As a student of the sciences, I think it's important to disinguish between the idea of a higher power and the plethora of misinterpretations of a higher power. I am a huge fan of science as it is the pursuit of truth via the presentation of empirical evidence. But, even scientific evidence is insufficient in denying the existence of a higher power, not that that is at all what it aims to do. However, I think that the problem arises where scientific evidence is more than enough to distinguish some of the misinterpretations of a higher power, and this is where the two become irreconcilable. There will always be those--theologians and scientists alike--who are so deeply entrenched in their own belief system that they are completely unwilling to look at anything which might contradict it, however convincingly. It would appear that a practice of humilty would go a long way in such cases.
Defenders of the Faith
Scientists who blast religion are hurting their own cause.
Jul 14, 2009
-
Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 9:37:46 PM
-
Posted By: everythingstaken @ 07/15/2009 9:00:06 AM
Right. Let's make religious people think that their beliefs aren't incompatible with reality, when we know that they are. That way we can get them to accept facts of nature while they still cling to their superstitions. Or, we could actually deal with the underlying problem which is lack of education and the religious belief that, statistically speaking, goes along with that lack of education. This approach seems to work for other industrialized countries where the citizenry accepts scientific facts and is free of the heavy superstition present in the US.
So, we can either stay true to our principles and do what's right for this country and world in the long run, or we can all hold hands and pretend it's OK for everyone to believe whatever makes them feel fuzzy, regardless of the consequences.-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 10:24:43 AM
I agree! Good points...
-
Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 9:36:16 PM
I fail to see where this is relevant to the argument presented in the previous comment.
That being said, I feel that your stating that '... the fact that most homosexuals are atheists doesn't say much for the validity of the doctrine of the Anti-Christ crowd.' is a blind claim. How did you arrive at the conclusion that most homsexuals are atheists? Can you provide proof of this? And even if this were the case, then wouldn't you think that maybe that might have something to do with homosexuals being alientated by many of those who hold certain religious beliefs? A thought worth considering I think.
As to the earlier statistics you'd presented, it could also be said that the obese person loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan, or that the person with high blood pressure loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan, or that the person who fails to practice a healthy lifesyle, consisting of a healthy diet and regular exercise, loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan.
This is the problem, in my opinion. Scientific data can be distorted, isolated to support just about any argument. And this is most unfortunate because it's little more than a perversion of the very objective of science, which is to examine all of the facts, as far as we can conclude that they're facts.
-
-
Posted By: sananda @ 09/03/2009 8:04:13 AM
By staying true to your principles and doing what's right for your country, I take it you mean that homosexuality shouldn't be accepted as a normal and virtuous lifestyle. This is true, since scientific data states that the homosexual/bi-sexual loses an average of 20 years from their lifespan due to the nature of the sex they engage in. (US National Institute of Heath) Numerous other studies indicate the lifestyle of a Homophile is a detriment to themselves and to the rest of society. As well, the fact that most homosexuals are atheists doesn't say much for the validity of the doctrine of the Anti-Christ crowd.
-
Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 9:13:39 PM
I agree with your general line of thinking, but I also subscribe to the 'live and let live' philosophy. If a particular belief or set of beliefs brings an individual personal enlightenment and causes no harm to others, then I can see nothing wrong with it. If a belief or set of beliefs does cause others harm, or is forced upon others, then I see a huge problem with it.
In short, it is my opinion that any one belief or set of beliefs should not be allowed to entirely determine the direction of an entire population, unless of course that belief or set of beliefs satisfies all within that population.
It appears that many people either don't realize or forget that the world was not always populated by civilized charlatans, many of whom seem to think that they know what's best for everyone. By contrary, 'the live and let live' philosophy and ensuing wayS of life dominated the timeline of our existence on this planet... up until fairly recently, relatively speaking. For many of us unfortunately, it would appear that we know only what we see.
-
-
-
Posted By: humilityisliberty @ 11/08/2009 8:56:59 PM
As a student of the sciences, I think it's important to disinguish between the idea of a higher power and the plethora of misinterpretations of a higher power. I am a huge fan of science as it is the pursuit of truth via the presentation of empirical evidence. But, even scientific evidence is insufficient in denying the existence of a higher power, not that that is at all what it aims to do. However, I think that the problem arises where scientific evidence is more than enough to distinguish some of the misinterpretations of a higher power, and this is where the two become irreconcilable. There will always be those--theologians and scientists alike--who are so deeply entrenched in their own belief system that they are completely unwilling to look at anything which might contradict it, however convincingly. It would appear that a practice of humilty would go a long way in such cases.
-
Posted By: Davidebert @ 07/15/2009 8:01:30 AM
The globe was circled by wars of religious intolerance and genocide in the name of religion in the 19th and 20th centuries. This generation has already forgotten most of that. But modern opposition to the several issues regarding religion in science and ethics should be handled as legal, moral and ethical issues alone, leaving religion out of it. It simply doesn't make sense to press atheism on people at a time when people are more and more frightened about life, and need faith to help them get by day to day. Most religions today contribute to society in a beneficial manner. If a specific pastor embezzles fundraising money, prosecute him- not the religion. If a religious group pushes a religious educational agenda in school, like creationism, oppose that- not innocent displays of faith, like Christmas pageants and creches. Our Constitution allows freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The issue of abortion has become a religious issue, when it is primarily a medical and ethical issue. No, abortion shouldn't be used as normal birth control, but on the other hand, medically necessary abortions shouldn't be hampered at all. Religious groups who oppose abortion should put their money and efforts into providing adoption services and programs to support unwed mothers, to give hopeless teenagers reasonable options other than abortion. A religious group that opposes abortion should logically distribute birth-control devices to block conception, but they don't. This is illogical. Killing doctors isn't a rational response. Cutting welfare for unwed mothers, and then demanding that they give birth in abject poverty alone makes absolutely no sense. To stop abortion, you have to give unwed mothers HELP, not vilification. This all works both ways. If atheists want religion to stay out of government, then atheists need to step up and address the issues that religion addresses. We need more discourse on medical and technological ethics. If scientists don't address the moral responsibility of their work, who will? It will be religious people. On the other hand, religious people have to find a middle ground and stay out of politics. Technological ethics are at a forefront in the Afghan War right now, and atheists aren't discussing it, nor are religious people. It's in the news, but not in the way it should be. There are hearings and investigations on the political ramifications, but here is the real issue: is it more moral to permit secret hit-squads to attack Taliban leaders, or to send in flying robot bombs to do the dirty work? This is the kind of area where science and technology tend to obfuscate the real issues.
