Thread: The Pure Theist is Rare.......

.......or quite possibly extinct. By pure I mean not subjected to the influence of other human beings, having formulated the idea of a supreme being entirely on their own. IOW the personal revelation that god(s) exist is simply a postulate fostered by observation and experimentation, not influenced by prophets, scribes, religions or churches. Practically scientific in that the pure theist probably exercises a discipline or method to conclude, for themselves, a rational and logical reason or explanation as to why god(s) might exist. I think this was very possible in the early days of isolated tribes or groups and shall I say along with a lack of real scientific knowledge, but in today's society damn near impossible. If you've been living in a cave all your life, raised by wolves or stranded alone on a desert island without human contact then your chances of becoming a pure theist are good.

Today's theist is a diluted version of the pure. So watered down in fact, that I hesitate to even call them believers. I've come across so many that actually say they know god(s) exist and for me at least, that removes belief from the equation. IMHO, once you start adding beliefs together then the purity is simply replaced by what I like to call convoluted codswallop. Perhaps a theist would call it the evolution of theism in order to maintain the purity but I would counter that you shouldn't attach more postulates to a postulate before the original has been proven.

I suppose it is possible to live life believing a god exists while completely ignoring conventional religion. Not sure of any numbers to that statement yet I can understand if someone doesn't heed any of the world's theistic religions to decide on a god of their own. Still I can't see that decision based purely on one's own thoughts, rather its more likely caused by a perceived inanity concerning today's theistic religions.

So, for that matter, I don't consider any of today's theists as actually once possessing the thought of a god without the influence of another human. Theism today is not even a reasonable facsimile of pure theistic thought as I see it. On this forum I find it odd that atheism is considered a belief by many theists yet the theistic viewpoint has become factual.....totally bizarre. It's all backwards.

On this forum I find it odd that atheism is considered a belief by many theists yet the theistic viewpoint has become factual.....totally bizarre. It's all backwards.

They can think what they want, atheism isn't belief I myself came up with the ice cream analogy once in that if 4 people asked if they want ice cream, one strawberry, one vanilla and the other mint then the 4th having no ice cream is not a flavour of ice cream. They make it a category because they all have flavour and so do others, therefore not having a flavour must therefore be a flavour; it isn't. I think this is a problem a lot of theists have in looking at atheism. You will also notice that in discussion theists often throw arguments that make sense to them, or moral issues that they hold dear in effort to make atheists seem contradictory but of course it doesn't work because you can't put sprinkles or sauce on an ice cream to change its texture and flavour when there is no ice cream in the first place.

It does seem theists are into 'proving god' with evidence and that they 'know' God exists. Well then it isn't faith and the second it doesn't becomes faith, you can prove it, so you ask them to prove it and they don't with some of them saying again 'it takes a little faith'. Well no they just again changed to story to suit them. It's always humourous listening to theists talk rubbish and babbel about spirit and morality and then mention evolution or the big bang theory and make themselves look foolish. You can see this when Christopher Hitchens debates a Rabbi, when Richard Dawkins debates Cardinal Pell and the Arch Bishop of Cantebury, once they go into sciences realm and domain they open themselves up for ahhnialition and you hear a godly call from somewhere towards Dawkins or Hitchens saying: FINISH HIM!!

Originally Posted by Quantime

It does seem theists are into 'proving god' with evidence and that they 'know' God exists. Well then it isn't faith and the second it doesn't becomes faith, you can prove it, so you ask them to prove it and they don't with some of them saying again 'it takes a little faith'. Well no they just again changed to story to suit them. It's always humourous listening to theists talk rubbish and babbel about spirit and morality and then mention evolution or the big bang theory and make themselves look foolish. You can see this when Christopher Hitchens debates a Rabbi, when Richard Dawkins debates Cardinal Pell and the Arch Bishop of Cantebury, once they go into sciences realm and domain they open themselves up for ahhnialition and you hear a godly call from somewhere towards Dawkins or Hitchens saying: FINISH HIM!!

Yes they do change the story to suit their cause. I didn't want to say this in the OP but I am sitting here wondering why this evolution of sorts may be taking place? Theism is no longer belief but fact for many. That means for those people at least, theist is the totally wrong label. Has pure theism become extinct and what pressure was being applied to facilitate the change in philosophy from belief to factual? Is it a good thing?

I was going to save this thought for later on.... has the amount of scientific knowledge gained since the first theist walked on this Earth made the universe a more wondrous place than ever before? I mean we can break down the universe and study it using different disciplines. Is this a good reason for a theist to think factually, only a god could make such wonders than simply believe a god did it?

Im not familiar with the concept of "pure theism", anyone using language is inevitably in contact with other humans since most of us use a pre-existing language instead of inventing our own from scratch.

I also have difficulty relating to the factual nature of theism, imo, you can observe gravity and acknowledge the existence of its effect, no matter where you are born, but belief in the existence of a given Deity (Thor, Zeus, Judeo-God, Allhah, ) is highly dependent on your social environment (itself influence by where and when you are located on earth).

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Im not familiar with the concept of "pure theism", anyone using language is inevitably in contact with other humans since most of us use a pre-existing language instead of inventing our own from scratch.

Neither are many others. I couldn't find much on it so I decided to give my version of it.

Language will spread the idea. You can still formulate an opinion on whether a god exists or not without contacting other humans who already possess the thought.

I just had a thought: Theism may be inherently diluted. Is the concept of god belief only possible if there is something to hold Him/Her/It responsible for? Do I need to revise my definition in the OP because it may be possible to conceive of a god without any human influence plus no direct observation of anything? Perhaps the revision would be more of a philosophical question. So in the interest of this thread I will stick with my original definition of Pure Theism.

You can still formulate an opinion on whether a god exists or not without contacting other humans who already possess the thought.

Hum, potentially, but I dont see this is the case for most Theists, why would you formulate without any cultural input that the issue is about "a" god and why not "many" gods or why not Leprechauns?(or why not say Ive never heard of Leprechauns, but I dont beleive in Leprauchauns, that is what Im not beleiving in, you cant do that unless you heard of Leprechauns) What are the odds that so many Greeks from antiquity formulated the opinion, on their own, without social influence, that not only there were "many" gods, but that on top of that they were often hanging out on Mt Olympus, and that their leader was Zeus? The odds of this occurring are much more remote than getting a Royal Fizzbin on a thursday. To formulate the opinion that Kukulcan (mesoamerican) god, Perseus, Leprechauns, doesnt exist you need to learn about him/it first.

(im not disagreeing , but trying to understand the point of view that you can believe in a given god, or set of pantheon, without cultural references. To me theism is like folk legends, its a blatant figment of cultural exposure. But thats just me)

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Yes they do change the story to suit their cause. I didn't want to say this in the OP but I am sitting here wondering why this evolution of sorts may be taking place?

It is possible that people are gravitating towards religion more simply because it appeals to them, what we need is someone to rebuke their arguments and break down the 99% most common theistic arguments as nothing more than pseudo-intellectual debates, namely the 'you can't know, and you can't prove along with the morality of atheists is questionable charade'. I am currently writing a book on this, I have been taking numerous debates from some famous theists such as Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Rowan Williams and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to name a few and then dissecting their argument based on their flaws.

Theism is no longer belief but fact for many. That means for those people at least, theist is the totally wrong label. Has pure theism become extinct and what pressure was being applied to facilitate the change in philosophy from belief to factual? Is it a good thing?

I believe... (:P) that the change came along from a NEED, atheism is the natural birth stance of anyone because I even when I believed in the Judeo-Christian God and Jesus was still atheist to Atlas and Loki, Chutulu and Baal, Zeus and Odin. It is a function of what you grow up with; if you are born of religious parents you will become religious. I think that there might at one point have been a pure theist as you said and he might have told others about his 'discovery' and in time Chinese whispers took its tool and here we are.

I was going to save this thought for later on.... has the amount of scientific knowledge gained since the first theist walked on this Earth made the universe a more wondrous place than ever before?

Yes absolutely, maybe our construct of wondering hasn't changed and that can imply that we are just as a race of humans the reality of all our previous hereditary memes and mantras inherited as much as our genetics. If we were to be completely wiped of memory and then all our structures and technology removed, we would likely resort back to being no different than we were 50,000 years ago. Why? Well we have only discovered the genome in the last century, we didn't know about it 500 years ago, and we wouldn't know about DNA if we had not studied evolution or cells to the extent that we have, so it would all come around again, I think though that without religion we would discover all we have today in not 3000 years or more, probably a couple hundred years, humans are smart, religion just makes us dumb. It is the colossal yelp of "I don't know! Therefore supernatural thing did it! Why? Well I need him emotionally so explaining things would destroy it thus me too!

I mean we can break down the universe and study it using different disciplines. Is this a good reason for a theist to think factually, only a god could make such wonders than simply believe a god did it?

We probably have a lot of the universe figured out now so much so that we might have the possibility of other universes too. When you say 'only a god could make such wonders' is again that cosmic 'I don't know, therefore to explain it supernatural thing did it'. If a god is a super-intelligent and technologically advanced being that understands the physics behind making a universe and manipulating matter so precisely then it isn't really a god. I think the distinction here is between ‘God' and 'Super-intelligent and technologically advanced being', which are the same except that God apparently came BEFORE the universe, but we know there was no before. So although there may be this super-intelligent and technologically advanced being which came from our universe, it certainly didn't create it and is just a function of creation of our universe or another which in my eyes, is not worth worshipping and certainly not if he is spying on everyone and demanding they obey him, sounds more like an alien invasion to me if there were any truth behind any of it, which I 99.99% doubt.

Zin

We ain't extinct
(not yet anyway)
(inhaling yet one more time)
......................
epimetheus:
But, then again, I am influenced by everything from birdshit on the patio to the words of the great philosophers and poets, music, and the looks in a kittens eyes.....................................and more

I expect there are people who think they have spoken to or seen God.. They are either called schizophrenic, dellusional, or if they are really lucky just 'mistaken'.

The history books of Atheists will not show prophets as prophets, but as dellusional.

So who would share their revelation if the had one?

During times odd religious fevour when hearing the voice of God is revered instead of condemned, a lot more will come out with there revelations.

*Having read this back is seems a bit of a rant in places. I just meant to contribute with an aspect of why there aren't so many 'pure' theists around these days.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Zin

We ain't extinct
(not yet anyway)
(inhaling yet one more time)
......................
epimetheus:
But, then again, I am influenced by everything from birdshit on the patio to the words of the great philosophers and poets, music, and the looks in a kittens eyes.....................................and more

Birdshit I can understand, bullshit not so much......

now you know why some folks wear brown boots

It is not possible to be a "pure theist" if you want to be picky or funny (or pig-headed).

Every religious person in the world is an atheist about all gods except their own.

Atheists just go one step further, not believing in any of them.

Gods are human inventions and as such either have human emotions and motives or in the case of monism it is a human attemtp to describe "perfection".
Is it wonder that philosophically we have failed at both?

Perhaps science will eventually be able to describe the dynamic Causality, but I have not much hope for human "interpretive" knowledge of the spiritual. There is no objective baseline that can be formed.

"god created man in his own image"
my take:
Man, completely incapable of understanding/knowing god created gods in man's own image
and euhemerism was born
clutter cluttered clutter until obfuscation ruled the day
theologians scrivened pages of pages of pages in an endless attempt to define the undefineable, and still they wrote adding even more clutter to a cluttered mind, blinding it to the obvious
stumbling around in a multiplicity of confused false starts, turning upon turning seeking and recoiling from the light and the haze of a foggy dawn into a numbness of the spirit and all the time, the sun was shining, unnoticed, unappreciated, splitting the fog like a cleaver through soft tissue, rending the obfuscatory certainty of confusion beyond the ken of language, and still
people seem to want an explanation of that which cannot be explained

lol
did that clear anything up for you?
...........
epimetheus, 2nd edit
brown boots ain't gonna cut it
brown hipwaders anyone?

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

If you would prefer atheists to either knock on your door, send you mail, phone you personally, take out a full page or billboard ad, have it made law, take away some rights, imprison or execute dissenters, have our own television shows, indoctrinate you from birth, visit you on your death bed, have you swear an oath, go to war or just bombard you from every avenue possible with propaganda then we could ask it be taught in schools too.( I probably missed a few). If you don't like hearing from atheists weekly or bi-weekly then we could increase the frequency to match theism's.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

Is it any worse than getting dressed up every sunday and "worship" to a myth? At least we are discussing the myth, how it started and possibly how we may find a correct answer to that which seems to pre occupy almost everyone.

I find atheist reinforcement considerably less demanding than praying to the east (west, whatever) 6 (7, whatever) times a day. Or saying grace everytime you put a piece of killed meat in your mouth.

No idea, Harold.

I do know there's a tendency among people in self described sceptical/rationalist groups to be a bit self congratulatory about how they/we have escaped the clutches of religion - and that by dint only of superior thinking skills "I'm not irrational like those people".

But I don't really get it. Being an atheist is like being not a stamp collector or not a chess player - there's nothing to do, there's nothing to be committed to, there's nothing to join. And there's nothing inherently rational about it either - plenty of atheists have silly beliefs about science (homeopathy, climate change, vaccines) or alien/UFO stuff or any one (or any combination) of the legion of silly conspiracy theories.

hi everybody
me a creative scientist, God willing nobel prize,
me a pakistani knowing poor english,
i have many work for mankind,
in but here in pakistan no chance even a no job for me,
but i hope in future i will be known like Sir Newton
i want a working visa too

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

Atheists are a strong minority that are baffled and appalled at how the majority use superstition and belief to behave in the world.
Promoting critical thinking, logic, rationality and skepticism are as important to progress as research and scientific study are.

