 3, 2011

Um... if he says there's a possibility of a god, then he IS an agnostic.

Dawkins says there's a possibility of a God, but he refuses to be considered agnostic; he's an atheist.

Michael Hardner · April 3, 2011

Dawkins says there's a possibility of a God, but he refuses to be considered agnostic; he's an atheist.

Then he has to accept that the term he chooses to describe himself is at odds with the publicly accepted definition of that term.

I should know - I consider myself Christian but I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. That makes a few people scratch their heads, I'll tell you.

ToadBrother · April 3, 2011

Well, if nothing in this universe can account for its own existence, or be uncaused, then he needs to answer the question that David Hume asked a couple of centuries ago, and he refers to earlier in the article: 'what caused God?' What makes God "eternal" and "transcendent"? And what proof is there that such a being created the Universe? How does he know that there is such a creator, and that he has these qualities that provide an existence that violates the rule that everything must have a cause? He could just be invoking the existence of a supernatural creator that exists outside of our universe (and outside of the rules of existence claimed here) to solve a problem. We don't get an explanation of why or how God is self-caused; so it's a matter of using a mystery to solve a mystery.

It's the gaping hole in the Prime Mover argument. If the Universe requires a Creator, then logical consistency requires that any Creator be held to the same rule. If that rule does not apply all the way down, if indeed there is an entity that can be uncaused, then an application of Occam's Razor removes unnecessary entities and places the "uncaused" property on the Universe itself.

betsy · April 4, 2011

Yes! Just like I consider placing bullseye targets over the pictures of people, or shooting them in effigy to be promoting violence. Spiritual warfare is a crock promoted by religions that seek to drive a wedge between people, rather than promote a common understanding.

No, you should have already noticed that there is a lot I don't like about Dawkins's style of promoting his views...even many of his fellow evolutionary biologists, such as David Sloan Wilson, Lyn Margulis and the late Stephen J. Gould, considered him to be too aggressive and dogmatic in promoting his own gene-centered model of natural selection, and working to discredit any and all alternatives. But, what I really disagree with is his foray into philosophy, where he was indulged by philosopher friends like A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett...who should have known better! Many philosophers of science consider biology the last of the "hard sciences," where there are few mysteries and demands for non-linear thinking to solve problems. The biologists who find their way in to philosophy seem to have a knack for trying to compartmentalize everything into neat little categories.

The difference is that the only instance in your Bible where contacting the dead is approved of is where King Saul consults a medium to conjure up the spirit of the Prophet Samuel. Aside from that, they are all supposed to be burned as witches....which is what modern-day fundamentalists will have to return to if they want to truly following a literal interpretation of scriptural laws.

Simple rule: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So, if any supernatural claim is going to be offered as factual evidence, it has to pass a process of scientific testing. After about 30 years, magician - James Randi retired his offer of one million dollars for anyone who could prove psychic phenomena. If any of these psychic claims had a basis in fact, there would have been at least one psychic of whatever sort able to claim the prize. These supernatural phenomena are just a product of fraud and/or the limitations of the human mind,which can create its own illusions and hallucinations that appear real. And of course there's always confirmation bias of so many people who want to believe in supernatural healing, contacting dead loved ones, having a soul that will continue after the body dies etc. etc. Wherever there are strong desires for a certain belief, there will be plenty of people willing to believe it.

Are you serious? That's one thing you can't accuse atheists of, is doing it for the money; since there is no real money to be made here. Dawkins may have made a little money from book sales, but he'd be lucky if the atheist/humanist/ and freethought groups he speaks to on the lecture circuit can cover his hotel and traveling expenses! Atheists don't get talked in to, or suckered in to, giving 10% of their net income to an atheist club, like the fundamentalists have had to do ever since some preacher several decades back noticed that the Temple in Jerusalem collected tithes from the people. Giving to the Lord is a lot more lucrative than giving to freethought causes....actually most atheists I've come across are the stingiest people I know. One thing's for sure, if Richard Dawkins shouts Hallelujah tomorrow and announces that he's seen the light and the glory of Jesus, he'd be picking up so much cash he wouldn't know what to do with all of the money!

NO, besides not knowing what Dawkins's day job is, he doesn't offer any rebuttals with supporting evidence...there would be links all over the place in these so called rebuttals if that was the case.

Once again, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. These are the people making the claims. But if you want to delve into one or two of them specifically, I'd be happy to show you just how bad the case is that the phenomena actually exists outside of people's minds.

Deflections on the "war" issue! You were talking about me....and I pointed back about you!

So don't muddy the waters by roping in everyone! :lol:

Yad-yada-yada about the medium/occult! Nevertheless, mediums are mentioned in the Bible. Christians are supposed to avoid those! I'm just stating the fact that they're mentioned in the Bible. Then you rant again....bringing in witch-burning! :lol:

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence my foot! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since there are no extraordinary evidence that things such as telekinesis are not possible (simply because we don't fully understand the capacity of the brain)....it is therefore irresponsible (to say the least) of Dawkins to dismiss it as not true! That's why he no longer have any credibility as a scientist! He's nothing more than an evangelist that he ridicules! He's just full of bull!

Your rebutt still ain't much at all. Cut down on the rant so you won't lose focus!

Edited April 4, 2011 by betsy

betsy · April 4, 2011

Dawkins thinks there's a possibility of a God.... but he doesn't want to be called Agnostic? :blink:

I'm telling you guys, Dawkins has really gone bonkers! Seriously.