-
Posted By: everythingstaken @ 07/15/2009 10:45:05 AM
You cannot separate an act from it's cause, if you intend to put stop to the acts. We should blame religious individuals for their actions, whether or not those actions are religiously motivated. But, to ignore the common, underlying cause for such actions throughout history is a ridiculous proposition. Do we ignore the motivating factors behind the Sept. 11 attacks? The Crusades? The Witch Hunts? The bombing of abortion clinics? The failure to adequately address AIDS in Africa? The Holocaust? ...and the list goes on. The common cause of all of these is dogmatic belief, and religion is arguably present the dogmatic beliefs behind each incident. It would be foolish to ignore that.
-
Posted By: sananda @ 09/03/2009 7:28:23 AM
It would also be foolish to ignore the fact that all these crimes against humanity were caused by political and military forces, and by "organized religion". The God Creator had no hand in the planning of these events. You were remiss in not mentioning the world's worst Holocaust of all time. Lest we forget.
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/unknown.html
-
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 10:30:37 AM
Until the science-minded become true humanists, religion will thrive to address humanistic issues.
-
-
Posted By: sas001 @ 07/15/2009 10:52:13 AM
What's with the "New" in "New Atheist". Atheism is a non belief in god(s) and has been around long before religion.
Where is your Evidence for "God" or the "Creator"? No God/Creator = No God/Creator. Perhaps you can invoke his/hers/its magical powers to comment?-
Posted By: sananda @ 09/03/2009 7:14:15 AM
Your savior is the God of Science. It protects you from what you fear the most -- being held accountable for your actions. Why else would atheists denounce something just because they can't see it. Why don't you challenge the fact you can't see the air you breathe? Why don't you challenge the fact that apes are still amongst us, even though they're all supposed to have evolved into man? And if they're still evolving, where are all the half-ape/half-man creatures? It's fools like Dawkins who states there is "no good and no evil" in this world, who are conjuring up the so-called "fairy tales". A troubled conscience, or simply a lack of critical thinking, is what's getting in the way of realizing that.
-
-
Posted By: clrought @ 07/15/2009 1:00:10 AM
First no matter how you feel about Christians. We are Americans also & we have the right to believe like we want.
It is still wrong to take a person rights away becauses they do not believe or think like you. Christian rights are
taken away everyday & this is more wrong than what you think about us or what we believe.-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 10:54:35 AM
hypocrite. What about Christians legislating who can marry in California? Or is Christian bigotry different because you base it on an old book of lies? During the 50's and 60's it was interracial couples who couldn't marry, now it's homosexuals. I repeat... Hypocrite! Every time people come to their senses and REPEAL legislated Christian bigotry, some whiny wuss cries, "you're taking away our Christian Rights." hypocrite!
-
Posted By: sananda @ 09/03/2009 6:51:25 AM
The majority decided whether Homophiles should be allowed to marry or not. The vote wasn't based on religion, nor was it biased. It's called democracy, something you're obviously not too familiar with.
As a side note, John McKeller, President of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) has publicly stated he staunchly opposes gay activism and the "marriage" of two men to be lawfully considered the same as the union of man and woman. So there goes your homophobic argument as well.
-
-
-
Posted By: Mikeroscope @ 07/14/2009 3:35:43 PM
NO way your totally wrong with this view. If the Christian right wants to avoid science, then screw them. Let them stop taking antibiotics and have their childbirth in a manger for all I care. I'm sick of pandering to their ignorance. You give them an inch and they take a mile, because they don't know how to compromise because religion doesn't compromise. Science evolves and changes based on fact, religion evolves and changes based on fear.
This is the second article I have read this week trying to pigeon hole Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens as loud mouthed hate mongers. If you actually read any of their books you would see they are much more nuanced in their approach and off actual facts to back up their opinions, unlike your article.-
Posted By: ABwildcat @ 07/14/2009 6:42:14 PM
This is a very ignorant comment. The problem lies with how most Christians interpret Creationism vs evolution. It has nothing to do with therapeutics and treatments. Francis Collins has been a voice for teaching people that evolution is part of creationism, which most Christian scientists, including myself, believe. We have to teach Christians and other religious people, which believe it or not, actually make up most of the US (yes, outspoken atheists are not the majority), that science doesn't contradict religion.
People like Dawkins, who write books titled "The God Delusion", are to some extent hate mongers. How would you feel if someone said that something you hold dear to your heart was a delusion? Probably not favorably. And you most likely would be opposed to his views, even without knowing what he stood for. Instead of polarizing people, especially those who are naive (completely different than ignorant), we should have more leaders like Collins who preach that all believe can coexist, instead of demeaning each other. Let's leave that to the politicians.-
Posted By: stholas @ 07/15/2009 11:03:26 AM
You need to lose the notion that Christianity respects other religions. How the hell would you feel if someone else approached you and said that there is only one God, and it isn't the one you hold dear to your heart? Hypocrite!