Think of the great Library of Alexandria.

It is lost to us now. But at one time, the minds working there delved deep into the mysteries we still ponder today. There are hints that contained within the library were ideas on steam engines and machinery. There was mathematics and geography. Great poetry, plays and culture. If we had had access to the library's contents when it stood, what would we all be doing today?
But we didn't have access. The common man was kept ignorant and the contents of the library was reserved for the Elites. It was not shared with the world, as we do today. And when the Library was destroyed, there were few shared copies, few duplicates to refer to. What was lost was lost forever.

Today, we do share knowledge and ideas. The internet has replaced the ancient bathhouses as halls for debate, sparring and discussion. This free exchange of ideas is probably one of the greatest manifestations in our history.
We can reach others, promote understanding, debunk charlatans, fact check political commentary, research science and so on...

And Harold, you're complaining?!

Let them speak.

Let them put the words out there for the many, many, many people "googling" up keywords that could lead to any one of these threads.
Let those people hit on the thread, lurk, read the arguments, the claims, the rebuttals. Let them be exposed to links to sites like Talkorigins.com and let them find enlightenment, critical thinking, skeptical thinking and extend themselves beyond just belief and faith or even having to remain unaware.

And let them move along with these new ideas in their head, maybe just seeds to grow or even matured and developed conclusions after a bit of thought. Let them examine their local and national politics and politicians, public appeals, environmental concerns and media rhetoric after being exposed to the type of scientific thinking promoted across many places on the internet such as this one.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

Atheists are a strong minority that are baffled and appalled at how the majority use superstition and belief to behave in the world.
Promoting critical thinking, logic, rationality and skepticism are as important to progress as research and scientific study are.

I'm aware that me an you have a beuatiful blossoming relationship Neverfly, and God knows I wouldn't want to jeopodise the divine rapport that has developed between us so quickly.
However, I feel I must request that you explain to us all, how critical thinking has led to you holding a beleif, a notion that 'God' is a 'superstion', and anybody who doesn't deny God lacks critical thinking and rationality.

Please proceed:

Originally Posted by question for you

However, I feel I must request that you explain to us all, how critical thinking has led to you holding a beleif, a notion that 'God' is a 'superstion', and anybody who doesn't deny God lacks critical thinking and rationality.

Please proceed:

Maybe I didn't express that very well. I'll try again.

I find the belief in religion, God, churches, temples, witchcraft, the occult, leprechauns etc all to be primitive superstition.
A person exercising critical thinking is more likely to conclude that many, a great many, of these primitive superstitions are without merit, and many people are biased against doing so because of their emotional attachment to their beliefs.

The way you worded it implies that I said that religious people lack critical thinking entirely. No, I don't think that. But I do think they lack it where their primitive and often, very absurd religious beliefs are concerned. These beliefs are so powerful, for some people, that they will try to quash anything that may contradict their beliefs or expose the absurdity of them. This type of influence is often counterproductive. Sometimes, it can be unhealthy and occasionally, it can be dangerous.
Let's take a moment to examine this guy.
Did he lack all rationality and critical thinking skills? Most assuredly not. He was probably on top of many things and clear headed about many things.
But when it came to his, frankly, ridiculous beliefs... He went and got himself killed. Dead. Gone. Bye bye... The whole time, he had strong faith that "God" would protect him from his own foolishness.
This is similar to primitive shaman behaviors.


What I'm saying doesn't seem to be popular on this board. I don't really give a rats tail, either. While I may not support the notion of denying the vote to religious people (That's just as extremist and absurd as religious people trying to block Evolution from being taught is schools), this doesn't mean that I think religion is hunky dory.

I think it's a load of superstitious hogwash and fodder for a weak mind that cannot let go of it's emotional attachment to primitive and absurd mumbo jumbo. A person who normally is a critical thinker may well still cling to their childhood invisible sky daddy due to a lack of clarity, a lack of critical thinking on that one topic.

You mentioned a budding friendship. Well, here's something about "friendship," with me: It doesn't mean I'll be "a friend" and tell pretty lies. No, I tell you they way I see it.
It's brutal, but direct and honest.
You may be offended. You may get angry. You may shrug it off and say, "Everyone has an opinion..." That's all on you. You asked, I answered.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

If you would prefer atheists to either knock on your door, send you mail, phone you personally, take out a full page or billboard ad, have it made law, take away some rights, imprison or execute dissenters, have our own television shows, indoctrinate you from birth, visit you on your death bed, have you swear an oath, go to war or just bombard you from every avenue possible with propaganda then we could ask it be taught in schools too.( I probably missed a few). If you don't like hearing from atheists weekly or bi-weekly then we could increase the frequency to match theism's.

Do I have to make a choice? The Jehovah's Witnesses show up two or three times a year. I politely listen to their spiel for a couple of minutes, take a Watchtower, and let them go about their business. Other than that, religious folks don't bother me much at all. Whereas, here on the Science forum, there is a steady drumbeat of propaganda, day after day.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Do I have to make a choice? The Jehovah's Witnesses show up two or three times a year. I politely listen to their spiel for a couple of minutes, take a Watchtower, and let them go about their business.

See... This is where you and me are different.

I don a pair of horns and fangs and ask how many liters of blood they contain.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

Atheists are a strong minority that are baffled and appalled at how the majority use superstition and belief to behave in the world.
Promoting critical thinking, logic, rationality and skepticism are as important to progress as research and scientific study are.

I'm aware that me an you have a beuatiful blossoming relationship Neverfly, and God knows I wouldn't want to jeopodise the divine rapport that has developed between us so quickly.
However, I feel I must request that you explain to us all, how critical thinking has led to you holding a beleif, a notion that 'God' is a 'superstion', and anybody who doesn't deny God lacks critical thinking and rationality.

Please proceed:

This is not really a fair request.
Neverfly is not making the extraordinary claim of the existence of gods. He is not required to provide proof of his disbelief. On the contrary, it is up to the person making the claim that god does in fact exists, who is required to present proof.

Please proceed:

Originally Posted by Write4U

This is not really a fair request.
Neverfly is not making the extraordinary claim of the existence of gods. He is not required to provide proof of his disbelief. On the contrary, it is up to the person making the claim that god does in fact exists, who is required to present proof.

This is true, but I'm not so politically correct that I'm willing to pass the buck. I am opinionated on the matter and won't dodge it, I'll say it straight.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

If you would prefer atheists to either knock on your door, send you mail, phone you personally, take out a full page or billboard ad, have it made law, take away some rights, imprison or execute dissenters, have our own television shows, indoctrinate you from birth, visit you on your death bed, have you swear an oath, go to war or just bombard you from every avenue possible with propaganda then we could ask it be taught in schools too.( I probably missed a few). If you don't like hearing from atheists weekly or bi-weekly then we could increase the frequency to match theism's.

Do I have to make a choice? The Jehovah's Witnesses show up two or three times a year. I politely listen to their spiel for a couple of minutes, take a Watchtower, and let them go about their business. Other than that, religious folks don't bother me much at all. Whereas, here on the Science forum, there is a steady drumbeat of propaganda, day after day.

C'mon Harold, religion is but one of many Topics under discussion. You make it sound as if you are forced to follow this thread or Topic. The mods would be amiss if they did not put all religious discussions under the Topic of Religion. Of course you will find ALL proponents and opponents here.

I do not hear you complain about the myriad of prostletizers who come here to "convert" those atheist heathens.

When someone tells me, "god bless you" I will graciously accept the good wish, but when someone comes up to me, shoves a Watchtower in my hands and tells me, "you need this", I will destroy his day........

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Maybe I didn't express that very well. I'll try again.

I find the belief in religion, God, churches, temples, witchcraft, the occult, leprechauns etc all to be primitive superstition.
A person exercising critical thinking is more likely to conclude that many, a great many, of these primitive superstitions are without merit, and many people are biased against doing so because of their emotional attachment to their beliefs.

You find the concept of God to be primative... I want to know why and how you found that to be the case, what are your arguments? Church, religion, temples, leprecauns don't interest me so much. I'm not here to defend organised religions that will not adapt.

Occult just means 'hidden'... like you get an occult of the moon, when it isn't visible.

Occult knowledge is knowledge that is hidden, much of it is fascinating stuff, i'm drawn to rare and obscure information. That's not to say that much of the stuff which masqurades as 'occult' is sound, as it might not be. Occult relates to mystycism becasue when something is 'occult' (hidden) then it is also a mystery, that doesn't make in it irrational or supostitious, necesarily.

Many superstitions may be without merit... Atheism seems to me as much of a superstion as theism.

The concept of God doesn't have to have anything to do with any religion. Somebody who thinks that God may be a reality based on evidence is not engaging in superstion. They may be observing reality and keeping an open mind, this in my opinion is more rational than the closed stance of Atheism.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The way you worded it implies that I said that religious people lack critical thinking entirely. No, I don't think that. But I do think they lack it where their primitive and often, very absurd religious beliefs are concerned. These beliefs are so powerful, for some people, that they will try to quash anything that may contradict their beliefs or expose the absurdity of them. This type of influence is often counterproductive. Sometimes, it can be unhealthy and occasionally, it can be dangerous.

It just sounded like you think the Atheist position is the most rational... I have disagreed with that and given my rational reasoning just above.

beleifs are powerful... So whats irrational about empowering yourself? It's not just a beleif in God that can empower a person, give courage to a person. In any feild of life beleive is going to serve well. I have had discussions on here about 'ki' or 'chi', about hypnotism and self hypnotism, purely by beleif alone we can make things happen. If I beleive I will smash the brick and it won't hurt, really beleive, then I will do it. If I beleive i'm going to break my hand and it will hurt like hell, it will. Therefore beleif in itself is powerful, and effective, and therefor not always irrational at all.
Atheism is a beleif, personally I think it's a beleif that if adopted universally, will prove to be the most dangerous and destructive beleif ever held.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Let's take a moment to examine this guy.
Did he lack all rationality and critical thinking skills? Most assuredly not. He was probably on top of many things and clear headed about many things.
But when it came to his, frankly, ridiculous beliefs... He went and got himself killed. Dead. Gone. Bye bye... The whole time, he had strong faith that "God" would protect him from his own foolishness.
This is similar to primitive shaman behaviors.

Well... This is a religious guy. He isn't using critical thinking, he is following words written in a book that he beleives in, yet probably doesn't understand much about.
Anyway... he knew the risks, he saw his dad go the same way, presumably he felt sure he would live on after the death of his body.
It's kinda ironic, but he is not an advert for Atheism.
I respect him more than somebody with an irrational fear who panics at the sight of a snake and climbs onto a table. He put his faith into God, that faith has the power to let him casually handle snakes (something he must have done a lot of), that faith could also have allowed him to do anything he wanted for this Earth and it's people. That faith is powerful. Atheistic faith isn't powerful in anyway, for that reason I beleive it to be more irrational than Theism.

Shamen and tribal people often have to commit great feats of bravery in order to prosper in their environment. If that bravery requires a faith of somekind, then that faith is a rational thing. A faith in Atheism might mean they wouldn't take risks... therefore they would perish.

Did you ever see that tribe who invented bungy jumping? They bungy head first of this rickity old tower with vines tied around their legs... the idea is that when the head of the bungy jumper brushes the soil then a good harvest is ensured. Those people are amazing. I don't know how there tradition developed, but they have evolved to be brave and strong, not a bad or irrational outcome.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

What I'm saying doesn't seem to be popular on this board. I don't really give a rats tail, either. While I may not support the notion of denying the vote to religious people (That's just as extremist and absurd as religious people trying to block Evolution from being taught is schools), this doesn't mean that I think religion is hunky dory.

I applaud you for speaking your mind, this isn't a popularity contest.
I just feel you shouldn't generalise and group anybody who isn't a devout Atheist as irrational. Many beleifs are irrational, many seem irrational yet they have a rational reason, many are simply rational.
Atheism I repeat is among the most potentially dangerous beleifs out there, there is an 'agressiveness' to Atheists against all those who are open to the concept of a 'God', and all those who are devout beleivers. Agressive Atheism is not necesary and IMO it is irrational... More so than any other beleif.

It's important that if you have a gripe with an organised religion, then you take it up with them. Don't confuse those who are open to the notion of a God based on observations and study, with those who make up rules and scare others into beleiving and following.

There is a definite distinction between somebody who is Areligious and somebody who is Atheistic... The former can justify their beleifs with reasoned argument. The later cannot, they are simply the opposite to somebody with blind faith in God and since Atheism offers none of the benefits of theism, it is a more irrational beleif.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I think it's a load of superstitious hogwash and fodder for a weak mind that cannot let go of it's emotional attachment to primitive and absurd mumbo jumbo. A person who normally is a critical thinker may well still cling to their childhood invisible sky daddy due to a lack of clarity, a lack of critical thinking on that one topic..

What is? you're confusing somebody who has been fed religious stories since childhood with an educated and observant critical thinker who simply will not rule out the possibility that there is a Godhead principle.

Many stories are made up, to follow them might seem irrational. Yet there are reasons why a person will benefit from beleiving in the 'hogwash', therefor it is not without reason and rationality altogether. Even beleiving in Atheism is not without reason and rationality.
Many people get a sense of 'i'm intelligent', 'i'm hard, I can face the cold truth', 'I'm a critical thinker' out of beleiving in Atheism... it doesn't mean Atheism is true, it just means there is a benefit to adopting the beleif.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You mentioned a budding friendship. Well, here's something about "friendship," with me: It doesn't mean I'll be "a friend" and tell pretty lies. No, I tell you they way I see it.
It's brutal, but direct and honest.
You may be offended. You may get angry. You may shrug it off and say, "Everyone has an opinion..." That's all on you. You asked, I answered.