Edited April 4, 2011 by betsy

cybercoma · April 4, 2011

Then he has to accept that the term he chooses to describe himself is at odds with the publicly accepted definition of that term.

I should know - I consider myself Christian but I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. That makes a few people scratch their heads, I'll tell you.

I believe in the philosophical teachings of Christ, but not the myth of the divine, so I know exactly what you mean.

As for Dawkins, he may not be working with the accepted definition, but he draws it out in The God Delusion. Basically, he puts belief on a continuum from 1 (there is absolutely without a doubt no God) to 10 (there is absolutely without a doubt a God). A true agnostic would be around 5, believing that there's equal probability of the existence or non-existence of God. While someone that falls at a 2 or 3 believes that it's very highly unlikely that there's a God, so they consider themself an atheist. Someone that falls at an 8 or 9 would believe that it's very highly unlikely that there is not a God. That person would consider themselves faithful, by most rights. Many who believe admit that they've often questioned their faith. Someone that was at a 10 would not even question it. Anyway, as you can see he claims there's degrees and I tend to agree with his analysis. I would put myself solidly in the 2 category. I would not say that there absolutely is no God, but I would say that the probability is so remote that it's very highly unlikely that there is one. I would not call myself an agnostic in that regard.

Edited April 4, 2011 by cybercoma

ToadBrother · April 4, 2011

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence my foot! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since there are no extraordinary evidence that things such as telekinesis are not possible (simply because we don't fully understand the capacity of the brain)....it is therefore irresponsible (to say the least) of Dawkins to dismiss it as not true! That's why he no longer have any credibility as a scientist! He's nothing more than an evangelist that he ridicules! He's just full of bull!

Your rebutt still ain't much at all. Cut down on the rant so you won't lose focus!

I'll wager you've never read more than ten words by Dawkins that weren't filtered through your Creationist sources.

At any rate, there's no evidence for telekinesis... full stop.

betsy · April 4, 2011

I believe in the philosophical teachings of Christ, but not the myth of the divine, so I know exactly what you mean.

Just curious...

How can you believe in someone you believe is a liar?

Oleg Bach · April 4, 2011

I deeply beleive in not believing.

betsy · April 4, 2011

I'll wager you've never read more than ten words by Dawkins that weren't filtered through your Creationist sources.

That's your defense, isn't it?

Yet you got stumped when I gave you a source from your own camp, supporting some of my arguments!

At any rate, there's no evidence for telekinesis... full stop.

Then answer this: Does science fully understand the capability of the human brain?

Edited April 4, 2011 by betsy

dre · April 4, 2011

Dawkins thinks there's a possibility of a God.... but he doesn't want to be called Agnostic?

I'm telling you guys, Dawkins has really gone bonkers! Seriously.

:lol:

Oleg Bach · April 4, 2011

That's your defense, isn't it?

Yet you got stumped when I gave you a source from your own camp, supporting some of my arguments!

Then answer this: Does science fully understand the capability of the human brain?

Nope! They like to toy with it though...I love those American adds for "depression" - "May cause suicidal or (homocidal) idealtion....no way in hell would I let a Ford mechanic work on my Porche` - if I had one. The brain is what the ancient Egyptians believed it to be - an organ that created snot...nothing more - nothing less...I believe they were correct.

betsy · April 5, 2011

This is a must-see video!

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

The question was so simple. It's right up his alley.

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

cybercoma · April 5, 2011

Just curious...

How can you believe in someone you believe is a liar?

Easy, like this: I believe in the philiosophies of Christ, but not in the myth of the divine.

cybercoma · April 5, 2011

Then answer this: Does science fully understand the capability of the human brain?

Science's purpose is to first, figure out what we don't understand then try to find a way to understand it. There is an infinite number of things that science doesn't "understand".

You've got all the answers though. Scientists can stop looking. :rolleyes:

betsy · April 5, 2011

Science's purpose is to first, figure out what we don't understand then try to find a way to understand it. There is an infinite number of things that science doesn't "understand".

You've got all the answers though. Scientists can stop looking.

I'm not asking about the purpose of science....or how science conducts its business.

The question is clear. Since you commented on it, why don't you answer the simple question.

Does science fully understand the human brain?

Edited April 5, 2011 by betsy

GostHacked · April 5, 2011

I'm not asking about the purpose of science....or how science conducts its business.

The question is clear. Since you commented on it, why don't you answer the simple question.

Does science fully understand the human brain?

OH I KNOW THE ANSWER !!! ... God did it. /facepalm

Ignorance this is.

cybercoma · April 5, 2011

Does science fully understand the human brain?

You know very well that they don't.

dre · April 5, 2011

I'm not asking about the purpose of science....or how science conducts its business.

The question is clear. Since you commented on it, why don't you answer the simple question.

Does science fully understand the human brain?

Why would you even ask such a dopey question?

ToadBrother · April 5, 2011

That's your defense, isn't it?

Yet you got stumped when I gave you a source from your own camp, supporting some of my arguments!

I don't have a camp, Betsy. I have repeatedly told you I don't agree with the kind of pissing contests that Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest of that ilk get into. I don't agree with the ludicrous idea that religion is the source of all evil.

I admire Dawkins' scientific work, and some of his books like the Selfish Gene are fairly good introductory texts on biological concepts for laymen, but he's not my leader. I don't have a leader, Betsy.