-
Posted By: ABwildcat @ 07/15/2009 11:33:04 AM
Since you don't know me and don't know how I feel towards other religions, you have no right calling me a hypocrite. I have never in my life imposed my beliefs on anyone else. If someone wants to believe the sun is their God, that is their choice, except when it comes to extremist who believe that people of all other faiths (or lack thereof) should die. If someone wants to be an atheist, that's for them to deal with. When Christianity enters the mainstream, or media, it is usually (not always) to promote itself, not demean others for their beliefs. Show me one book in the front of Borders or Barnes and Noble that calls atheists idiots or ignorant.
If you don't believe in heaven and hell, then why should it bother you if someone told you that you were going to hell if you don't believe the same way they do?-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 12:53:42 PM
One only has to reference the genocidal behavior of the Israelites in your Old Testament--behaviors that were commanded by Jehovah ('God the Father' of Christians) to understand the true exemplary personality to which ALL Christians are supposed to adhere. Read your Bible. God was a monster; therefore, so are you!
-
Posted By: sananda @ 09/03/2009 6:34:21 AM
Atheists insist on quoting from the Old Testament which is the book of the Jews. Their God is named Jehovah or Moloch, a demon also known as the Prince of Hell. If you have an issue with an evil entity, look no further than Moloch. The New Testament is the book of the Christians, whose Lord is Jesus Christ, a loving God.
-
-
Posted By: stholas @ 07/15/2009 11:51:34 AM
Christianity believes that there is only one God. Since you are a Christian, you believe in this as well. Therefore, you believe that my God (or the lack, thereof) isn't real. You believe in heaven and hell. The path to heaven, in your opinion, is in believing in the right God. All others go to hell. Since you believe that I am not following this right God, you believe that I am going to hell. Logical enough for you? Or do you want me to explain it with lego bricks?
-
-
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 1:06:59 PM
That's the difference between you and me... I value truth above any delusion that I hold--no matter how warm and fuzzy.
-
Posted By: everythingstaken @ 07/15/2009 11:38:46 AM
There is no question about interpretation. Genesis is very clear. Christians who try and twist it to say something other than what's in black and white are simply trying to fit their beliefs within the framework of reality.
-
Posted By: StaalBurgher @ 07/15/2009 5:22:48 AM
How would you feel if you are told that you will go to hell for not believing someone else's fairy tales?
-
-
-
Posted By: lancemh @ 08/07/2009 10:56:31 AM
I am reminded of Galileo's conundrum as a scientist and Catholic; he professed to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun based on scientific observation. Of course, this notion was considered blasphemous at the time - according to the Catholic Church, Earth was the at the center of the Universe, and Man was the purpose of "it all". Facing excommunication from "The Church", Galileo was forced to choose between professing what he knew was scientifically irrefutable, or the possibility of eternal damnation.
As he kneeled before The Pope and recanted his belief in a scientific certainty in order to save his soul, he was heard to whisper under his breath (and I paraphrase), "The Earth circles the Sun."
Of course, the Flat Earth theory also was utilized to claim that the ancient world was at the center of the earth. When Columbus shattered yet another myth, The Church was once again humilitated by science. Since the time of the rise of Judeo-Christian beliefs, which includes the creation of Islam as well, we have lived with ignorance and ridiculous myths in order to perpetuate the power of religion.
Of course, fanaticism begets fanaticism at both ends fo the spectrum - thus the intense reaction by Atheists. One group is certain there is a God, the other is certain there is no God. Neither is right. There is NO scientific proof one way or the other. That is why I am comfortable believing what Agnostics adhere to - "the jury is still out." One day science will likely provide the answers if we don't destroy ourselves settling this insane argument about who is right.
Now when I hear people say that Evolution is nonsense, and Creationism should be taught in science class, or others that say that there is definitely no God, I simply keep my mouth shut, and quietly smile and say to myself, "Don't confuse them with the facts, their minds are made up."
-
Posted By: catspaw @ 08/06/2009 2:19:58 PM
Religion is food for the Soul. Science is food for the Mind. Different needs, different wants. Soul accepts what man has written over time. Mind must prove what has happen over time, and shape what will happen for the time to come.
-
Posted By: smiller999 @ 07/14/2009 11:02:23 PM
I don't understand why many atheists on this, and many other, message board insist on equating "religious people" with "God".
Their argument seems to be: Many religious people (i.e. the religios right) are illogical idiots, therefore all religious people are idiots, therfore God doesn't exist.
That is terrible logic. Even if all religious people are crazy, it does not follow that atheists must be right or that God does not exist.
The battle between atheists and theists really comes down to whether or not there is a "Creator". Since the atheists cannot prove that there is not a Creator, they attack the logic of the religious people... it's a lot easier, but it shows that they are just as illogical as the people they look down on. Could atheism be just another illogical religion?-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 10:58:18 AM
Please prove to me that a giant Spaghetti Monster doesn't live behind the Sun. It times its movements just perfectly to remain out of earth's sight. Do this for me, and I'll tackle the whole "prove God doesn't exist" thing.
-
Posted By: smiller999 @ 07/30/2009 7:40:52 PM
I'm not asking you to prove that God doesn't exist. I'm just pointing out that you attempt to demonstrate the absence of a god by attacking SOME of the beliefs of SOME of the people that believe their is one. Just because those people are silly, or stupid, or illogical does not mean that there is no God. There could be a "creator" even if nobody believed in it or if everyone's conception of God was wrong.
Something in this universe was "created". Even if everything that happened after the Big Bang was an accident, matter was required for the Bang. Might not the source of that matter be God? Even if you know of a type of matter or a form of energy that was capable of creating itself... wouldn't that be your God?
