Say Hello to the Bad Guy

[nkb]

Choobus wrote

Trying to have a genuine intellectual discussion (about religion) with a theist is like trying to have a romantic getaway with a sadistic rapist.

How dare you mention rape, Choobus! Which part of Lily's explanation about us being women-haters did you not understand?

Ix-nay on the Ape-ray!

[Choobus]

nkb wrote

How dare you mention rape, Choobus! Which part of Lily's explanation about us being women-haters did you not understand?

Ix-nay on the Ape-ray!

An ape ray would be so awesome. I don't mean an ape named Ray, although that would be pretty cool. I mean a ray that turns people into apes. Much more fun than a silly old death ray.

As for Lily, I am sure she understands that my lifelong policy regarding rape is summed up thusly: don't be rapin'.

Choobus wrote

No matter how literate he may seem to be, nor how educated he may (or may not) actually be, he is fundamentally incapable of an intellectual discussion because he believes in fairy tales, and because he does not value reason or logic.

I was being sarcastic. The guy yelled at me for not being intellectual, and then filled an entire post with loaded terms and some of the worst strawmen I've ever seen.

When can we have another Quaker? Sure the guy ultimately played the faith card on us, as I remember, but at least he was respectable.

[Choobus]

Quaker was unusual. Indeed, on a number of occasions he more or less implied that his concept of god was so loose that he's not really a christian at all. At least he wasn't a puffed up dumbass with an entirely inaccurate view of his own intelligence.

[DrunkMonkey]

Choobus wrote

It's hard to take seriously anyone who takes D'Souza's book seriously. The guy is a fucking moron.

JasonDrexler wrote

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.

I have to agree with Choobus here. D'Souza is an idiot of the highest order.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._of_dsouza.php

I would also say that "Breaking the Spell" by Dennett is a much better book than Hitchens'. It uses a much more scholarly approach, plus Dennett isn't a right-wing douche. In fact, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris are all better than Hitchens.

[DrunkMonkey]

JasonDrexler wrote

I don't see the correlation between unicorns and God. Besides that, who's to say that the unicorn, or something akin to it, isn't one amongst the thousands of now-extinct species that used to populate the Earth?

Who's to say there isn't a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard? The correlation is that both concepts have no proof whatsoever, and are crazy enough that you can't simply say "Maybe it is and maybe it isn't". There is no need to prove something wrong when there is no reason to think it is true in the first place, and several reasons to think that it isn't true.

JasonDrexler wrote

But that is all secondary to this: It's great to see that some of those who accuse theists of "behaving like fucking sheep" show the intelligence of our alleged cave-dwelling ancestors. To say that "an 'intellectual case' regarding belief in God is laughable" -- without any supporting material, no less -- is the very epitome of narrow-mindedness, not to mention an insult to the very notion of an intellectual discussion, such as what some of us here are trying to have.

So would I need supporting material if I were to say that an "intellectual case" regarding belief in Thor is laughable? Belief in the government trying to control my mind? Belief that objects shaped like triangles are created by aliens to kill me?

You can't have an intelligent discussion about the reasons for belief in a religion because all of religious belief is based on faith and sometimes some crappy reasoning and/or "evidence" (such as believing the bible is true because it says that it is true).

[Professor Chaos]

Lurker wrote

Always seeing the negative side of things...

Therefore.......what?

Professor Chaos wrote

Therefore.......what?

[Gnosital]

Lurker wrote

Lurker just never tires of displaying his lack of mental ability. Where's his mind gone? Floating away in the ether world I guess.

SO how long will the new jeebus boy chew toy last? The smart ones always go away so soon .....

My, my. My, my, my. Where to begin? Thanks for all the responses.

