Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 It was a problem for atheism because of his prominence. He was one of the leading atheist Philosophers who for decades, debated with theists. He also wrote books. It would be like Dawkins suddenly changing his mind and acknowledging God's existence.......that's the comparison that came to mind. I understand the reasoning, I just don't see it myself. If they all did, I might wonder about it. Quote
eyeball Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 It was a problem for atheism because of his prominence. He was one of the leading atheist Philosophers who for decades, debated with theists. He also wrote books. Never heard of him until today myself. Somehow I figured atheism out all on my own. Did you imagine we all have certificates or diplomas or something? Secret handshake maybe? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 I don't like other atheists. They don't see the social benefits to religious association and are rabidly anti-theist too much of the time. I've about as much use for anti-theists as I do the Westboro Baptist Cult. Prominent atheists. Hah. What a joke. Quote
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 I think the reasonable world does need people who are willing to push back against theism in the public sphere. Just like we do with anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, climate changer deniers and any unsupported BS. Though I'm generally not one willing to waste time arguing with theists over the foundation and evidence for their beliefs, I am glad that others do. These anti-theists and prominent skeptics have succeeded in making religion acceptable to discuss and criticize. I wish me had more prominent anti-theists pushing back against the GOP and their attempts to install a theocracy. Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) Never heard of him until today myself. Somehow I figured atheism out all on my own. Did you imagine we all have certificates or diplomas or something? Secret handshake maybe? Never heard of him either until his name came up in one of the articles. He was a British Philosopher who apparently came into prominence in the fifties. Not certificates, or secret handshakes. But they do have something in common. One thing I do notice - the NEW ATHEIST anyway - they give the same rhetoric. They throw the same insult like the "Pie in the sky," "Jebus," "Sky Daddy" etc.., it's like they've memorized some key phrases to use. So, there must be that manual somewhere. I'm sure you're not the only one who claim to have "figured out" atheism on your own. So, please share how you came to figure it out. What's the basis of your atheistic belief? Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 I think the reasonable world does need people who are willing to push back against theism in the public sphere. Just like we do with anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, climate changer deniers and any unsupported BS. Though I'm generally not one willing to waste time arguing with theists over the foundation and evidence for their beliefs, I am glad that others do. These anti-theists and prominent skeptics have succeeded in making religion acceptable to discuss and criticize. I wish me had more prominent anti-theists pushing back against the GOP and their attempts to install a theocracy. I agree that there are certain things that need to be pushed back against. Personal beliefs is not that thing. Free association is also not that thing. What is that thing is theists pushing to have their religious views codified into law and forced on others, essentially undermining free association and freedom of thought and conscience. So when you have religious regressives who want their dogmas taught as scientific thought, people ought to be vocally opposed to those things. I would also argue, however, that we should be vocal against anti-theists who want to dismantle religious association and not allow people freedom of conscience and freedom of association. There are numerous social and health benefits to belonging to communities. These benefits are either unknown or ignored by rabid anti-theists. I'm an atheist and I don't appreciate dogmatic views being forced on anyone. If people want to believe in God and commune with others who do, then that's their right, and frankly I'm thankful for the money and time those groups spend on the social welfare of their communities and broader as well. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) What's the basis of your atheistic belief? Until you get your head around the fact that there is no such thing as atheistic belief, this question cannot be answered. You yourself are an atheist in regards to the hundreds of possible gods that have been written about throughout history. As far as being atheists go, you and I are the same on hundreds of possible gods. I just go one further. Edited May 9, 2016 by cybercoma Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) I think the reasonable world does need people who are willing to push back against theism in the public sphere. Just like we do with anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, climate changer deniers and any unsupported BS. Though I'm generally not one willing to waste time arguing with theists over the foundation and evidence for their beliefs, I am glad that others do. These anti-theists and prominent skeptics have succeeded in making religion acceptable to discuss and criticize. I wish me had more prominent anti-theists pushing back against the GOP and their attempts to install a theocracy. The issue of this topic though is about the statement made by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - of all people! It claims to have evidences that support theism. Theistic Evolution. If they claim theistic evolution (the belief that God created the universe and the processes, etc..,) is revealed by cosmology, paleontology, microbriology and many other disciplines of science........... .........that doesn't fall into the category of, "unsupported BS." What I want to know: what supports atheism? If there is nothing to support atheism - then atheism is what you'd call, "unsupported BS." Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 It claims to have evidences that support theism. Theistic Evolution. Saying it more doesn't make it any more true. Sorry. Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) Saying it more doesn't make it any more true. Sorry. I quoted the NAS verbatim. That statement, "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html was lifted off from their book: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" You disagree with it. You're saying it isn't true. You've got the burden of proof. The onus is on you to provide the proof to prove it wrong. Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) I quoted the NAS verbatim. That statement, "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html was lifted off from their book: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" If you're saying that isn't true, then the onus is on you to provide the proof to prove it wrong. That's just saying that if you want to believe God did it, so long as you don't argue the nonsense stuff (Adam and Eve, age of the Earth, floods, water into wine, etc.) fill your boots. It's always been that way. Edited May 9, 2016 by bcsapper Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) That's just saying that if you want to believe God did it, so long as you don't argue the nonsense stuff (Adam and Eve, age of the Earth, floods, water into wine, etc.) fill your boots. It's always been that way. Read it again, bcsapper. I don't know why you can't see the message that's clearly stated.....and yet you claim to see, "That's just saying that if you want to believe God did it, so long as you don't argue the nonsense stuff (Adam and Eve, age of the Earth, floods, water into wine, etc.) fill your boots," which isn't there at all! I can't even say you're doing "selective reading," cos it just isn't there! Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 Read it again, bcsapper. I don't know why you can't see the message that's clearly stated.....and yet you claim to see, "That's just saying that if you want to believe God did it, so long as you don't argue the nonsense stuff (Adam and Eve, age of the Earth, floods, water into wine, etc.) fill your boots," which isn't there at all! I can't even say you're doing "selective reading," cos it just isn't there! What I wrote is exactly what you quoted. Exactly. Science says what is. If you want to believe there is a God responsible for science, go ahead. That's it. That's what the NAS is saying. They didn't need to. It's fairly obvious. No miracles though... Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 What I wrote is exactly what you quoted. Exactly. Science says what is. If you want to believe there is a God responsible for science, go ahead. That's it. That's what the NAS is saying. They didn't need to. It's fairly obvious. No miracles though... No it doesn't say that. Quote
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 No it doesn't say that. Do you think it says that, being as how everything is so complicated and all, it might well have been a God that made it, despite what all us scientists have been saying all these years? Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) Do you think it says that, being as how everything is so complicated and all, it might well have been a God that made it, despite what all us scientists have been saying all these years? "......'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe ...... ..........revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." Take it or leave it, bcsapper. Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) I quoted the NAS verbatim. That statement, "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html was lifted off from their book: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" You disagree with it. You're saying it isn't true. You've got the burden of proof. The onus is on you to provide the proof to prove it wrong. I didn't disagree with anything there. I disagree with you insisting that they said "there is evidence for theistic evolution." Nowhere does it say that. If it did say that, you would happily post the evidence. But it doesn't and that's why you haven't posted it. Edited May 9, 2016 by cybercoma Quote
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 I didn't disagree with anything there. I disagree with you insisting that they said "there is evidence for theistic evolution." Nowhere does it say that. If it did say that, you would happily post the evidence. But it doesn't and that's why you haven't posted it. refer to my response above to bcsapper. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 You mean your response where you cut up their statement? They didn't say theistic evolution is supported by those things. They said theistic evolution is not in disagreement with those things. It is "the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe" that is "revealed by" those disciplines. The statement says exactly what bcsapper is telling you it says whether you understand that or not. Quote
eyeball Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) What's the basis of your atheistic belief?I appear to lack the capacity for suspending my disbelief.Belief has nothing to do with it. Edited May 9, 2016 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
betsy Posted May 9, 2016 Author Report Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) I appear to lack the capacity for suspending my disbelief. Belief has nothing to do with it. In other words, there's no logical or realistic basis for your atheism? You're an atheist, because. Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy Quote
eyeball Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 Because you say so. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted May 9, 2016 Report Posted May 9, 2016 It's like tag team wrestling. Every now and then a hand pokes its way under the ropes and an exhausted poster manages to touch it, and is relieved for a while. Betsy, on the other hand, never needs a break. It's almost like something is giving her strength... I'm gonna say Red Bull. Quote
betsy Posted May 10, 2016 Author Report Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) Because you say so. No. Because, it's what "suspension of disbelief," means. The term suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief has been defined as a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief I gave the clear statement from the National Academy of Sciences....you don't accept it. I gave a couple of examples of prominent atheists who'd changed their positions due to scientific evidence. Your reply was that you "figured out atheism on your own." Figuring out atheism on your own - isn't that interesting? I asked you the basis for your atheism. Surely I thought, you've got to have something as a basis for it! And you give me that baloney about suspension of disbelief. My point is based on critical thinking......... yours is not. So what are you on about your so called, "lack of capacity to suspend your disbelief?" You did suspend it! And yes to you, it's about belief, otherwise you wouldn't make any attempts to knock down theism! Edited May 10, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted May 10, 2016 Author Report Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) It's like tag team wrestling. Every now and then a hand pokes its way under the ropes and an exhausted poster manages to touch it, and is relieved for a while. Betsy, on the other hand, never needs a break. It's almost like something is giving her strength... I'm gonna say Red Bull. And all the while, I'm also going at the other forum! National Academy argument, AND another topic that argues for the Abrahamic God as the Creator! No, it ain't Red Bull though....... Edited May 10, 2016 by betsy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.