-
-
Posted By: everythingstaken @ 07/15/2009 11:10:10 AM
You're logic is waaay off, or more accurately, your position is completely illogical. A theist has implicitly made an unprovable claim with regards to the origin of the universe. This cannot be refuted, because it is not possible to prove a negative, as demonstrated by effilc's post. As an atheist, I have made no claim whatsoever. It is merely my position that I couldn't know whether a god or gods exist, and considering the complete lack of evidence, I find the possibility so remote that there is no reason to believe there is a god. I imagine you take that same position with regard to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the god(s) of every other religion that you don't subscribe to.
-
-
Posted By: myau1 @ 07/15/2009 1:49:06 PM
Enter Your Commentsmiller999 said "Since the atheists cannot prove that there is not a Creator, they attack the logic of the religious people... it's a lot easier, but it shows that they are just as illogical as the people they look down on."
Smiller your statement asserts that atheists or atheism is all about attempting to disprove the existence of a God, when in fact Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any God. You then claim "they attack the logic of the religious people... it's a lot easier, but it shows that they are just as illogical as the people they look down on" This in of itself is poor logic and absurd reasoning. This type of comment attempts to shift the burden of proof on the Atheist, the person who doubts or rejects the claims that a God exists. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the individual who doubts or rejects that claim so to say that Atheists are attacking the logic of religious people is incorrect. Most of these Atheists simply object to the idea of a God, they're not attempting to disprove anything. As an Atheist I'll agree with you that God can not be proven and can not be disproved and that there is a possibility that the Christian God exists albeit highly unlikely. The evidence we currently have doesn't support the existence of a God nor doesn't it demonstrate who one might exist which is why the majority of Atheists object to these claims. Atheists are illogical? I would beg to differ my friend. There are uneducated people on both sides of the fence and to claim that all Atheists are illogical makes no sense.
You also assert that Atheism is another illogical religion. Again to be an atheist is to lack belief in gods. Religion requires absolute acceptance of both the word of God is his existence. It also requires strict adherence to the rules a persons God has dictated. Atheists on the other hand are free to determine for themselves what is right and wrong, free to cast doubt on texts that promote things they believe to be immoral and flat out wrong. An Atheist isn't forced to justify or rationalize gospels that don't coincide with what we know to be scientifically accurate or socially immoral. No my friend Atheism isn't a religion or a belief, once more Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. In fact most Atheists demonstrate far greater logic than do the Theists I both know personally and encounter. This doesn't mean that one group or individual within those groups is more intelligent than the other, it simply demonstrates how Theists rarely apply logic and reason correctly to reality.-
Posted By: smiller999 @ 07/23/2009 4:13:44 PM
myau, i did NOT assert: "that atheists or atheism is all about attempting to disprove the existence of a God". I said that many atheists attack religion because they cannot disprove the existence of God. The argument is not the cornerstone of the "Atheistic Religion" necessarily, but it is part of the prostelyzing that SOME atheists like to engage in.
You're right, though. I did assert that Atheism is another illogical religion. You countered by saying "to be an atheist is to lack belief in gods." Well, when someone has as much passion for promoting their atheistic "beliefs" and for attacking other peoples' beliefs, I'd say that they have a core set of beliefs that qualifies as a "religion"... even if they have no god. Who says a religion needs a god or a creator? Maybe your "god" is Logic.
And then you tell me that "Religion requires ... blah, blah, blah..." What does religion have to do with this? Aren't we ddebating Thesism vs.Atheism? You, and many others keep dragging other peoples' religion into the discussion. Why? There are plenty of theists who aren't religious and do not adher to any the the established religions that you love to bash. There are also plenty of atheists who are act very religious... they preach their beliefs to unbelievers, they are very intolerant of those who believe differently, etc. You really must learn the difference between Theism and Christianity (or Judaism or Islam). Bashing any particular religion does NOT advance your argument that theists, like me, are wrong. -
Posted By: polyhedral @ 07/15/2009 2:50:56 PM
God proves his existence in everything around you. Satan spreads his pernicious lie that Man is the Highest being. He's been doing so since the Garden of Eden. Now, before you go slamming the Bible as a fairy tale, Archeological and Geological proof of many of the events in the Bible exists. So, NO, I do not need to prove you are ignorant. You are, and that is that.
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 07/16/2009 7:29:40 PM
I am sorry, but that is complete nonsense.
-
Posted By: qwert @ 07/15/2009 7:36:35 PM
If you can believe something without any real reason then you can believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. Polyhedral has convinced himself that the world is proof of his god when there is just as much reason to think it is proof Ra or Zeus. When a 'proof' can apply equally to any god it is proof for none of them. Polyhedral has demonstrated a good difference between atheists and fundamentalists. Generally atheists at least try to give a reasoned argument for their claims, while any fundamentalist arguments I have seen tend to simply state it with a 'this is true because it just is' claim. Then they wonder why they don't get taken seriously.
-
Posted By: myau1 @ 07/15/2009 3:52:03 PM
Oh and please provide me with one specific example of a biblical event that Archeological and Geological findings that are "proof of many of the events in the Bible exists" as you said. Please site the passage in the bible to which you are referring and to the scientific evidence that supports that same passage.
-
Posted By: myau1 @ 07/15/2009 3:47:33 PM
God provides us with proof of his existence in everything around us? This argument from Theists is as so old and so tired. I can't count how many a Theist has stated to me or just how many times I've watched them state to others something to the effect of "well I see the trees outside my window" or "we'll we exist" and cite this as proof of God's existence. This type of claim completely ignores and throws the scientific method out the window. Further it proves doesn't prove that a God exists, it doesn't even prove that a God doesn't exist. Theists tend to agree with science and it's methods of testing, that is until the results produce answers that are in direct conflict with their texts, beliefs, or make them uncomfortable.
Please explain to me in detail how seeing things around us proves God's existence and how seeing things around us makes science invalid and please do not claim "well if it's not God what could it be?" because that'll only be you attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. I would also ask that you be specific in your explanations. Stating that something is valid or true simply because you see things around you is a non argument.