Drunk Monkey,

I see your point about Thor, and I'll raise you this one: Nobody (as far as I know) ever claimed to meet Thor, whereas several New Testament writers personally knew Jesus (Matthew, John, Peter and James, for example.) And I'll grant you -- to a degree -- the point about a diamond in your backyard. The point I was trying to make there was that there have been instances when science said certain things weren't so, or didn't exist, only to be proven wrong later on (which is a fundamental aspect of science: continual correction of itself). A fairly recent example: Archaeology has confirmed the existence of the Biblical King David. Archaeology, by the way, has confirmed a lot of Biblical objects -- people, places and things -- and that's one reason why I am confident placing my trust in the Bible (not just because it says it's true). There are several outside sources, in fact, that support what the Bible says: archaeology, Roman history, the writings of Jewish historian Josephus. But I digress. You (and others here) make it sound as though the nonexistence of God is obvious, so much so that to even suggest His existence is the height of absurdity. But since God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm, neither His existence nor nonexistence could be "obvious." Thus, I think that each side in this debate bears the burden of proof. I won't let an atheist get away with simply saying, for example, "The gospels aren't true" without showing me (through scholarly research, for example) WHY they're not true.

whoneedscience,

You're right: I grouped atheists together and I shouldn't have. My apologies.

choobus,

If Quaker was an actual Quaker, then he wasn't a Christian. The theology of Quakers is quite different from that of Christians.

Some general comments for everyone:

Concerning morality: I've heard Dawkins say that he believes that morality came through evolution, yet in the same breath he said that evolution is an immoral process because of its violent and indiscriminate nature. So I ask you: How came a process that is completely and inherently immoral produce something moral?

Concerning evolution: In recent times I've maintained an openness to the idea that evolution is true (with the proviso that God was behind it), yet I remain unconvinced. If two skeletons -- similar but with certain notable differences -- are discovered and placed side by side, the creationist will look at them and say, "God created these two creatures separately," and the evolutionist will say, "The latter creature evolved from the former." Each of these theories -- taken strictly as theories -- are equally valid. What evolutionists would need to show in order to prove their theory is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. I'm always hearing about how this creature evolved into that creature and so on, but nobody has ever explained precisely HOW that occurs. And I'm not talking about natural selection. I'm talking about: What is it inside a creature's body, inside its genetic code or inside its brain or its cells, that says, "Hm, the creature to which I belong is living in a cold climate and would thus benefit from a thick, shaggy coat of fur, so I'll cause him to grow one." Furthermore, just as one example, consider the fish: Evolutionists says that some of them developed a capacity to breath in the open air and then moved onto dry ground and became land animals. This, however, raises some problems, such as: Fish, as we know, can't survive in the open air, so they'd have to have developed their open-air-breathing capacity before they ever came out of the water ... but that begs the questions, "How does a creature that's spent its entire existence in the water even KNOW of the existence of nonwater environs?" and "Why would a creature who's perfectly adapted to water even WANT to go onto dry land?" and -- and this is the real kicker -- even if it knew of dry land and wanted to get there and survive there, how could it make this happen? This goes back to what I was saying before: There would have to be something inside the creature -- either in its genetic code or its cells, for example -- that would "know" that it needed to initiate a change and that would then in fact initiate it. At the very least, I think that evolutionists would have to admit that evolution, if it existed, was itself a form of intelligence (a theory put forth by novelist James Rollins).

Concerning why I joined some atheist sites: I want to learn more about atheistic arguments so that I can hone my theistic arguments.

Concerning where I fall on the belief spectrum: For most of my life I've belonged to a conservative American Baptist Church (not sure if that helps at all, but there it is). Regarding specific belief, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that God exists as three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), that Jesus was actually God on earth in fleshly form, that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (but I don't believe in the immaculate conception), that Christ willingly paid the price for my sins and rose from the dead on the third day, that there will be a resurrection of all the dead and a final judgment, and that God gave us brains and wants them to be as sharply honed as any other weapon.

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.

And to Rat Bastard: No, I never lurked here before joining.

That's all for now. Take care.

[Choobus]

JasonDrexler wrote

Concerning why I joined some atheist sites: I want to learn more about atheistic arguments so that I can hone my theistic arguments.

you have theistic arguments? You should tell us, we love that sort of thing.

[Eva]

biologically speaking, jason, those processes have been studied and the mechanisms are somewhat understood already, from what i know. sure, some details are still unexplained, but what has been explained already does not take god into account, nor has he been found to be needed for the processes to take place...

so, you can say "god pushed the button for evolution to happen" (bullshit, IMHO) but evolution is, period. no need to believe in it or not.