I wouldn't want a friend who says things just to agree with me... that's dishonest. I admire honesty.

I am absolutely not offended by your comments, they are from the heart of you. None of them are unreasonable personal attacks on me. I'm absolutely not angered by your comments. freedom of expression is something I have an irrational beleif in.

Everybody does have an opinion (though we probably shouldn't, rationally speaking).

Nope just to clarify the reason I responded to your post is because I disagree that Atheist are the most rational thinkers, I've given my reasoning above.

I hope you will carefully consider the points I made and reconsider your aproach to the matter...None of us know everything, None of us know what is beyond or what came before the Universe. None of us know if we were created, or how life came to be. There are many mysteries out there... I think in 2012 it's too early to be able to claim that a beleif in no God is the most rational beleif going. It's far from it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

If you would prefer atheists to either knock on your door, send you mail, phone you personally, take out a full page or billboard ad, have it made law, take away some rights, imprison or execute dissenters, have our own television shows, indoctrinate you from birth, visit you on your death bed, have you swear an oath, go to war or just bombard you from every avenue possible with propaganda then we could ask it be taught in schools too.( I probably missed a few). If you don't like hearing from atheists weekly or bi-weekly then we could increase the frequency to match theism's.

Do I have to make a choice? The Jehovah's Witnesses show up two or three times a year. I politely listen to their spiel for a couple of minutes, take a Watchtower, and let them go about their business. Other than that, religious folks don't bother me much at all. Whereas, here on the Science forum, there is a steady drumbeat of propaganda, day after day.

It is human nature, the question is do we prefer the religious dogma and propoganda or the atheist version which isn't propogana, it is verifed FACT and atheists militantly share those facts. It is our duty as human beings to end religion it is extremely dangerous and is responsible for not neccisarily deaths but most importantly turning people into the living braindead which is perhaps even worse. If you don't like people's atheist contributions just ignore it, you don't have to view religion, I don't like seeing the never ending challenges to relativity and Quantum Theory in the physics sub-forum but I just ignore them and let others who feel more passionately about putting things right get on with it. Even if some atheists are selfishly motivated, as long as it has a better effect on society I think its helpful to human growth and development.

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What is the point of these weekly (or thereabouts) atheism promotion threads? Is it a substitute for church attendance? An opportunity for atheists to gather together and reinforce their beliefs or lack of beliefs? You folks really do seem to be obsessed with the subject.

Atheists are a strong minority that are baffled and appalled at how the majority use superstition and belief to behave in the world.
Promoting critical thinking, logic, rationality and skepticism are as important to progress as research and scientific study are.

I'm aware that me an you have a beuatiful blossoming relationship Neverfly, and God knows I wouldn't want to jeopodise the divine rapport that has developed between us so quickly.
However, I feel I must request that you explain to us all, how critical thinking has led to you holding a beleif, a notion that 'God' is a 'superstion', and anybody who doesn't deny God lacks critical thinking and rationality.

Please proceed:

This is not really a fair request.
Neverfly is not making the extraordinary claim of the existence of gods. He is not required to provide proof of his disbelief. On the contrary, it is up to the person making the claim that god does in fact exists, who is required to present proof.

Please proceed:

Absolute rubbish.

Neverfly is making the extraordinary claim that Atheists are the most rational critical thinkers. I asked him to present his reasoning.

It's far too early to draw out the worn out old 'the burden of prove is on you' card.

Originally Posted by Quantime

It is human nature, the question is do we prefer the religious dogma and propoganda or the atheist version which isn't propogana, it is verifed FACT and atheists militantly share those facts. It is our duty as human beings to end religion it is extremely dangerous and is responsible for not neccisarily deaths but most importantly turning people into the living braindead which is perhaps even worse. If you don't like people's atheist contributions just ignore it, you don't have to view religion, I don't like seeing the never ending challenges to relativity and Quantum Theory in the physics sub-forum but I just ignore them and let others who feel more passionately about putting things right get on with it. Even if some atheists are selfishly motivated, as long as it has a better effect on society I think its helpful to human growth and development.

here we go again.. somebody who doesn't know the difference between a religious person and a person who has not ruled out the posibility of God based on knowledge and evidence they have gathered.

Where are these facts that millitant (and thats an apt word for the agressive religious Atheist that we see all the time) Atheist present so freely?

Let me see these 'facts' please... I never caught any Atheist who had any.

Originally Posted by question for you

You find the concept of God to be primative... I want to know why and how you found that to be the case, what are your arguments?

Because the entire concept is based on primitive traits such as Pareidolia.
In order to survive, our ancestors needed to employ pattern recognition and even fear. It's better to see a predator that isn't there than to not see one that is.
Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by question for you

Many superstitions may be without merit... Atheism seems to me as much of a superstion as theism.

How so? Atheism is a lack of belief. Believers often claim that atheism is just another form of faith and belief as if to say, "See, we're basically the same- believers- we just don't believe in the same thing. It's a matter of pure opinion."
But that's not the case and that's only a tactic to avoid the "lack" problem.

Throughout your entire post, you make it quite clear you want to claim that atheism- a lack of belief- is a belief of some kind. You claim it's faith based.

Originally Posted by question for you

Somebody who thinks that God may be a reality based on evidence is not engaging in superstion.

They are, though. There is no evidence of some divine being. People do not observe evidence, not by a long shot. What they are doing is validating a pre-existing belief by finding examples that they hope will lend credence to it- then labeling it as 'evidence."
An example of this is the Common Miracle where employees were sick the day of 9-11 and didn't go in to work that day at WTC1,2 or 7. They believe God spared them (Nevermind the great many people, and even heroic ones that didn't get Gods memo.)
Finding a baby survive a collapsing building in an earthquake (ignoring the 47 other babies met a grisly demise) or one personal favorite:
The Miracle On the Hudson, where a passenger jet hit a flock of birds (That God divinely put there to muck up the engine, right?) on take off and miraculously, the pilot (Who was a seasoned veteran as well as a Glider Pilot) managed to, by divine grace, turn the plane in a manner that was totally within its design parameters and glide it onto a water landing on the Hudson (Nevermind the great many people that have died in plane crashes since planes became popular transport...)

None of it is evidence. It's delusion so that they can keep believing in what they do not wish to let go of.

Originally Posted by question for you

purely by beleif alone we can make things happen.

Purely by belief you can believe, but you cannot cure cancer with belief, float above the ground or even believe to bend a spoon.

Originally Posted by question for you

If I beleive I will smash the brick and it won't hurt, really beleive, then I will do it. If I beleive i'm going to break my hand and it will hurt like hell, it will.

Wrong. That statement is untrue. The physical structure of your hand will determine whether it will break under great pressure and f what you just said was true, the majority of people would be able to "believe away" regular injuries. Yet, no one can nor ever does. And I challenge you to provide verifiable tested evidence of anyone "believing and therefor achieving something physically impossible."

Originally Posted by question for you

Well... This is a religious guy. He isn't using critical thinking, he is following words written in a book that he beleives in, yet probably doesn't understand much about.

So true...

Originally Posted by question for you

but he is not an advert for Atheism.

He demonstrated the fallacy of your claim that Pure Belief will save you, though, didn't he?

Originally Posted by question for you

Respect him more than somebody with an irrational fear who panics at the sight of a snake and climbs onto a table.

I respect the survivor that avoids danger more then the fool that earns a Darwin Award. He didn't do that saving lives or doing great good; he did it to sucker more people into his way of thinking.

Originally Posted by question for you

that faith could also have allowed him to do anything he wanted for this Earth and it's people.

Except resist snake venom...

Originally Posted by question for you

That faith is powerful.

Too bad it wasn't as powerful as that venom!

Originally Posted by question for you

I just feel you shouldn't generalise and group anybody who isn't a devout Atheist as irrational.

I really didn't. I grouped people that believe in God as irrational on the subject of God.

Originally Posted by question for you

Atheism I repeat is among the most potentially dangerous beleifs out there

Atheists lack belief.

Originally Posted by question for you

there is an 'agressiveness' to Atheists against all those who are open to the concept of a 'God', and all those who are devout beleivers.

Kinda like all the Holy Wars, crusades and witch burning and... wait. Hang on.

Originally Posted by question for you

Agressive Atheism is not necesary

I'm sorry but how many atheists have you had to fend off attack from your body for your beliefs? Hell, innocent women were hunted down without trial and set on fire on zero evidence at all and this argument is the one you're trying to make? That atheists like Dawkins seem aggressive because they talk?!

Originally Posted by question for you

with an educated and observant critical thinker who simply will not rule out the possibility that there is a Godhead principle.

No one is immune to the psychological fancies of the mind.

Originally Posted by question for you

I am absolutely not offended by your comments, they are from the heart of you. None of them are unreasonable personal attacks on me. I'm absolutely not angered by your comments. freedom of expression is something I have an irrational beleif in.

You know, I used to be in the Ministry. I remember being bothered by non-believers. I remember how I felt about it all back then... It's kinda funny- looking back at that.

I removed a lot of your post as the reply would be long enough already. Perhaps others may be interested in tackling some of your "atheist belief" claims...

Originally Posted by question for you

Neverfly is making the extraordinary claim that Atheists are the most rational critical thinkers.

Nope, I never did. At all.
I only claimed that belief in God is irrational, primitive, superstition. I made the statement that to believe in God shows a lack of critical thinking on the matter.

Originally Posted by question for you

I never caught any Atheist who had any.

This may be because you block them out. They may invalidate your beliefs. That's not always a welcome thing for folks...

QFY,
The concept of God doesn't have to have anything to do with any religion.

If only..........

Somebody who thinks that God may be a reality based on evidence is not engaging in superstion. They may be observing reality and keeping an open mind,

If only.........

this in my opinion is more rational than the closed stance of Atheism.

What is irrational about saying, because it is obscure (without evidence) and apparently has no influence on the physical nature of the universe, let us NOT assume a god?

It is the mere assumption of gods that have plagued mankind since the first hominid shook a stick at the invisible (obscure) enemy in the sky that made loud noises, threw fire and water, threatening harm to him and his family.
There is your first evidence of the existence of gods. Does it provide proof that god exists, or that weather is a naturally explainable phenomenon.

Originally Posted by question for you

here we go again.. somebody who doesn't know the difference between a religious person and a person who has not ruled out the posibility of God based on knowledge and evidence they have gathered.

Which is zero. Therefore there is no difference.

Where are these facts that millitant (and thats an apt word for the agressive religious Atheist that we see all the time) Atheist present so freely?

Evolution
Quantum Theory

Let me see these 'facts' please... I never caught any Atheist who had any.

Evolution
Quantum Theory

If we can be fooled by these illusionary examples, what are the odds we understand the obscure part of the universe.

Woman On Street Attacked By Giant Snail, It Seems : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

Originally Posted by Quantime

It is human nature, the question is do we prefer the religious dogma and propoganda or the atheist version which isn't propogana, it is verifed FACT and atheists militantly share those facts.

You think atheists don't promote dogma and propaganda? That everything they say is true?

It is our duty as human beings to end religion

Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes. I'm going to focus on the easy stuff like faster than light travel and world peace.

religion ... is extremely dangerous and is responsible for not neccisarily deaths

On the other hand, religions and religious people do a lot of good, including saving millions of lives. And there are atheists who do bad stuff, including causing death and destruction. Who knew.

Your naive and simplistic view of humanity and the world is a bit depressing, to be honest. I would hope for more intelligence and insight on a science forum.

I don't like seeing the never ending challenges to relativity and Quantum Theory in the physics sub-forum

As far as I can tell, most of those people with bizarrely strong emotional attachments to their weird and erroneous beliefs are atheists. Go figure.

On the other hand, this is even more ridiculous:

Originally Posted by question for you

The concept of God doesn't have to have anything to do with any religion. Somebody who thinks that God may be a reality based on evidence is not engaging in superstion. They may be observing reality and keeping an open mind, this in my opinion is more rational than the closed stance of Atheism.

Originally Posted by Strange

You think atheists don't promote dogma and propaganda? That everything they say is true?

An atheist is human and can, indeed, do these things. It's a matter of decreasing the amounts of people that will, as all.

Originally Posted by Strange

On the other hand, religions and religious people do a lot of good, including saving millions of lives. And there are atheists who do bad stuff, including causing death and destruction. Who knew.

Also true, but the underlying thought is that Faith and Belief in the absurd is a strong and powerful influence on peoples lives. It may lead them to do things they normally may not do.
So getting rid of religion certainly won't rid the world of problems. Religious people tend to believe strongly in order to validate their nature, anyway.

But it can decrease the many dramatic affects of a powerful superstitious belief and its influence on a large population.

I don't believe in stamping out religion, I believe in educating people so that they simply abandon the superstition and irrational in favor of what is rational and more productive and better suited for progress.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Strange

You think atheists don't promote dogma and propaganda? That everything they say is true?

An atheist is human and can, indeed, do these things. It's a matter of decreasing the amounts of people that will, as all.

I suppose the other side of that coin I should have mentioned is that there are good (great, even) scientists, engineers and other rational and fact-based professionals who are religious.

Remember who the L is in the FLRW metric.

This is a science forum: does anyone have any evidence for (or against) this idea that atheists are more rational than religious people? It may be true but it isn't obvious.