-
-
-
Posted By: patricklikespainting @ 07/22/2009 8:50:28 PM
Why the hell are there question marks all over my post. It's a word to internet thing, isn't it?
-
Posted By: patricklikespainting @ 07/22/2009 8:46:14 PM
An interesting part of the article is this short paragraph:
???if your religion holds that Genesis must be read literally then you are in direct conflict with scientific findings about the age of the Earth, the diversity of life on the planet, and so on. Yet if we consider religion more broadly???in its own considerable diversity???we find many sophisticated believers who???ve made a peace between their belief and the findings of modern science. It???s not just Collins; consider the words of the Dalai Lama: ???If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.??????
Is it being implied that good Christians have already beat the Dalai Lama
to the punch by not taking Genesis literally? But there???s a long way to go yet! That???s just the start. Why is it then that they???ve stopped short of saying that maybe this born of a virgin business or this ascension into the sky without the aid of a flying machine belief ought not to be taken seriously? If Collins could bravely (scientifically?) admit this we might be able to overlook the silliness of it simply because we would know that he is as well. But he won???t.
I have been guilty of giving religion a more poetic bent, a metaphysical sheen. But no more.Religious statements are about the world at large that do not
add up to facts in the world (which is why I think liberal-minded people then feel a need to talk in metaphysical nonsense).If ???sophisticated believers??? have ???made a peace??? between religion and science as implied in the article then what is stopping them from truly looking at scientific facts objectively. I don???t doubt they have ???made peace??? with the two (it might be argued they really have no choice if they are truly rational people) but the danger here is one Sam Harris has been pointing out ad nauseum:These ???sophisticated??? people continue to give cover to the religious groups that actually do take something like Genesis literally.
Is a lack of a Francis Collins??? on a government board really keeping these people on the fence? To say that science must be a ???broader, more inclusive category??? seems to be akin to saying that Disney Land ought to have something more conducive for kids. Science is inherently inclusive in that objective facts are discovered and refuted into a working synthesis while at the same time naturally and undogmatically exclusive in that you might, for example, believe that certain storms are whipped up in the Atlantic because the creator of the universe is angry about a particular behaviour. That will not get you very far in a meteorology class. By the way, it's usually the religious that demand a door out of the clubhouse when the inclusion doesn't add up to their world view:"What do you mean epilepsy is a neuronal disorder! It's obvious the devil gets inside the head!"
Indeed the Collins choice might be unpreventable but neither should the fight to question certain of his beliefs that are truly
-
Posted By: Rob Smith @ 07/19/2009 3:14:49 AM
Science and religion are natural enemies, and nothing can ever change that. One is based upon an honest search for knowledge, while the other is based upon clinging to ignorance and superstition. Scientists like Dawkins and Harris are simply acknowledging that basic fact, rather than perpetuating falsehoods and confusion like Francis Collins.
-
Posted By: tcgee @ 07/15/2009 7:17:46 PM
No need to be rude on either side. Knowledge is exciting, but ymaybe ou should study both sides. At least be aware of contradictions and confirmations in science.
In science news:
For decades, Neanderthal man was considered the ultimate proof of the evolution of man. In 1996 DNA testing proved that Neanderthal man was not man at all. Since then other possibilities have arisen.
The DNA of women sampled from around the globe showed that all modern women are descended from a single women about 5-6,000 years ago. THis happens to coincide with the Jewish calendar year of 5769 as based on scriptural geneologies, beginning with 'Adam."
Geography has always been used to date the Earth. When Mount St Helen erupted these same geographic phenomena occured within months instead of millenia. Scientists were astounded.
On the side of religion coming to science:
Chronicles 1:19 specifically refers to a time of the earth dividing, ala Pangaea!
Just fun to learn.-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/16/2009 12:13:22 AM
a complete load of crap as well!
-
Posted By: gabber @ 07/16/2009 10:39:45 AM
effilc, you are a reactionary vitriolic putz. It's personalities and attitudes like yours that have made it to leadership positions over the years that have resulted in many of the conflicts and wars this world has seen. Your personality exists in every ideology, and will always result in conflict. Get some counseling and go to anger management, and maybe all the evil in the world that you see in everyone else will go away. Good luck, oh you probably don't believe in that either.
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/16/2009 10:45:35 AM
I'll apologize for effilc and very politely say that what tcgee said was complete nonsense.
-
Posted By: gabber @ 07/16/2009 10:59:50 AM
Matthai, it is impossible for one person to apologize for another, thanks for the thought, though.
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/16/2009 11:16:17 AM
My mistake of course. By the way, imagine that some people think that one person can die for another's fault--and get the fault forgiven. I guess we're living in the real world, where scapegoating and penitent sacrifices work only in mythical tales.
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/16/2009 11:35:59 AM
Matthai: You are like Zorro!
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/17/2009 3:40:34 AM
Thanks, but I'm sure Zorro doesn't speak Malayalam or live in India. :)
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/17/2009 11:21:20 AM
India! Sweet! Keep up the good work, Matthai. And Thanks.
-
Posted By: hartbeat59 @ 07/18/2009 8:34:34 PM
Sorry, Matthai, but neither does Zorro miss his mark so completely. You have apologized for effilc. This does neither effilc nor gabber any good. If, however, effilc comes back and says: gabber, I owe you apology, and Mattai has stated it perfectly, gabber should and most likely would accept it as an apology by effilc, even though effilc never really issued words of apology. This is a very close parallel to the Christian concept of substitutionary atonement: the sacrifice of Jesus is of no use to me until I acknowledge that I am guilty before God and deserve the sentence borne by Christ.
Please don't respond with abusive nonsense about your rejection of the doctrines of Christianity, by the way. That is not my point. I am simply saying that your attempt to show an internal inconsistency in Christian doctrine is incorrect and, in fact, domonstrates its internal consistency.