[Irreligious]

JasonDrexler wrote

... But since God, by definition, exists beyond the material realm, neither His existence nor nonexistence could be "obvious." Thus, I think that each side in this debate bears the burden of proof. I won't let an atheist get away with simply saying, for example, "The gospels aren't true" without showing me (through scholarly research, for example) WHY they're not true.

Welcome to the forum, JasonDrexler.

Your proposition is that there is a realm beyond the material one we all know to exist. I don't know this to be true. Frankly, I don't know how anyone could. Have you been to or observed this other alleged realm? Where is it? What is it, if it's not concrete? Apart from your belief in what the Bible says about it, what evidence do you have for its existence?

As an atheist or skeptic, that's all I really care about when you make a claim like that.

I'm not interested in showing you "the gospels" are not true any more than you are interested in showing a Muslim that the Qu'ran is not true or a Scientologist that "Dianetics" is a load of bunk. Your beliefs are your beliefs and theirs are theirs, and you're all entitled to them, as long as they don't involve me.

You make the claim, you bring the evidence for your claim. Then we can weigh the veracity of it. That seems reasonable to me. Do you disagree?

As for scholarly research about claims based on a nonmaterial realm and its alleged intersection with the concrete realm we already know to exist, why would I bother to wade through all that before you have credibly established that the former alleged realm you claim exists actually does exist? I'm not claiming that it doesn't, mind you. What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe it does unless you or someone else can provide the necessary evidence to back up that claim.

If you can't do that, we'll just end up debating all manner of things from two irreconcilable positions. That is, your belief in things undemonstrated and my skepticism of such, or the material vs. the immaterial.

JasonDrexler wrote

So I ask you: How came a process that is completely and inherently immoral produce something moral?

What evolutionists would need to show in order to prove their theory is the mechanism by which evolution takes place. I'm always hearing about how this creature evolved into that creature and so on, but nobody has ever explained precisely HOW that occurs. And I'm not talking about natural selection. I'm talking about: What is it inside a creature's body, inside its genetic code or inside its brain or its cells, that says, "Hm, the creature to which I belong is living in a cold climate and would thus benefit from a thick, shaggy coat of fur, so I'll cause him to grow one."

You appear to be extraordinarily ignorant regarding evolution. Now ignorance of evolution itself is not a bad thing - really I can't blame you, especially if you grew up in a conservative Baptist household - but wilful ignorance is.

Your hangups are completely normal misunderstandings, although it's difficult for me to convey how far away from Natural Selection they actually are. I don't have time to explain details, but if you actually want to learn, there are people here who can explain it very well (Anthony, where are you?).

I also recommend doing some reading. I understand that you might have an aversion to reading Richard Dawkins, but his books, particularly The Selfish Gene, and also The Blind Watchmaker, are great places to start. Selfish Gene was never intended to be atheistic or anti-religious at all, although Watchmaker was intended to debunk intelligent design.

[Irreligious]

JasonDrexler wrote

Concerning "atheism's cause": I was referring to the apparent atheist desire to see all theists give up their theism and become like-minded (dogmatic?) atheists.

There probably are some atheists who would like you to give up your religion, but I'm not one of them. I don't give one good goddamn about your religion. If it gets you through your days and nights, who am I to attempt to take that from you?

Whatever you believe is your business. If you think you have good reason to believe that I am made of cottage cheese, I don't want to argue with you. That is, until you start attacking me with a spoon.

I can't speak for other other atheists, but all I'd really like from theists is to be left alone and to not be drawn into their unfounded realities, whether it's one of the variant forms of Christianity, Islam or Voodoo.

Atheists don't have a formal cause, a singular philosophy or shared dogmas any more than people with green eyes do. The only thing we share is a lack of belief in what you claim to be true, because, collectively, you theists of all stripes steadfastly produce no observable, testable evidence for such.

Generally speaking, atheists do not offer proof that the basic premise of what you claim is untrue. Nor, in the strictest sense of the word, do we even posit an opposite viewpoint as regards your claims. Without compelling evidence for your claims, we are simply compelled to disbelieve them. Do you believe every claim that is presented to you?