Also true, but the underlying thought is that Faith and Belief in the absurd is a strong and powerful influence on peoples lives. It may lead them to do things they normally may not do.

And those may be good things as well as bad. More likely to be good in my experience. Again, is there any evidence that religion encourages more people to do things that are harmful to society than things that are good for society?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Quantime

It is human nature, the question is do we prefer the religious dogma and propoganda or the atheist version which isn't propogana, it is verifed FACT and atheists militantly share those facts.

You think atheists don't promote dogma and propaganda? That everything they say is true?

Firstly lets break down these two concepts as there is usually social stigma attached to the words:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.

What rational minded person would present religion to people as well as helping educate about them about facts such as evolution?

Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.

So basically a belief. Well we know atheism is void of belief on supernatural phenomena so can we really call atheism Dogma? Ridiculous notion. When it comes to being militant about atheism well there may be difference stances on that but I particularly am not a member of any militant atheism, I present facts at theistic claims, the evidence then stands for itself for rationally minded people to accept.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Quantime

It is our duty as human beings to end religion

Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes. I'm going to focus on the easy stuff like faster than light travel and world peace.

I know you're a man but surely you can try to multitask Perhaps also world peace would be an easier venture without religion polluting the world? We all know how when it comes to politics religion has affected the world (US government isn't secular, UK government isn't entirely secular, the Roman Catholic church was the dominant political leader for two thousands years, the governments of the middle east) As long as religion isn't secular from government we are going to have problems with that one.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Quantime

religion ... is extremely dangerous and is responsible for not neccisarily deaths

On the other hand, religions and religious people do a lot of good, including saving millions of lives.

Elaborate, don't just make a claim and not present evidence of your claim. Where has a religion saved millions of lives? And opposed to the millions more that it has caused with holy wars and inquisitions?

Originally Posted by Strange

And there are atheists who do bad stuff, including causing death and destruction. Who knew.

Of course you have good and bad people in the world, the difference is when people have to be ordered to be moral, when they follow that they must stone people to death and do, when the gentially mutlitate infants, when they kill people for committing apostasy. Although some atheists may commit vile crimes, there is no book telling them they have a right to do so in certain situations...

Originally Posted by Strange

Your naive and simplistic view of humanity and the world is a bit depressing, to be honest. I would hope for more intelligence and insight on a science forum.

Religion causes pain and suffering on a scale far more than it is helpful. Why do I know this? Why would any human being need a book to tell them to be kind and moral? Religion for morality and doing good is kind of like investing all your savings into the Martingale strategy when playing in roulette as a financial investment. Sooner or later even though you may win in the shortrun sooner or later you will lose everything. Naive and simplistic is your opinion and has no standing in a scientific discussion....

Originally Posted by Strange

I would hope for more intelligence and insight on a science forum.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Quantime

I don't like seeing the never ending challenges to relativity and Quantum Theory in the physics sub-forum

As far as I can tell, most of those people with bizarrely strong emotional attachments to their weird and erroneous beliefs are atheists. Go figure.

Again prove your claim and what relevance it has to this discussion, I used my example as personal experience of frustration to Harold, not to be used as an argument in this discussion. You have brought that into the discussion out of context.

But when it comes to passion in either theism or atheism it is human nature isn't it? Who can argue that? The difference is is that atheists in groups don't usually go around bombing buildings, murdering someone for having a different faith or causing riots, supporting bigotry when protesting.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

You find the concept of God to be primative... I want to know why and how you found that to be the case, what are your arguments?

Because the entire concept is based on primitive traits such as Pareidolia.
In order to survive, our ancestors needed to employ pattern recognition and even fear. It's better to see a predator that isn't there than to not see one that is.
Pareidolia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your speculating on where faith came from... That's beyond my remit. I think that the Godhead concept is one derived from intense intellectual reasoning processes. Many concepts and notions might be pareidolia, thats a new word to me, it doesn't seem to be evidence against God in anyway.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

Many superstitions may be without merit... Atheism seems to me as much of a superstion as theism.

How so? Atheism is a lack of belief. Believers often claim that atheism is just another form of faith and belief as if to say, "See, we're basically the same- believers- we just don't believe in the same thing. It's a matter of pure opinion."
But that's not the case and that's only a tactic to avoid the "lack" problem.

Throughout your entire post, you make it quite clear you want to claim that atheism- a lack of belief- is a belief of some kind. You claim it's faith based.

I know of the literal meaning of the word Atheism. However, in most cases these agressive atheist are in fact spouting beleif.. Atheism is not an impartial position, it is a position AGAINST... I know Atheist like to claim 'I don't have a beleif, Atheism means I lack beleif', but in reality most Atheists are presenting a beleif, and most who call themselves atheists do beleive strongly that God cannot exist. An agnostic is somebody who says 'I do not know' and that is a more rational position than Atheism.

If you laked beleif then you wouldn't be making claims about Atheists being more rational than theists... you would simply say 'I don't get the whole belef thing'.

There is a difference between lacking beleif, and beleiving in the opposite to something. Atheism, Agnosticism, these are just words. You beleive there is evidence that God doesn't exist and beleiving in him is irrational. That's not Atheism in it's literal sense, thats beleifs, so don't give me the literal definition.

I simply attempt to claim that you have beliefs... therefor you shouldn't be claiming that you merely 'lack beleif'. You are not impartial, you have a stand. That stand may or may not conform to the literal definition of Atheism. Either way... you have shown a beleif of your own, so don't claim that you simply lack beleif. That's not true.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

None of it is evidence. It's delusion so that they can keep believing in what they do not wish to let go of.
Yes, it goes on. people are deluded in many ways... none of it is proof or evidence for or against a God concept.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

purely by beleif alone we can make things happen.

Purely by belief you can believe, but you cannot cure cancer with belief, float above the ground or even believe to bend a spoon...

So because it can't do everything that makes it a bad thing?

You can make dealing with cancer a lot easier by having forms of faith.
I'm pretty certain it is scientifically known that beleif has amazing powers.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

If I beleive I will smash the brick and it won't hurt, really beleive, then I will do it. If I beleive i'm going to break my hand and it will hurt like hell, it will.

Wrong. That statement is untrue. The physical structure of your hand will determine whether it will break under great pressure and f what you just said was true, the majority of people would be able to "believe away" regular injuries. Yet, no one can nor ever does. And I challenge you to provide verifiable tested evidence of anyone "believing and therefor achieving something physically impossible."...

No, it's true. Beleif can allow me to acheive things I couldn't do without the belief.

Pain is scientifically proven to be largely brought on by anxiety. If I beleive it will hurt then the pain will intensify. If I beleive it won't, the pain will be minimal. That is evidence of the power of beleif.

I have helped to heal my own injuries. I can be sitting there focussing on my torn ligments, imagining it's going to kill me whenI stand on it, and it will hurt a lot. Or I an think 'I have the power to switch of the pain receptors associated with this area of my body'... and the pain will go away just as I beleived it would. Not entirely, but largely, it is mind over matter.
A fear of a tattoist will cause greater pain. A beleif that the pain is insignificant will make it insignificant.

One cannot smash a brick when one believes one cannot do it, or that it will break the hand. This will cause a lack of concentration on the job at hand, it will cause mistakes... the person will be so scared of the pain that they are focussing on it and amplifying it.

When one has absolute faith, one foccusses one mind on the task. Then succeeds.

Nobody said smashing the brick was physically imppossible... simply impossible to those who are convinced it is impossible. But, possible to those who are convinced it is possible. This is the nature of human ability. Why people such as Einstein say 'what ever is percievable is acheivable'.

Verify this is you must... if you want to learn... Hypnotise somebody to beleive they can take the pain of a candle burning there arm. Hypnotice another to beleive they will die from the flame.

See which one can stand the pain for longer.

Hypnotize one man to think he can smash a brick, hypnotize another to beleive he cannt lift his arms.

The power of beleif is well documented. No offence, but your beleif in no God, which you like to describe as a lak of beleif in God (which is inacurate), is causing you to fight against those who you consider gullible, naive, and irrational.

If you didn't have this belief, that god does not exist, then you wouldn't be fighting against or aggrevated by those who do beleive.

To be continued...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

but he is not an advert for Atheism.

He demonstrated the fallacy of your claim that Pure Belief will save you, though, didn't he?..

I don't know about that. Sure, I agree there are limits to beleif. But who knows if he is in heaven?

What he did demonstrate is that with belief he was able to calmly handle deadly snakes much more successfully than would be expected. try getting somebody with a fear of snakes to do that and see how long befor they get bitten. Beleif served him well in this respect. I cannot comment on the level of his beleif or sincerity. Clearly the snakes beleif that he needed to bite the man was stronger than the man's beleif that the snake wouldn't.

The man was not the only being acting on belief... the snake had ideas of his own.

I never said beleif will save anybody... I said beleiving that God doesn't exist is not necesarily anymore rational than beleiving God does exist.

And, that belief is powerful.

His motives and beleifs are beyond my understanding... I don't mean to praise him or sleight him. I do respect that he had the courage to handle a deadly snake many times.

If he dies or if he lives, no matter... the reaper will come for us all.

The fact is that kind of beleif can be turned towards great good. You cannot deny the power of that.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

that faith could also have allowed him to do anything he wanted for this Earth and it's people.

Except resist snake venom...

What makes you think he beleived he could resist snake venom? he knew his dad's faith didn't save him.

A belief that one can survive a snake bite will ensure calmness and prolong the time taken for the venom to act in the system. A beleif that it will kill, would cause panic, raise heart beat and hasten the process, as well as make it a lot more angst. I never meant to claim beleif can do miracles, it is just powerful thats all.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Atheists lack belief...

Then maybe Atheist is not the right word for you, or for many of the people who beleive God doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

there is an 'agressiveness' to Atheists against all those who are open to the concept of a 'God', and all those who are devout beleivers.

Kinda like all the Holy Wars, crusades and witch burning and... wait. Hang on....

Exactly dude... thats why psuedo Atheism is a religion based on a belief that god doesn't exist and all who follow this heavily promoted faith system are puppets on the strings of intellectuals who promote all this nonesense and invent all these ambiguos words.

A true atheist would not argue with a beleiver anymore than they would argue with a disenter...

Psuedo Atheism is a modern army built on the faith that religion is wrong. Or more precisely, that the beleif in God is worng. And it's an aggressive army of double thinkers and hypocrites.

No disrespect man, you seem a good chap.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

Agressive Atheism is not necesary

I'm sorry but how many atheists have you had to fend off attack from your body for your beliefs? Hell, innocent women were hunted down without trial and set on fire on zero evidence at all and this argument is the one you're trying to make? That atheists like Dawkins seem aggressive because they talk?!...

Never asked anybody that I defended myself from what there belief was... In conversation and debate I have been attacked far more by psuedo atheists.

The crusades were done by power hungry people... many religious beleif systems have been invented for purposes of control. That's because thinkers have a natural tendancy to question the mysteries of nature and conclude that there could well be a higher power or intelligence at work.

Power hungry people exploit this, just as they will exploit beleifs that God is an impossibility. It doesn't mean that beleif is wrong. The real sick and dangerous beleif is held by those who want power and wealth, those who beleive they are individuals and seperate from other life forms instead of living in united with natire and other life forms. Thats a real dangerous beleif and thats the beleif which caused the crusades etc etc.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

No one is immune to the psychological fancies of the mind.

You know, I used to be in the Ministry. I remember being bothered by non-believers. I remember how I felt about it all back then... It's kinda funny- looking back at that.

I removed a lot of your post as the reply would be long enough already. Perhaps others may be interested in tackling some of your "atheist belief" claims...

I'm really not bothered by non beleivers. It's the beleivers who claim non belief that I worry about. The psuedo Atheists. I also find those who believe blindly in anything without a reason, a cause for concern.

I do hope others will not be interested in tackling my 'atheist beleif' claims. Lifes too short! I have clarified a bit thought. I have made a distinction between genuine Atheists, who i have no quarms with... and psuedo Atheists, who I beleive are hypocritical and and hide behind a cloak of rationality.

I can't think of a word to describe somebody who actively beleives that God is an impossibility, so I have called them 'spuedo Atheists'. I think this is acurate as poeple who beleive God is an impossibility usually call themselves Atheists.

I conclude this thread could well be entitled 'The pure Atheist is rare'.

Originally Posted by Strange

On the other hand, this is even more ridiculous:

Originally Posted by question for you

The concept of God doesn't have to have anything to do with any religion. Somebody who thinks that God may be a reality based on evidence is not engaging in superstion. They may be observing reality and keeping an open mind, this in my opinion is more rational than the closed stance of Atheism.

You ever heard of spirituality? whats it got to do with religion? nothing.

You ever heard of a person who has not closed there mind to a concept of god yet doesnt follow a religion? How about Einstein? Einstein was of this sort of position.

Ok, all religions have the concept of God, it doesn't mean they invented it, or that you have to be in a religion to hold a concept of God.

What I said is not ridiculous, read it again in context. Then read it again. Notice words like 'may'.

I admit, I should have put psuedo atheism at the end, as a true atheist in not necesarily closed minded. But psuedo Atheists are.

Then let's look at it this way:

Many people pick and choose what they believe and what they do not from major religions based on what they want from it.

From this, we can speculate that if they stopped believing in God, they would, for the most part, continue to be the same people they were before since they would find other ways of finding what they want.

The average believer is not a bad person and usually not a violent believer. On average. Over-all, they seem to go about their business, go to work, pay bills, shop...
But there's queues in living that can make a big difference. Here's a common influence, a belief delivered queue: "If it's meant to be, meant to happen..."
This statement shows acceptance of a higher power. It shows acceptance of a belief in a Divine Plan.
What's wrong with it? It seems, on the surface, to be amenable, not dangerous, certainly.
Right?