And your attempt to keep the conversation civil is appreciated; I hope effilc does eventually adopt your apology on his or her behalf.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: hartbeat59 @ 07/18/2009 8:35:39 AM
if the person who owed the apology acknowledged the apology as owing and accepted it as his or her own, then the apology would be accepted. Same concept with the issue of faith you have ignorantly slandered
-
Posted By: gabber @ 07/16/2009 12:58:29 PM
Matthai, thankfully, you are not the arbiter of truth here. Of course you would compare yourself to Jesus Christ in trying to 'get me'. It's a shame that you didn't read the sarcasm in my response. It's obvious that you and effilc (maybe the same person?).... are of the same ilk, and will never engage in a rational discussion on these issues. Whenever someone posts a comment that you respond to, it is in a vile mean spirited fashion, not addressing their issue, only attacking their beliefs, with no foundation. Keep it up, your doing the devils work well.
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/16/2009 1:49:16 PM
Gabber: I will address each of your pithy comments:
"Matthai, thankfully, you are not the arbiter of truth here." Are you the arbiter of truth, Gabber? That's a good question because your arbiter of truth is most likely a cultural affectation,a "god." My arbiter of truth is simple reality--everyone lives within it, but a small portion of people (like yourself) acknowledge it just enough to survive--the rest of the time spent purveying repression upon other humans and creating misery.
"Of course you would compare yourself to Jesus Christ in trying to 'get me'. Is that the sarcasm your talking about below? How could Matthai possibly 'get you?' You're typing over the internet. If you mean enlighten you, then I guess Matthai was indeed trying... sadly without success.
"It's a shame that you didn't read the sarcasm in my response." You're 12 years old, right? (that's sarcasm)
"It's obvious that you and effilc (maybe the same person?).... are of the same ilk, and will never engage in a rational discussion on these issues." Thankfully I think Matthai and myself ARE of the same 'ilk,'which gives me hope for humanity. I think you meant to say 'never will engage in polite discussion' instead of 'rational.' 'Rational discussion' isn't a rhetorical term, those words actually have meaning. Time for you to break out the dictionary... again...
"Whenever someone posts a comment that you respond to, it is in a vile mean spirited fashion, not addressing their issue, only attacking their beliefs, with no foundation."--The foundation is simple and easily observable reality, and the philosophy of science. Sometimes I wonder if science hasn't shot itself in the foot though. If we had kept our theories a secret from the beginning like Pythagoras, superstitionist might have selected themselves out of existence long ago. (Now that was a truly nasty, mean-spirited comment.)
"Keep it up, your doing the devils work well." There never was a god--there never was a devil. It has always been JUST US AND THE COSMOS, silly monkey. eep--eep. ;)-
Posted By: gabber @ 07/16/2009 7:27:26 PM
I do think it's funny that you feel the need to come to one anothers' aid here. If you had paid a little attention, you would note that I responded to Matthai's silly attempt to 'apologize' for you in a way that if it had been spoken, the sarcasm would have been dripping from my voice. Since the reference to Jesus Christ was in the same note as the comment on sarcasm, I couldn't have possibly been referring to that - get a clue. With regard to the age, I was 12 many years ago, and at that young age, I realized that the earth and all that is in it could not have possibly just happened by chance, but by design. As for the monkey reference, you may choose to believe you were descended from an animal, I believe a loving, righteous God created me (that actually came from a preacher whose name I don't recall - giving credit where credit is due). Your matter of fact tone on the cosmos and evolution doesn't automatically make you the winner in any argument, as I've stated in another post, evolution, the big bang, and every other 'scientific' explanation of the universe are all unproven theories. One day you will find out that for sure, and trust me unless you come to accept Christ before then, you will regret your choice.
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/17/2009 3:38:16 AM
Yup, since it looks designed to you, the world must be designed then. Odin must have created the world from the body of the Ymir, the frost giant.
Are you preparing to reach Valhalla? Are you prepared for glorious death in battle?-
Posted By: gabber @ 07/17/2009 9:36:30 AM
And since it looks evolved to you it must be evolved - that's just childish, again you're not addressing the point, just attacking my belief system - keep it up, you're getting nowhere.
-
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/17/2009 8:51:07 AM
A dangerous prospect, deciding how the universe works at the age of twelve--accepting what was handed to you without skepticism or reason involved--before even learning how to derive meaning from reality.
You types always threaten "the final judgement" as your "hail mary pass." No sense hanging an imaginary carrot of eternal damnation in front of an animal that knows better.
You didn't read my other post about "theories" either!
I think you've fallen into the trap set by mass media and Sci-Fi movies from the 50's. In the scientific community, hypothesis=a guess about something to be tested scientifically; theory=a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and agreed upon to be factual. In the media, hypothesis is a hard word to say and not flashy enough, so they say "theory" instead--which deceptively demotes the power of "theory" to "hypothesis."
You're commenting on a subject about which you have not properly informed yourself. I myself escaped priesthood in fundamentalist christianity at age 24, and went on to learn about science. I probably know more about the "bible" than you ever will. ;)
Don't continue to waste your life on a delusion.
-
-
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/17/2009 3:33:04 AM
Dear gabber, suffice it to say that you are not the only person being sarcastic here.
As for not focussing on issues, your beliefs and their incompatibility with a scientific approach are precisely the issue here, as it happens. You amply demonstrate the incompatibility by expressing your creationism, which you hold because of your Christianity. I rest my case.
I'm curious, did I manage to "get you"? Also that was a very clever piece of inference there, finding out about my colleague, the Devil, since no online fundie has ever detected the link before. Ever.
-
-
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/16/2009 11:10:58 AM
Calling some ideas a load of crap=angry and vitriolic.
Calling a person a reactionary vitriolic putz who needs to get counseling=reasonable.
I'm not sure I want to believe you.
-
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 07/16/2009 7:22:39 PM
I approve this message, but I condemn it for being mild and reflective of the disgust it should show
-
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/17/2009 3:55:51 AM
I guess my sarcastic politeness was not very obvious, even when coming as a reply to a tirade of personal insults to effilc. :)
-
-
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/16/2009 1:41:02 PM
You are correct. I appreciate probabilities rather than believe in luck.
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/16/2009 11:23:56 AM
Gabber: while I respect your opinion as your own. I must consider the source...;)
-
-
-
Posted By: Simpleton @ 07/16/2009 7:21:31 PM
This assumes that
a. There is actually a second side (and only a second, not a third or a fourth...)
b. That second side is somehow reasonable if not on par with the first side.
http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1594&b=1
Sorry, when religion answers a question with the same robustness as Science, we can make the case of a second side.
In matters of reality, religion is not even in the same ballpark -
Posted By: Matthai @ 07/16/2009 10:33:16 AM
Sorry to burst the bubble, but
"Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 120,000 years ago at the latest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#The_Mitochondrial_Eve_and_Most_Recent_Common_Ancestor_.28MRCA.29_are_the_same
"By analyzing the Y-chromosome DNA from males in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are patrilinealy descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam -
Posted By: effilc @ 07/16/2009 12:06:16 AM
tcgee- What a pack of abberational unsubstantiated lies you just spewed! You're missing an essential element of basic science philosophy, THE REQUIREMENT FOR PEER-REVIEWED CONCENSUS WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!!!
-
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/17/2009 8:59:18 PM
Everybody just keep trying to learn and maybe things will work out in the long run. These arguments are mostly a waste of time.
-
Posted By: Pareidolius @ 07/14/2009 9:42:33 PM
As a former magical-thinker (not religious, just "spiritual") I once hated Richard Dawkins. The enmity didn't stem from "The God Delusion", no this was back in 1983 and it was "The Selfish Gene" that had my panties in a twist. I was so offended by the thought that I wasn't special, that I, as a human, wasn't the crown of creation that I could barely contain my contempt for skeptics and scientists of any kind. Once a bright, science-minded child, as I grew into my teens, I started to encounter a growing sense of existential angst. Disliking religion, I began to comfort myself with pseudoscience and New Age nonsense whereby I convinced myself that I could look forward to existing forever in some kind of reincarnational quantum soup. It made me FEEL better (nothing wrong with that). Did I actually read "The Selfish Gene"? You bet I didn't.
I would only get the gist of critical science books from reviews of Dawkins, Sagan and the like. In retrospect, I was terrified to read them. Terrified because I knew deep down that they were right. Science is kind of scary to folks with a fragile sense of self, as it offers no warm, fuzzy stories and loving spirits. Their reality seemed so cold, threatening and bleak to me. Honestly, there was no nicey-nice, accommodationist science at the time that would have changed my point of view. Though a fairly smart person, my critical thinking skills were truly in a sorry state. I thought I knew it all, but I constantly fell for all manner of logical fallacies. I was easily duped by things that I wanted to believe were true. I won't go into how all that changed, but suffice it to say it involved an experience where pretty much all at once, I lost my fear of death. With that loss, the woo-saturated reality I had held so dear seemed suddenly ridiculous. I realized that in an intrinsically meaningless universe, I, being a meaning-making primate, was in charge of what was meaningful . . . to me. I began to see my youthful insecurities as the prime drivers of most of my spiritual seeking.
And if it was ???cold??? reality that made me feel free, it was the Hubble Telescope???s Deep Field Images that made those feelings soar. Looking into the face of that vastness, I felt more all the more fortunate for beating the odds, being me, and being a part of this unlikely (but hardly impossible) species on this precious, finite planet. I never felt more gratitude, more connected to the universe.
As an enthusiastic daily reader of PZ-the-Terrible???s Pharyngula, I, for one, feel that Francis Collins is welcome to his personal meaning (bestowed by a bronze-age sky god at a triple waterfall). As an American I???ll fight for his right to believe whatever he wants. But as an American, I???ll also expect him to leave his god at home when it comes time to head to work to do the public???s business. As for the authors of this article, where is your data when it comes to your ???facts??? about us ee-
Posted By: gabber @ 07/14/2009 10:21:28 PM
It's funny that the images that helped to confirm your beliefs also helped to confirm my completely opposite beliefs. The deep field images, as far back as we have looked into the universe, still shows no boundaries. In a true physical universe, there has to be boundaries. why haven't we found them yet? we've looked back to the beginnings of the universe, yet still can't find the true beginning. The organization of the universe down to the molecular level has such order and hierarchy, that I can only believe it to be by design. While I respect your thoughts about your idea of the universe's origin, I can't agree with it. And trust me, that will never change, as I assume yours will not either. Fortunately we live in a country where every individual has the right and freedom to believe as they see fit, also, fortunately their rights and freedoms are not allowed to infringe upon other's. What this implies, though is what the debate is all about. Leaving God at home is not an option, that would be imposing on the believer in God. The physical laws were designed by God according to our beliefs, since He created the physical universe. There are also laws which rule outside the physical universe where God resides, since He could not have existed in the physical realm that He created. Believing that God created the physical universe, and thereby defined the physical laws (thermodynamics, mass, gravity, etc.), requires a believer to then bring God to his work. No one has yet proven that life on this earth just happened by chance, and every proposal to that end has flaws in it and assumptions and as such are unproven theories. This issue has been debated over and over ad nauseum and will never be resolved between the two sides. I, as a Christian can accept that atheists are in the world and I can engage in rational discussions with them without imposing on them my beliefs, my question is can they do the same for me.