Well, here's the problem: If you have a large percentage and even a majority of people thinking this way, how likely are they to take an active role in the betterment of environmental, societal and political issues? They figure, "Why bother? It's all Gods plan. It's beyond me to comprehend. He's got it how he wants it."

A non-believer is more likely to recognize that we must take an active role. Why?
Because we tend to pick from belief what it is that we want.
And while some figure that what we want will be delivered by a Grand Designer, others realize no help is coming from above and must actively pursue making it happen.

There's a lot to be said for, "Ill pray for you."

It's a great way to do nothing, and be inconvenienced not the slightest but feel like you did something. But what if you cannot pray because you know that will have no effect? Then, you must get the satisfaction of helping or doing something about an issue by, you know, doing something about it.


All of this is just about basic living among each other and it doesn't even touch on the issues of Divine Intervention through Servants of God that go about killing people, blowing up abortion clinics and suffering from magnificent delusions of grandeur while committing atrocities.

Originally Posted by question for you

You ever heard of a person who has not closed there mind to a concept of god yet doesnt follow a religion? How about Einstein?

Umm A lot of people think that since Einstein cracked, "He (God) does not play with dice," that Einstein was a believer. Actually, he was an atheist.
If I drop a 40 lbs weight on my foot, I might cry out an appeal to God. Just saying. Atheists are usually former believers and old habits die hard.

Originally Posted by question for you

You ever heard of a person who has not closed there mind to a concept of god yet doesnt follow a religion? How about Einstein? Einstein was of this sort of position.

No, he wasn't. Back up your claims before presenting them as fact. Read his letter to Eric Gutkind:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this,"

Originally Posted by question for you

Ok, all religions have the concept of God, it doesn't mean they invented it, or that you have to be in a religion to hold a concept of God.

Religion is the organised view of supernatural claims, belief in a supernatural being such as a God is still that, you believe there is a God. Why? There is no evidence and if you studied the evidence on how the universe comes to be you find that even a simple notion of their just being a God QED still means you are ignoring the facts of reality.

Originally Posted by question for you

But psuedo Atheists are.

Agnostics? Of course.

QFY,
Your speculating on where faith came from... That's beyond my remit. I think that the Godhead concept is one derived from intense intellectual reasoning processes. Many concepts and notions might be pareidolia, thats a new word to me, it doesn't seem to be evidence against God in anyway.

Except that the original concept of gods was derived by primitive hominids who were anything but intensely intellectual. The intellectual interest began with primitive medicine men invented the concept of sacrifice to appease the gods. The morphing into pomp and circumstance, worship, and holy wars came much later along with the power of controll , the robes, the incense, and the many translations espousing each writing as THE TRUTH.

Religion did in fact undergo an evolutionary process. But only at a psychological level and mostly from fear. But that does not in any way validate the concept of god at any level. As long as the concept of God wishes to meddle with hard science, they must expect science to treat them as harshly as all unprovable and more importantly, unnecessary assertions which are counter to intensely intellectually scientific scrutiny.

As long as no one is willing or able to make a persuasive case for the natural necessity of a supernatural entity, I will listen and analyze the logic. I am a very moderate atheist, i.e. keeping the door cracked open, just in case someone comes along and makes it all very clear, with scientifically acceptable arguments. So far the open door only lets in a unhealthy draft.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by question for you

You ever heard of a person who has not closed there mind to a concept of god yet doesnt follow a religion? How about Einstein? Einstein was of this sort of position.

No, he wasn't, read his letter to Eric Gutkind:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this,"

Back up your claims before presenting them as fact.

I think the general process is that one makes a claim based on evidence then presentsthe evidence to back it up when requested.

in you above quote einstein is talking about a word... not a concept. He criticises the bible which the word 'God' comes from... he also praises it.

He's some more info on einstein for ya:
Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied due to his sometimes apparently ambiguous statements and writings on the subject. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility."^[

Here you can see einstein criticised Atheism. You can also work out for yourself that your quote of Einstein is refering to a personal God concept. Einstein desribed himself as an agnostic... he didn't know, and he had the critical thinking capacities to realise he didn't know. Therefor he didn't draw a close minded conclusion, which is what atheism is all about (just like all religion).

he also said:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.


The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by question for you

Ok, all religions have the concept of God, it doesn't mean they invented it, or that you have to be in a religion to hold a concept of God.

Religion is the organised view of supernatural claims, belief in a supernatural being such as a God is still that, you believe there is a God. Why? There is no evidence and if you studied the evidence on how the universe comes to be you find that even a simple notion of their just being a God QED still means you are ignoring the facts of reality.

Who said I beleive in God?

Who said that God is 'supernatural'... can such a thing as supernatural exist? I think we are being exposed to more of your psuedo Atheist religious beleifs here. using these words you are expressing you'r misconception of god... which goes someway to explaining why you feel you have evidence to deny this 'concept'.

I'm afraid concepts of god are not as limited as you have been led to beleive.

Please say that thing about the facts of reality again... this time make it clear what observations and experiments have shown that everybody with a simple notion of god is ignoring reality, and why.

Originally Posted by Write4U

QFY,
Your speculating on where faith came from... That's beyond my remit. I think that the Godhead concept is one derived from intense intellectual reasoning processes. Many concepts and notions might be pareidolia, thats a new word to me, it doesn't seem to be evidence against God in anyway.

Except that the original concept of gods was derived by primitive hominids who were anything but intensely intellectual. The intellectual interest began with primitive medicine men inventing the concept of sacrifice to appease the gods. The morphing into pomp and circumstance, worship, and holy wars came much later along with the power of controll , the robes, the incense, and the many translations espousing each writing as THE TRUTH.

Religion did in fact undergo an evolutionary process. But only at a psychological level and mostly from fear. But that does not in any way validate the concept of god.

As long as no one is willing or able to make a persuasive case for the natural necessity of a supernatural entity, I am a very moderate atheist, i.e. keeping the door cracked open, just n case someone comes along and makes it all very clear, with scientifically acceptable arguments. So far the door leaves in only an unhealthy draft.

It's kinda irrelevant to me where the original concept of God came from.

Einstein tells you in my last post... what the highest religious thought and feeling is all about. It's about humility in the face of mysteries that you cannot understand.

You seem to have a little of this humility yourself... So called atheists who know it all and beleive any form of god is an impossibility, have long since lost this humility and thats something that's a pity. It's akin to fervant beleivers in silly rules that don't make sense... such as many 'religious' people.

When we look at the word religion we see it ia re, as in 'again' 'once more' etc. And ligion, as in 'combined', 'unified' 'together'.

Religion is a thing which attempts to unify life once more... as science teaches us, we all came from the same thing. Religion is about accepting and realising the unity between all life.

Psuedo religion is about dividing life and then conquoring. Attack those religions by all means. But don't attack truely religious people like Einstein becuase the mans depth was beyond all of these shallow notions of 'religion did this and religion did that'.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by question for you

You ever heard of a person who has not closed there mind to a concept of god yet doesnt follow a religion? How about Einstein? Einstein was of this sort of position.

No, he wasn't, read his letter to Eric Gutkind:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this,"

Back up your claims before presenting them as fact.

I think the general process is that one makes a claim based on evidence then presentsthe evidence to back it up when requested.

in you above quote einstein is talking about a word... not a concept. He criticises the bible which the word 'God' comes from... he also praises it.

He's some more info on einstein for ya:
Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied due to his sometimes apparently ambiguous statements and writings on the subject. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility."^[

Here you can see einstein criticised Atheism. You can also work out for yourself that your quote of Einstein is refering to a personal God concept. Einstein desribed himself as an agnostic... he didn't know, and he had the critical thinking capacities to realise he didn't know. Therefor he didn't draw a close minded conclusion, which is what atheism is all about (just like all religion).

he also said:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.


The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by question for you

Ok, all religions have the concept of God, it doesn't mean they invented it, or that you have to be in a religion to hold a concept of God.

Religion is the organised view of supernatural claims, belief in a supernatural being such as a God is still that, you believe there is a God. Why? There is no evidence and if you studied the evidence on how the universe comes to be you find that even a simple notion of their just being a God QED still means you are ignoring the facts of reality.

Who said I beleive in God?

Who said that God is 'supernatural'... can such a thing as supernatural exist? I think we are being exposed to more of your psuedo Atheist religious beleifs here. using these words you are expressing you'r misconception of god... which goes someway to explaining why you feel you have evidence to deny this 'concept'.

I'm afraid concepts of god are not as limited as you have been led to beleive.

Please say that thing about the facts of reality again... this time make it clear what onservations and experiments have shown that everybody with a simple notion of god is ignoring reality, and why.

God must be supernatural, else he would not be able to do the things that are attributedto him. He (IT) cannot be physical, OK? It does not have to obey natural law. It has human emotions, but they include hate and destruction. There is no scientific argument that can be made for the existence of god.
If you wish God to live alongside science, you will have to clip his wings , i'm afraid

Originally Posted by question for you

I think the general process is that one makes a claim based on evidence then presentsthe evidence to back it up when requested.

Irrelevant, I gave you evidence to the contrary from the words of Einstein himself.

If you make a claim verify it. You don't walk into a job interview and get asked: "Where is your CV?" and then go "Hold on I'll go home and fetch it".
You made a factual claim and there was evidence baring down on it and you did not supply it and still haven't.

in you above quote einstein is talking about a word... not a concept. He criticises the bible which the word 'God' comes from... he also praises it.

Really? You understood what Einsten meant did you, because it is pretty clear what he meant in this letter and it wasn't supporting his belief in God or theism which you claim he did.

Here you can see einstein criticised Atheism. You can also work out for yourself that your quote of Einstein is refering to a personal God concept. Einstein desribed himself as an agnostic... he didn't know, and he had the critical thinking capacities to realise he didn't know. Therefor he didn't draw a close minded conclusion, which is what atheism is all about (just like all religion).

Nobody can know there is a god, Richard Dawkins for instance puts his stance on there not being a God at a scale of 6.9/7, 7 being totally sure there is no god and 1 being totally sure there is. You cannot prove there is not a God, you will find that when it comes to the Spaghetti monster you can only be 6.9 as well. The same goes for elves or orcs, you can only ever be 6.9.

You can't use semantics of a possibility as the PLAUSIBILIY of existence of supernatural claims.

Originally Posted by question for you

Who said I beleive in God?

I wasn't talking about you, don't be so vain.

Who said that God is 'supernatural'... can such a thing as supernatural exist?

Supernatural - "Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

God seems to fit the category my friend or we all would'nt be having this conversation.

I think we are being exposed to more of your psuedo Atheist religious beleifs here.

What you think is debatable.
Your definition of pseudo atheist is your own definition, not acceped by others.
And atheism is not religious.

All of that entire setence is therefore BOLLOCKS.

Please say that thing about the facts of reality again... this time make it clear what onservations and experiments have shown that everybody with a simple notion of god is ignoring reality, and why.

The big bang did not need a creator for it to exist, to imply that there is a creator implies we are living in a deluded reality where all evidence we have is wrong. Impossible.

Another common claim by theism is that evolution is not true. There is countless evidence for it, species being observed to evovle, genetic similarities of species, natural selection and trait sharing, gene mutation, fossil evidence. To deny it is to basically deny gravity at this point evolution is FACT.

To deny the blatent facts of reality (evolution, gravity, existence of the universe) when knowing them and having them right in front of you for consideration is pure, utter stupid ignorance, another one of the worst of human weaknesses.

no God butt Allah

Originally Posted by Write4U

God must be supernatural, else he would not be able to do the things that are attributedto him. He (IT) cannot be physical, OK? It does not have to obey natural law. It has human emotions, but they include hate and destruction. There is no scientific argument that can be made for the existence of god.
If you wish God to live alongside science, you will have to clip his wings , i'm afraid

Who cares what is attributed to God by limited intelligence? What is attributed to God is of no relevance to the discussion. Many people attribute many things, it makes no difference.

Your conceptions based on the influences or organised religions do not come into it. They certainly don't define God.

True religion... as described by Einstein quite beautifully is exactly the reason that science evolved... whether you like it or not.


"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."

The truly great Albert Einstein.

You're concepts of God and religion are inextricably related to your beleif that God is an impossible concept. I think what would help you greatly is to completely forget all these nonsensical notions of a personal God which have filtered into your consciouness from the spoutings of psuedo religions, including Atheism.

Empty your mind of all you know relating to God and nature... just observe the mystery that you cannot comprehend, and the greatest minds before you could not comorehend. Be in awe, and realise that everything is related to everything and re-ligion of man's consciousness' with the truth of universal unity, is the most nobel aim of an intelligent species such as Homo Sapien.

This is Re-ligion:

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.


This is what one of the greatest minds we know had to say.

The opinions of psuedo Atheists will never dent the wisdom and understanding of Einstein.

Bearing in mind this great mans words and work... it's incredibly arrogant of Atheists to think they have something valuable to add to the subject.


P.S evolution disproves God? Go study a little.

QED disproves God? You'll have to explain that one to me...

Originally Posted by Quantime

If you make a claim verify it. You don't walk into a job interview and get asked: "Where is your CV?" and then go "Hold on I'll go home and fetch it".
You made a factual claim and there was evidence baring down on it and you did not supply it and still haven't.

All of these wild metaphors, similies, analogies and even accusations are boring the hell out of me. I'm gonna go check out other threads.

I cannot be bothered to discuss something with somebody who wants to score points.

I wouldn't have an earnest conversation with somebody who is emotionally attached to the beleif that God exists, it's there bussiness. Likewise it makes little sense to have a discussion with somebody who is emotionally attached to their beleif that God is an impossibility.

I merely remind the thread before I go, that I do not think there is reason to claim that Atheists are the most rational people... far from it. Agnostics are... they don't offend anybody either, further proof of their rational disposition.

Have fun.

Originally Posted by question for you

P.S evolution disproves God? Go study a little.

QED disproves God? You'll have to explain that one to me...

No. But what they do is they demonstrate a clear lack of intelligence to order of the Universe or to ourselves, a lack of design; a lack of any creator.
A person cannot understand Evolution and still believe that there is a Divine Creator God. To believe in it, at that point, what be a complete absurdity.
You'll find that many people that believe in God that also claim to believe in evolution do not understand Evolution- they have misconceptions about it and, in fact, are believers in Intelligent Design, not evolution.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Quantime

If you make a claim verify it. You don't walk into a job interview and get asked: "Where is your CV?" and then go "Hold on I'll go home and fetch it".
You made a factual claim and there was evidence baring down on it and you did not supply it and still haven't.

All of these wild metaphors, similies, analogies and even accusations are boring the hell out of me. I'm gonna go check out other threads.

You do that, ironic that the only argument you back down from is one in which evidence flies in your face like a brick, ironically all theists do this eventually in debate it is the point I have been proving all along; ignorance.

I cannot be bothered to discuss something with somebody who wants to score points.

Again, don't make a factual statement; prove your claim.

I wouldn't have an earnest conversation with somebody who is emotionally attached to the beleif that God exists, it's there bussiness. Likewise it makes little sense to have a discussion with somebody who is emotionally attached to their beleif that God is an impossibility.

I throw evidence at you and all other theists whom I debate, if I get emotional my emotions are fine; they are a natural human reaction to attitudes and behaviours that I find disgusting and despise. Emotions are fine to have as long as I am giving evidence along with them, which you are not.

I merely remind the thread before I go, that I do not think there is reason to claim that Atheists are the most rational people... far from it. Agnostics are... they don't offend anybody either, further proof of their rational disposition.

Atheists are technically agnostic. Are you agnostic about the existence of Elves? Orcs? Thor? Vishnu? Apollo? Yaweh? Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus?
Your notion of offending is a misnomer in your credibility in this discussion; offending people doesn't matter in scientific debate, we are here to discuss facts (or not in some peoples cases) and issues that is all. If someone is offended that isn't my problem, I am offended by your ignorance and the ignorance of others but so what? Deal with it like I do and grow up, or at least use your offense as passion at counter attack at an opponent in discussion. Use your feelings constructively, that is what they are there for. If you can't handle the emotions that come with these debates, run away.

And offense has nothing to do with rational disposition in any human being with any belief system or lack of conflicting with another, AT ALL. You are clearly uneducated on matters of science, language and communication or if that is not the case you are at least holding onto a notion of ignorance and add your own terms and beliefs systems to conversation as though they are fact; they aren't. You have been clearly asked to support your claims numerous times by numerous members

Have fun.

Always do.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

A person cannot understand Evolution and still believe that there is a Divine Creator God. To believe in it, at that point, what be a complete absurdity.
You'll find that many people that believe in God that also claim to believe in evolution do not understand Evolution- they have misconceptions about it and, in fact, are believers in Intelligent Design, not evolution.

I don't believe in God and I agree that many who do and then claim they believe in evolution are, in fact, believers in Intelligent Design.
However I also think it is possible to believe in God and evolution, and that conflict between science and religion does not have to happen altho', of course, it often does.

Originally Posted by Halliday

However I also believe it is possible to believe in God and evolution...

Not if you are a scientifically rational minded person you don't. If evolution exists without a God why do you need him? This then falls on the notion why do you need him/her/it at all? It is ridiculous to accept one aspect of science and say you believe in God at the same time, which is like saying you believe the Sun is heated by Nuclear fusion in the core and also believe in the sun god Ra, it is ridiculous.

...and that conflict between science and religion does not have to happen.

It will always happen, religion is a lie and science explains the evidence, the facts of the universe. Religions are ancient belief systems (some still are modern) that exists today because of ignorance, insecurity and fear. If everyone knew the facts of how the universe was created, the gullibility of humanity, the laziness of humanity, evolution all manners of psychology explaning God and all other science practices belief in God and the supernatural goes down, and down and down.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I don't believe in God and I agree that many who do and then claim they believe in evolution are, in fact, believers in Intelligent Design.
However I also think it is possible to believe in God and evolution, and that conflict between science and religion does not have to happen altho', of course, it often does.

I do not see how considering the nature of it. Might be worth discussion in the proper place.
The way I see it, science and religion will always conflict because science removes the necessity of a God.

Many people might promote the ideas of a co-existence between scientific methodology and religion, I think in order to keep believers supportive of science. That just doesn't seem honest, to me.
It cannot be- Scientific methods will always reveal alack of a God or at least the lack of the necessity of one which will make believers unhappy.

Originally Posted by Quantime

What rational minded person would present religion to people as well as helping educate about them about facts such as evolution?

The biology teacher at your local Catholic school? Any of the many evolutionary biologists who also happen to be Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist Muslim, Jain, Shinto ...

So basically a belief. Well we know atheism is void of belief on supernatural phenomena so can we really call atheism Dogma?

I wasn't specifically talking about atheism. Just that atheists are just as likely to have irrational views, cling to them dogmatically, etc. For evidence I present this thread a recent thread about religious people not being allowed to vote.

Elaborate, don't just make a claim and not present evidence of your claim. Where has a religion saved millions of lives?

Many schools, hospitals, charities, etc. were founded by, and some are still run by, religious people

As far as I can tell, most of those people with bizarrely strong emotional attachments to their weird and erroneous beliefs are atheists. Go figure.

Again prove your claim and what relevance it has to this discussion, I used my example as personal experience of frustration to Harold, not to be used as an argument in this discussion. You have brought that into the discussion out of context.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't making any claim. Just observing that people can have irrational and dogmatic views about things other than religion.

As I say, where is the evidence that religion causes more harm than good?

You can name wars or crimes committed in the name of religion. I can point to Stalin or Pol Pot, or the Vietnam war. But that is all just anecdotal evidence.

But as this has turned into a bit of a bar brawl I might just back out slowly now...

A lot of instructors that also are believers tend to improperly teach evolution or teach their own misconceptions about it to others (including young minds.)

As I say I do not believe in God but it is possible to see the entity we call God as the prime mover (if that is the correct expression) of the Universe. In other words God pulled the switch but then does not interfere in the natural scientific processes, such as evolution, that govern our Universe.
I have no interest in "promoting co-existence------ in order to keep believers supportive of science".
There are lots of sound arguments against the existence of God! I'm not certain that saying, quite rightly, God is not necessary for the continuing "smooth running" of the Universe is one of them.

Originally Posted by Halliday

As I say I do not believe in God but it is possible to see the entity we call God as the prime mover (if that is the correct expression) of the Universe. In other words God pulled the switch but then does not interfere in the natural scientific processes, such as evolution, that govern our Universe.
I have no interest in "promoting co-existence------ in order to keep believers supportive of science".
There are lots of sound arguments against the existence of God! I'm not certain that saying, quite rightly, God is not necessary for the continuing "smooth running" of the Universe is one of them.

So.. pretty much he pulled the switch at 10^-97 seconds at the Big Bang and disappeared ever since?
See, at that point- what's the point in believing in God at all?

All that makes us is a great cosmic Burp.

believers............
wowie zowie and it feels so fine
..............
It is easy to poke a stick at organized religion, and think you have debunked everything that has no scientific basis
...but, just because you think it, doesn't mean that in your own very special way that you too are not delusional.
.........
if/when you acknowledge the limitations of your knowledge and understanding, and tossing the claims and teachings of organized religions aside,
open your eyes and mind to the limitless possibilities of the evolution of the biom and universe
then you just might be on the verge of feeling/contemplating/understanding the true organizational potentials exposed therein.
.............
I submit that attempting to prove the absense of a diety(I don't even like that word because anyway you twist or turn "words" they will always mislead the mind from the truth) based on an ignorance of the "diety" (agnosticism) is every bit as delusional as are some of the delusions of the "true believers".

drop "logic" and "rationality" and especially drop false descriptions, which are highly language based and find true understanding, and maybe, just maybe your are about to find a path that leads to enlightenment.
or
create a framework within which to house your limited understandings and claim the non-existance of anything beyond that framework
and the bottom line still remains:

It really doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

P.S evolution disproves God? Go study a little.

QED disproves God? You'll have to explain that one to me...

No. But what they do is they demonstrate a clear lack of intelligence to order of the Universe or to ourselves, a lack of design; a lack of any creator.
A person cannot understand Evolution and still believe that there is a Divine Creator God. To believe in it, at that point, what be a complete absurdity.
You'll find that many people that believe in God that also claim to believe in evolution do not understand Evolution- they have misconceptions about it and, in fact, are believers in Intelligent Design, not evolution.

Personally I think you're getting things a little twisted.

First.. you would have to explain how a clear lack of intelligence or order is demonstrated by Evolution and QED, then you would have to explain how that demonstrates the lack of a creator. I don't know much about QED, know a tiny bit more about evolution, have never spotted a how clear lack of intelligence or order is demonstrated.


As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

How we/life developed/evolved is largely beyond the comprehension of man, we don't have a time machine. Intelligent design is an evolutionary idea, it relates to evolution. I don't know that much about various forms of intelligent design ideas. I'm pretty sure everybody knows what evolution means, even if it's isn't fully understood.

Many people beleive that life has evolved in the same way that 'science' beleives it happened, and beleive in a God concept. They see no reason why evolution should suggest their God concept is any less likely than before. It simply doesn't.

If a person feels that God cannot exist as we know things about evolution that suggest god doesn't exist... then we can tell, they have a limited and false concept of what God might be. Often this will be a personal God, with feelings like a person, and the beleiver will think God has the same morals as a man... so they cannot comprehend how the God they have been led to beleive in, could be real. They give up beleiving in what they were taught and go around trying to liberate others from the same misconceptions that they once held. Thats fine.

I think the thing some fail to realise is that not everybody who has a notion of 'God', has the same notion that they once had themselves. Some concepts of God are not in the slightest bit concerned by scientific theories such as evolution, becuase an understanding of 'evolution' does nothing to damage the God concept.. if anything it just helps it to become a more advanced concept.

There is Pantheism which I think is a notion that God is the universe and all that is in it, we'r little cells in it's body. Others that the universe itself is a cell in the body of God. Some beleive that nature itself is God. All sorts of concepts.
The theory of evolution does not prove or even suggest that nature doesn't exist.. so why should it suggest that God doesn't exist? God is many things to many people. If you're speaking of a certain type of God professed by certain religions, then you should be specific in your statements. Otherwise it's kinda racist.
There are many who do not consider themselves to be Atheists but who are far better educated, more intelligent and rational than I, and they shouldn't have to read comments like 'Atheists like myself are the most rational people to ask', 'Anybody who isn't Atheist is ignorant of reality ', those aren't word for word quotes from anybody but convey the attitude that's being expressed.
It seems kinda arrogant and irritating. More arrogant than irritating, though there are a lot of these anti theism preachers trying to influence people. I can't see how one side is any better than the other, that's all.
Then when criticised it's always 'Atheism means one lacks beleif eitherway'... No, these people make it quite clear what their beleifs are, they are beleifs that are instantly recognisable as being from the Atheistic religion which is all over mainstream society and is occult. It seems Atheism wants to do away with religions power, and more offensively, the power and benefits that individual rich and poor people can receive from a beleif in some kind of God or spiritual after life as a plausible possibility.

The problem is that yesterdays God preachers are todays anti god Atheist brigade... It's just a means to an end. It's irrational to get caught up in it. It's rational to say 'I don't know if God Exists', rather than 'I know that God doesn't exist'. Be rational, face it... you know nothing, just like me. I certainly don't know that Atheists are the most rational people.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

A lot of instructors that also are believers tend to improperly teach evolution or teach their own misconceptions about it to others (including young minds.)

A lot of teachers who are atheists do a poor job of teaching science. Or anything else for that matter. Our geography teacher was hilarious. Not religious, just incompetent and not very well informed.

Sculptor, I defy you, Sir. For I am Militant Agnostic, proud of a long tradition of accepting the unknown.

I am only certain of my uncertainty and will defend to death, maybe, my right to not be sure. I will aggressively seek out knowledge, or not, if I can find it and be unrelenting in my quest to dominate compromise.
I will label everything clearly in various shades of gray and will not back down one inch unless I do in which case, I will.

Originally Posted by question for you

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

I've already noticed that you have severe misconceptions and a strong lack of understanding about Evolution.
I mentioned it before- I link to it now:
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

I suggest you cover the site, read what it has, then return here and show the errors in full. Show the evidence that shows that we do not understand evolution and you do...
Or- realize your misconceptions, correct them and go along with the rest of your day.

It's not opinion- Evolution. It's solid, well supported and you cannot just make up the facts.

Originally Posted by question for you

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

How we/life developed/evolved is largely beyond the comprehension of man, we don't have a time machine. Intelligent design is an evolutionary idea, it relates to evolution.

This sort of ignorant drivel is, I assume, exactly what Quantime and the others (and me) are concerned about. It make me despair for the human race.

Although it is impressive to get so many errors into so few words.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Quantime

What rational minded person would present religion to people as well as helping educate about them about facts such as evolution?

The biology teacher at your local Catholic school? Any of the many evolutionary biologists who also happen to be Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist Muslim, Jain, Shinto ...

I am refering to the context of the original response which I added to that was when offering the two in explanation of the universe, not specifically a teacher in front of students, I believe we are at a communication misunderstanding here.

Originally Posted by Strange

So basically a belief. Well we know atheism is void of belief on supernatural phenomena so can we really call atheism Dogma?

I wasn't specifically talking about atheism. Just that atheists are just as likely to have irrational views, cling to them dogmatically, etc. For evidence I present this thread a recent thread about religious people not being allowed to vote.

Who presented that argument? Sounds terribly facist to me.

Originally Posted by Strange

Elaborate, don't just make a claim and not present evidence of your claim. Where has a religion saved millions of lives?

Many schools, hospitals, charities, etc. were founded by, and some are still run by, religious people

So the saving of a few million in vain of millions more that are oppressed, stoned to death, stopped from having access to books, violated by priests, etc etc. Also there are many charities they help the world who aren't religious by nature. The fundemental point is that it does more harm than good and even without it, there would still be charities because being a benevolent caring, kind compassionate human being is a human trait not a religious one, so again religion is just a bunch of books and ideologies of ignorance based on some supernatural deity who commands them to do their bidding and worship him like some twisted supernatural North Korea.

Originally Posted by Strange

As far as I can tell, most of those people with bizarrely strong emotional attachments to their weird and erroneous beliefs are atheists. Go figure.

AAgain prove your claim and what relevance it has to this discussion, I used my example as personal experience of frustration to Harold, not to be used as an argument in this discussion. You have brought that into the discussion out of context.

I wasn't making any claim. Just observing that people can have irrational and dogmatic views about things other than religion.

That is akin to saying people with preference of strawberry ice cream have irrational and dogmatic views about things other than religion, it has no point and no credence as it does not correlate, you cannot correlate religious notions with irreligion.

Originally Posted by Strange

As I say, where is the evidence that religion causes more harm than good?

Crusades, not allowing use of condoms in Africa, rights in abortion law, young boys being molested, gential mutilation, sharia law, not allowing girls to dress as they want, not allowing females equal rights, stoning people to death for apostasy, plus all the holy wars, inquisitions and religious extortion and blackmail for who knows how many centuries if not millenia. Again, when good is done you can't say religion did it, because if religion is responsible for good how do people know that in England stoning your children to death when they disrespect their parents, or killing homosexuals is wrong?

Originally Posted by Strange

You can name wars or crimes committed in the name of religion. I can point to Stalin or Pol Pot, or the Vietnam war. But that is all just anecdotal evidence.

Not really, you can't take atheism or religion when it comes to these issues because people are going to do bad whether or not there is religion, the point is here is why would a nation of people circumcise its children of their foreskin if religion didn't exist? Why would some demand covering up their women head to toe? Why would some justify oppressing homosexuals if religion did not exist? Stalin was an evil person and so was Hitler, Stalin was atheist and Hitler was Roman Catholic. So we cannot use either of them as evidence but we can use people that commit religious induced crimes against humanity because a book told them to.

But as this has turned into a bit of a bar brawl I might just back out slowly now...

It is getting interesting, please don't leave I like your input.

Originally Posted by Quantime

You do that, ironic that the only argument you back down from is one in which evidence flies in your face like a brick, ironically all theists do this eventually in debate it is the point I have been proving all along; ignorance.

I'll be blunt with you, I found you're arrogance, irattional acusations and personal attacks to be repulsive. I do not enjoy speaking to you, I find it boring.

I asked you to present some facts to back up your claim in post 31... you came back with 'QED and Evolution', no explaination, no nothing. Does that seem like an interesting conversation to you? It doesnt to me. Then when you begin to accuse me of making claims not providing evidence without reference and making up mental analogies about job interveiws and CV's.. then I'm forced to find you boring and slightly obnoxious.

I'm sure you a nice person, I just didn't enjoy or benefit from speaking to you today.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Halliday

As I say I do not believe in God but it is possible to see the entity we call God as the prime mover (if that is the correct expression) of the Universe. In other words God pulled the switch but then does not interfere in the natural scientific processes, such as evolution, that govern our Universe.
I have no interest in "promoting co-existence------ in order to keep believers supportive of science".
There are lots of sound arguments against the existence of God! I'm not certain that saying, quite rightly, God is not necessary for the continuing "smooth running" of the Universe is one of them.

So.. pretty much he pulled the switch at 10^-97 seconds at the Big Bang and disappeared ever since?
See, at that point- what's the point in believing in God at all?

All that makes us is a great cosmic Burp.

I didn't say there was any point. You would find it extremely difficult to explain the "point" of the Universe.
Some individuals may feel, for example, that by using prayer they are able, to a limited extent, to communicate with some form of vast intelligence whose purposes they do not understand. They may feel this is a valuable and worthwhile exercise for them.
Believing in God is, of course, a matter of faith, and not rational thought.
Nevertheless, I am certain there are many individuals who believe in God and are also able to believe in the scientific method as the only way of moving toward a much fuller understanding of our physical Universe.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

How we/life developed/evolved is largely beyond the comprehension of man, we don't have a time machine. Intelligent design is an evolutionary idea, it relates to evolution.

This sort of ignorant drivel is, I assume, exactly what Quantime and the others (and me) are concerned about. It make me despair for the human race.

Although it is impressive to get so many errors into so few words.

I despair of you're arrogance and rudeness.

If you will criticise then justify it. Are you talking grammatical mistakes or what?

I take it every other comment I made was above reproach... not bad.

You don't have to take every comment literally and out of context but I suppose that's the only way you get to feel big right?

Here's the second definition of evolution from oxford dictionary: the gradual development of something: the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution

Practically every definition has the word develop in it.


Or are you saying intelligent design has nothing to do with evoolution? I can't fathom what I said which provokes such a strong emotion in you. I find it irrational that you insult me without an explaination, what do you hope to achieve?

Very disapointing

Originally Posted by Neverfly

...I am only certain of my uncertainty and will defend to death, maybe, my right to not be sure. I will aggressively seek out knowledge, or not, if I can find it and be unrelenting in my quest to dominate compromise.
I will label everything clearly in various shades of gray and will not back down one inch unless I do in which case, I will.

jeez dadio
I'm glad you're here

Originally Posted by Halliday

I didn't say there was any point.

I didn't say you did- I asked a question: What is the point?

Originally Posted by Halliday

You would find it extremely difficult to explain the "point" of the Universe.

I do not need to, as the Universe is not a matter of faith or belief- God, however, lacks any evidence of existence and it is quite reasonable to ask what the point is in believing such a thing. It is not a rational belief. That's what I'm getting at- if you remove God all the way back to the Big Bang- why bother believing he did that- then vanished?

Originally Posted by Halliday

Some individuals may feel, for example, that by using prayer they are able, to a limited extent, to communicate with some form of vast intelligence whose purposes they do not understand. They may feel this is a valuable and worthwhile exercise for them.

That sounds like madness.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Believing in God is, of course, a matter of faith, and not rational thought.

True.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Nevertheless, I am certain there are many individuals who believe in God and are also able to believe in the scientific method as the only way of moving toward a much fuller understanding of our physical Universe.

They're in for a rough time, then, eh?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

I've already noticed that you have severe misconceptions and a strong lack of understanding about Evolution.
I mentioned it before- I link to it now:
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

I suggest you cover the site, read what it has, then return here and show the errors in full. Show the evidence that shows that we do not understand evolution and you do...
Or- realize your misconceptions, correct them and go along with the rest of your day.

It's not opinion- Evolution. It's solid, well supported and you cannot just make up the facts.

With all due respect you deserve to be told bluntly to F-OFF!

How dare you speak to me like this? Do you have learning difficulties?


What on earth do you think you know about my conceptions of Evolution?

You already know you are a pain in the ass and offend people by being arrogant and patronising as you confessed to me in a private message, yet you will not change your ways?

I did not make up any facts or deny Evolution. I'm amazed by you three people here today.

What on Earth are you thinking in those heads of your's?

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Quantime

You do that, ironic that the only argument you back down from is one in which evidence flies in your face like a brick, ironically all theists do this eventually in debate it is the point I have been proving all along; ignorance.

I'll be blunt with you, I found you're arrogance, irattional acusations and personal attacks to be repulsive. I do not enjoy speaking to you, I find it boring.

Well this is debate QFY if you don't like the way others debate with you stop debating or debate other people that will put up with your nonsense. I am confident about the science I have learned and to be honest believe I am arrogant about it because I like it, whatever personal motivations I have for debate is mine and doesn't reflect any evidence I provide. Personal attacks or criticisms of your argumentative style is relevant where you are being inappropriate and stating pseudo-intellectual 'facts' as facts or evidence.

I asked you to present some facts to back up your claim in post 31... you came back with 'QED and Evolution', no explaination, no nothing.

My point about using QED on god was a reference for people who are theistic, if theists weren't so fixed on god and open minded about the facts then they would not be in a position of being QED. If you read my posts you would understand that I gave evolution and the origin of the universe theories as evidence to you, in such understanding of these scientific facts the notion of God disappears, as I have already said you cannot disprove god in the same way you cannot disporve Santa Claus but you can offer evidence which suggests more and more that the notion of god is ridiculous, you keep ignoring this. You are presented with evidence, you just don't want to see it.

Does that seem like an interesting conversation to you? It doesnt to me.

Well we are not here for entertainment value but I would say evolution and the origin of life and the universe is very interesting.

Then when you begin to accuse me of making claims not providing evidence without reference and making up mental analogies about job interveiws and CV's.. then I'm forced to find you boring and slightly obnoxious.

I use metaphors while being obnoxious because sometimes being that way is a way for you to get real with people instead of perpetuating this ignorant dogma you keep churning.

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

What kind of simple explanation of evolution is that? You don't understand evolution.

I'm sure you a nice person, I just didn't enjoy or benefit from speaking to you today.

Then don't get into conversation or debate with people then. I'm sure you are too, when I debate people I challenge their beliefs and stance on the issue at hand not the actual emotional person merley the intellectual strengths or fallacies they may present, it is after all the only way we learn by learning from each other and using evidence to assert truth and learn even more with the cycle repeating.

Originally Posted by question for you

With all due respect you deserve to be told bluntly to F-OFF!

That had no due respect at all. Let me ask you this: How do you think I found the talk origins website?

It's when someone told me I had misconceptions about evolution and to look up on it and gave me that link.
If you want to get that offended over it, I suggest you show how arrogant I am to have said it- go on and show me how wrong I was.

That's a challenge.

Originally Posted by question for you

How dare you speak to me like this?

I'm sorry... are you royalty? I said nothing out of line- you just got emotional because you disliked what I said. So much for appreciating honesty.
Well- Got over it. You do have misconceptions about Evolution and you cannot confront it, correct it, or find out if you don't if you throw a fit and attack the person that had the audacity to tell you that you made an error.

Originally Posted by question for you

Do you have learning difficulties?

Lashing out? No idea how that applies.

Originally Posted by question for you

What on earth do you think you know about my conceptions of Evolution?

Uhh... I've seen what you have posted on the topic. I'm well aware of your misconceptions.

Originally Posted by question for you

You already know you are a pain in the ass and offend people by being arrogant and patronising as you confessed to me in a private message, yet you will not change your ways?

Dude, it's not my job in life to pander to your ego. By the way, that's not quite the way I worded it- and I'm sure others are aware of my manner enough to figure that one out.

But saying what people said privately in public view is very bad form anyway. I can let this slide since I've said pretty much the same thing in threads- But you just lost face there and I think you really need to cool off a while and get your head back on straight.

Originally Posted by Quantime

when I debate people I challenge their beliefs and stance on the issue at hand not the actual emotional person merley the intellectual strengths or fallacies they may present, it is after all the only way we learn by learning from each other and using evidence to assert truth and learn even more with the cycle repeating.

The problem with you is that you percieve beleifs and stances that have not been expressed. You make accusations which are unfounded and unfoundable. That's hard work and boring.

I'm sure you know you're stuff to an extent... But you seem to think you know me, me makes me question how much you really know about anything.

Originally Posted by Quantime

I wasn't specifically talking about atheism. Just that atheists are just as likely to have irrational views, cling to them dogmatically, etc. For evidence I present this thread a recent thread about religious people not being allowed to vote.

Who presented that argument? Sounds terribly facist to me.

It appears to be a slight extension of your argument; his point was that all religious people are irrational and therefore not of sound mind and therefore should be denied he vote.

The fundemental point is that it does more harm than good

Evidence?

like some twisted supernatural North Korea.

Nice example: demagoguery, irrational beliefs, and evil behaviour are not exclusive to the religious. (And vice versa)

That is akin to saying people with preference of strawberry ice cream have irrational and dogmatic views about things other than religion, it has no point and no credence as it does not correlate, you cannot correlate religious notions with irreligion.

Of course you can. You claim that religious belief is in some way special. I don't see any aspect of religious belief that is not found equally in the secular world.

Originally Posted by Strange

As I say, where is the evidence that religion causes more harm than good?

Crusades, not allowing use of condoms in Africa, rights in abortion law, young boys being molested, gential mutilation, sharia law, not allowing girls to dress as they want, not allowing females equal rights, stoning people to death for apostasy, plus all the holy wars, inquisitions and religious extortion and blackmail for who knows how many centuries if not millenia.

I didn't ask to a list of bad things that you blame on religion (although some of those have nothing specifically to do with religion) but for the evidence that religion does more harm than good.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Originally Posted by question for you

I despair of you're arrogance and rudeness.

I'm sorry but if you make bold statements based on total ignorance, that is the response you are going to get.

If you want to learn the basics of evolution then I suggest you start a thread called "I know fuck all about evolution, can someone help". I'm not going to take this thread even further off track.

Here's the second definition of evolution from oxford dictionary: the gradual development of something: the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution

And that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution in the sense I assume you meant it (biology, species, etc).

Or are you saying intelligent design has nothing to do with evoolution?

Of course it doesn't. Intelligent design is an example of the worst aspects of religious literalism; creationism in a frock.

I can't fathom what I said which provokes such a strong emotion in you.

It just gets my goat when people make off-hand dismissive comments based on their complete lack of understanding.

You ask how we know that you are ignorant of evolution? Easy: you wouldn't have said something like that if you knew anything about it.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

With all due respect you deserve to be told bluntly to F-OFF!

That had no due respect at all. Let me ask you this: How do you think I found the talk origins website?

It's when someone told me I had misconceptions about evolution and to look up on it and gave me that link.
If you want to get that offended over it, I suggest you show how arrogant I am to have said it- go on and show me how wrong I was.

That's a challenge.

Originally Posted by question for you

How dare you speak to me like this?

I'm sorry... are you royalty? I said nothing out of line- you just got emotional because you disliked what I said. So much for appreciating honesty.
Well- Got over it. You do have misconceptions about Evolution and you cannot confront it, correct it, or find out if you don't if you throw a fit and attack the person that had the audacity to tell you that you made an error.

Originally Posted by question for you

Do you have learning difficulties?

Lashing out? No idea how that applies.

Originally Posted by question for you

What on earth do you think you know about my conceptions of Evolution?

Uhh... I've seen what you have posted on the topic. I'm well aware of your misconceptions.

Originally Posted by question for you

You already know you are a pain in the ass and offend people by being arrogant and patronising as you confessed to me in a private message, yet you will not change your ways?

Dude, it's not my job in life to pander to your ego. By the way, that's not quite the way I worded it- and I'm sure others are aware of my manner enough to figure that one out.

But saying what people said privately in public view is very bad form anyway. I can let this slide since I've said pretty much the same thing in threads- But you really need to cool off a while and get your head back on straight.

Can you not see the flaws in how you think?

Can't you see that you have twisted everything I said to suit your own perception?

You do not know what I think or understand about evolution. Whats being arrogant and patronising got to do with caressing my ego? thats such a perverse retort.

I told you already what you deserve to be told... think about it, realise, or don't. It's up to you, It makes very little difference to me.

I love debate, I love learning.. I despize arrogance and conciet. I grow very impatient with those who twist facts and project insecurities onto others.

I have had no problem with your manner, until you started the one upmanship. It's pathetic.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Quantime

when I debate people I challenge their beliefs and stance on the issue at hand not the actual emotional person merley the intellectual strengths or fallacies they may present, it is after all the only way we learn by learning from each other and using evidence to assert truth and learn even more with the cycle repeating.

The problem with you is that you percieve beleifs and stances that have not been expressed.

Your beliefs have been expressed quite clearly and I have challenged them, you have already expressed them, how do I know? We are having a discussion.

You make accusations which are unfounded and unfoundable.

So it is for example not possible to assume that you do not know about evolution? I doubt that:

Originally Posted by question for you

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

But you seem to think you know me....

Well I can only know so much and from what I have seen, I know enough.

...makes me makes me question how much you really know about anything.

My abilities to be psychic about your thoughts do not reflect the information I have read and been taught in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by question for you

I despair of you're arrogance and rudeness.

I'm not going to take this thread even further off track.

All I did was be slightly sloppy with my wording when I taught you a definition of Evolution that you seem to be completely ignorant of. Just one of many blind spots.

If you want to know how much I know about Evolution then I suggest you start a thread entitled 'My name is strange and i'm an idiot' then I might be tempted to give you some kind of insight into what I know about Evolution.

Then after that you might possibly be in a position to call me ignorant of evolution. Until then, your merely an ignorant, arrogant, rude... plonker.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by question for you

With all due respect you deserve to be told bluntly to F-OFF!

That had no due respect at all. Let me ask you this: How do you think I found the talk origins website?

It's when someone told me I had misconceptions about evolution and to look up on it and gave me that link.
If you want to get that offended over it, I suggest you show how arrogant I am to have said it- go on and show me how wrong I was.

That's a challenge.

Originally Posted by question for you

How dare you speak to me like this?

I'm sorry... are you royalty? I said nothing out of line- you just got emotional because you disliked what I said. So much for appreciating honesty.
Well- Got over it. You do have misconceptions about Evolution and you cannot confront it, correct it, or find out if you don't if you throw a fit and attack the person that had the audacity to tell you that you made an error.

Originally Posted by question for you

Do you have learning difficulties?

Lashing out? No idea how that applies.

Originally Posted by question for you

What on earth do you think you know about my conceptions of Evolution?

Uhh... I've seen what you have posted on the topic. I'm well aware of your misconceptions.

Originally Posted by question for you

You already know you are a pain in the ass and offend people by being arrogant and patronising as you confessed to me in a private message, yet you will not change your ways?

Dude, it's not my job in life to pander to your ego. By the way, that's not quite the way I worded it- and I'm sure others are aware of my manner enough to figure that one out.

But saying what people said privately in public view is very bad form anyway. I can let this slide since I've said pretty much the same thing in threads- But you really need to cool off a while and get your head back on straight.

Can you not see the flaws in how you think?

Can't you see that you have twisted everything I said to suit your own perception?

You do not know what I think or understand about evolution. Whats being arrogant and patronising got to do with caressing my ego? thats such a perverse retort.

I told you already what you deserve to be told... think about it, realise, or don't. It's up to you, It makes very little difference to me.

I love debate, I love learning.. I despize arrogance and conciet. I grow very impatient with those who twist facts and project insecurities onto others.

I have had no problem with your manner, until you started the one upmanship. It's pathetic.

Oh quit attacking me because you don't like being told you have misconceptions. I've watched your posts in other threads on Evolution and Genetics, as well.
And if you think I've twisted your words- Show me how I have.
Don't just claim it and go on with ad hom attacks. I would not intentionally distort your words so if I made an error in how I understood a post- show the error.

Anyone wanna discuss human sacrifice as a purely agrarian idiocy that evolved from a real beneficial concept?

Or the likelyhood of "religions" held by premodern humans-----and the likelyhood of either male or female diet(y)(ies?)

Or the dogmatic theory of evolution as presently taught in our educational systems, and the likely entrenchment of the dogma as various new details come to light and correct the concept?

Or the difference between having "faith" in a diety, and the life/mind changing fact of acceptance

as I've previously stated "faith" is a tool for conmen, charlatans, and snake oil salesmen
my advice------either avoid it or consider it a single step on the path

looking for a definition of "GOD"
that thing that is no thing and all things
the great driving wheel of the universe
the beyond
beyond logic
beyond rationality
beyond concept nor understanding
beyond that part of the brain derived from and for the senses and yet perceptively determined therein

(I could as easily define god as hot sweaty sex in a flower filled meadow on a warm sunny day, and after, lying there in the warmth of the sunshine, listening to the buzz of millions of insects polenating the flowers with your senses awash with the smell of pheremones..........untill thought ceases, and being takes over)

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Quantime

when I debate people I challenge their beliefs and stance on the issue at hand not the actual emotional person merley the intellectual strengths or fallacies they may present, it is after all the only way we learn by learning from each other and using evidence to assert truth and learn even more with the cycle repeating.

The problem with you is that you percieve beleifs and stances that have not been expressed.

Your beliefs have been expressed quite clearly and I have challenged them, you have already expressed them, how do I know? We are having a discussion.

You make accusations which are unfounded and unfoundable.

So it is for example not possible to assume that you do not know about evolution? I doubt that:

Originally Posted by question for you

As for Evolution, it means develop. It's as simple as that.

But you seem to think you know me....

Well I can only know so much and from what I have seen, I know enough.

...makes me makes me question how much you really know about anything.

My abilities to be psychic about your thoughts do not reflect the information I have read and been taught in my lifetime.

Evolution is development.

Do you not understand the word on this basic level?

Many things evolve. Evolution is the popular word to describe the way life forms, develop.

I don't have time to sit around chatting to psychics who don't have dictionaries.

Originally Posted by question for you

Evolution is development.

No, it isn't.
Evolution is random changes that either assist or inhibit or have no effect on survival. There is no design, intelligent guidance or supernatural interference in it.

Originally Posted by question for you

Many things evolve.

All things evolve.

Originally Posted by question for you

Evolution is the popular word to describe the way life forms, develop.

No. Evolution is a grounded and well supported theory, not a popular buzzword.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

And if you think I've twisted your words- Show me how I have.
Don't just claim it and go on with ad hom attacks. I would not intentionally distort your words so if I made an error in how I understood a post- show the error.

I'm sorry I sound so offencive again... But thats a disgusting display.

Do you really think I will troll through posts so I can disprove, your claims, that I claimed this or that?

The reasonable and decent thing for you to do would be to show me, when you accuse me of something, evidence to verify your correctness.

It's this attitude that you can make claims about me, with no evidence presented, and then expect me to troll around proving you wrong, that I am astounded by, frustrated with. I have better things to do. If you want to say something that is clearly derrogative to me, then justify it with an explaination at least. Evidence would be good.

I'm sorry if I over reacted, but I had a right to be annoyed by your comment. You should consider that.

Originally Posted by Strange

It appears to be a slight extension of your argument; his point was that all religious people are irrational and therefore not of sound mind and therefore should be denied he vote.

Hmm well that is the distinction that is the fine line you never cross or I hope people never cross.

Originally Posted by Strange

The fundemental point is that it does more harm than good

Evidence?

Already supplied, please read my posts.

like some twisted supernatural North Korea.

Originally Posted by Strange

Nice example: demagoguery, irrational beliefs, and evil behaviour are not exclusive to the religious. (And vice versa)

.

I'm not sure here how to answer you Strange, what is it you are trying to say? That all philosophies have these certain negative manifestations as well and that we should discount them? Or that this means religion has more credibility because other philosohpies have apparent shortcomings? I don't understand where you are going with this and not quite sure your point.

Originally Posted by Strange

That is akin to saying people with preference of strawberry ice cream have irrational and dogmatic views about things other than religion, it has no point and no credence as it does not correlate, you cannot correlate religious notions with irreligion.

Of course you can. You claim that religious belief is in some way special. I don't see any aspect of religious belief that is not found equally in the secular world.

Well when it comes to religion and secularism, one has numerous pages saying you can murder and commint genocide but secularism has none of these notions, at least any of the secular instituions that I am aware of that are benevolent... I believe you are arguing semantics Strange, finding possible explanations and trying to equal all philosophies as the same because they all share the same motivation towards their practices and this may be true, the point comes in which one is more credible and helpful to our planet and which one is more archaic. Would you prefer the world full of religious people who accept a notion of God for instance creating the universe and humans along with people who live in the dark ages creating injustices against other humans with some of them being the malice I have already mentioned, or people with a more scientific stance? This is the issue I am raising Strange.

Originally Posted by Strange

As I say, where is the evidence that religion causes more harm than good?

Crusades, not allowing use of condoms in Africa, rights in abortion law, young boys being molested, gential mutilation, sharia law, not allowing girls to dress as they want, not allowing females equal rights, stoning people to death for apostasy, plus all the holy wars, inquisitions and religious extortion and blackmail for who knows how many centuries if not millenia.

Originally Posted by Strange

I didn't ask to a list of bad things that you blame on religion (although some of those have nothing specifically to do with religion) but for the evidence that religion does more harm than good.

State which ones were not religious motivated.
So you are saying religion and following religious doctrines is not responsible for mass male and female circumcision for example in the same countries that happen to have that as a rule in a majorly well believed book? Then what is?

Originally Posted by Strange

Your number of anecdotes is not data.

The examples I gave are not anecdotes, the fact you think they are anecdotes is because you believe they are unreliable evidence as examples in my case that religion is a malicious entity.

Definition of Anecdote:

"An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay".

They are evidence of harm against humans caused by religion and religious beliefs, if they are not then explain what else causes and is the excuse for people to circumcise their children? What causes them to conceal their women? What causes people to kill others for believing in their beliefs and then abandoning that belief? What is your explanation, if you are rebuking my examples and evidence then present yours and we will compare evidence and draw a conclusion instead of offering strawman arguments.

Originally Posted by question for you

Do you really think I will troll through posts so I can disprove, your claims, that I claimed this or that?

Uhhh YES
You claimed that I twisted your words. Back up that claim. That's quite reasonable to expect you to do that. Dude, really, don't throw accusations out there unless you're prepared to support them. Heck, you should remember where you were "twisted" since you accused me of it with such confidence.

Originally Posted by question for you

It's this attitude that you can make claims about me, with no evidence presented,

Wrong. Heck, I even just addressed your misconceptions above. In the other thread, you were demanding proof that mutations are random.

Originally Posted by question for you

I'm sorry if I over reacted, but I had a right to be annoyed by your comment. You should consider that.

No, you didn't have a right to- you just were. You might want to consider that I'm not trying to belittle you or make accusations, I'm telling you simply how it is and you're having an emotional reaction to your personal dislike of what you think it means.

I did not insult you, call you stupid or anything of the kind.
I have tons of misconceptions. When I'm lucky, others make me aware of them.

You need to cool off.