-
Posted By: MikeTheInfidel @ 07/17/2009 7:10:08 PM
The appearance of design is not design. This is the mistake you are making.
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 11:07:43 AM
God is the easy way out--accepting a fantasy because you "can't handle the truth." Don't give up the search, just because you didn't find it on Google. Find out where your religion originated, historically. I think you'll find that rational individuals have no choice but to reject Christianity's lies and embrace the void.
-
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 11:03:31 AM
Very good story! It does seem a cold reality, but we humans make it warmer for each other--or try to, right? Thanks for the insightful comment.
-
Posted By: skepticplease @ 07/14/2009 9:49:18 PM
What a wonderful and thoughtful post! Very refreshing. Thanks.
-
-
Posted By: junkmail6 @ 07/14/2009 8:46:26 PM
I received a B.S. in Physics before I became a Christian. In many ways, my understanding of science led me believe in God. From where I sit, both extremes of this debate are religious fundamentalists. Those who claim that Science disproves God are completely unscientific in their outlook. Rationally, it is impossible to prove a negative by observation, and science is about observation. Those who refuse to acknowledge this bring great discredit on true science. At the same time, those who claim the Bible "disproves" evolution are simply imposing their own opinions on what I believe is God's word. In fact, Genesis 1 paints, in broad strokes, an accurate picture of the evolution of the earth. Sadly, this ongoing feud does cause many to simply tune out both science and faith.
-
Posted By: MikeTheInfidel @ 07/17/2009 7:07:25 PM
"Rationally, it is impossible to prove a negative by observation, and science is about observation."
There is no ice cream in my refrigerator. Oh, wait, I can't prove that! -
Posted By: everythingstaken @ 07/15/2009 11:33:46 AM
No honest scientist would ever claim that science disproves god. That's not the point. The point is that there is zero evidence for the existence of god. Science isn't any more concerned with this than any other proposition for which there is no evidence, and never will be.
And to say that atheists like Dawkins or Meyers are religious fundamentalists is just plain stupid and ignorant. I'm not trying to be abrasive, but if you're going to say something like that, at least try and support it. -
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 11:11:26 AM
I have great respect for the Physics discipline. However, there are good and bad physicists, just like there are people with uninformed perspectives. Arm yourself with verifiable knowledge and research the origins of your own religion.
-
Posted By: skepticplease @ 07/14/2009 10:04:26 PM
A debate on almost any topic will bring extremists out of the woodwork. That is not a valid reason for disengaging from the debate. In fact, extremists should provide greater impetus for those who actually get the debate to control it. The frustrating feature to this debate is that it seems to be impossible, literally impossible for debaters to understand how the other can possibly take the positions they take. Check this example out:
http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
-
-
Posted By: GermanGirl @ 07/15/2009 8:16:57 AM
Why do we "need more scientists like Collins"? It's the religious "scientists" who are trying to foist creationism/so-called "intelligent" design on this country. I tremble to think what Mr. Collins would do were he in charge of the science curriculum in Kansas or some other backward state that wants to be a theocracy, and that wants the same for America. As a scientist one's first duty is to be true to science. Inevitably, that duty will clash with a personal obligation as a Christian to toe the holy roller party line and spread Christian propaganda. In the end the "scientist" will have to vote for God over science, and the more power the "scientist" has, the more he will have to use it to further a Christian agenda. To do anything else will make him untrue to his faith.
The religious do not belong in charge of any scientific organization. In fact, I highly doubt that they belong in the field of science at all, since religion and science are mutually exclusive. Let's have fewer "scientists" like Collins, not more, unless we want to give a green light to God over science, too.-
Posted By: John Dough @ 07/15/2009 10:38:30 AM
The current fossil record clearly supports creationism over evolution as the record shows thousands of life forms suddenly appeared on the earth at the same time. In addition, there is more evidence that Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth than many of the historical figures pre and post dating him. Having said that, it is clear we have "evolved" as a species too. Technology is one of the major areas we have evolved in over the centuries. We have made advances that are stunning compared to where we were just one hundred years ago. The theory of evolution is just that a theory and it takes more faith to believe in that theory then it does to believe in creationism. There has not been a single fossil recovered anywhere in the world supporting evolution as it is taught today. Based on the theory there shuld should be millions or even billions of fossils showing we began as single cell organisms and eventually made it to man. There are NONE!. Evolution exists just not as the source of life. Even if it were true how did life start? It had a creator and that is one thing God has blessed us with as humans too. The ability of a man and a woman to create life. I did not come from monkeys through evolution but as a human I live in a period where we have evolved technologically, scientifically and maybe even intellectually. But we have also "de-evolved" morally, spiritually and societially over the last 6 decades too. When I was young, we never locked our doors and no one entered our house. We did not have a lot but we helped each other out. Today, we must lock our doors and still hope no one breaks into our homes. Most people do not even know their neighbors. As a high school student I did a small experiment when I was young testing people's honesty. I took ten $1.00 bills and purposely would drop one while walking tosee what would happen. I got nine out of ten back. I repeated that same experiment two years ago using five dollar bills. I got one out of twenty back. That is "de-evolution" at its finest.
-
Posted By: everythingstaken @ 07/15/2009 10:53:19 AM
No one will ever penetrate the thick veil of dogma that encloses your ability to reason for yourself until you want someone to. I will only try and nudge you in that direction by saying that your statements and beliefs shock reasonable people.
-
Posted By: polyhedral @ 07/15/2009 3:12:29 PM
The OP is correct, the fossil record does NOT prove evolution...show me one example of a new life form. You can't. To take a monkey skeleton and say "this is the missing link" is absurd. If that were true you'd be able to go to Africa and see it today...but you can't, because it DIDN'T happen that way.
Go ahead and believe (or rather, disbelieve) what you wish...one of is right, one of us is wrong. I can't think of any negative results of ME being wrong, but can think of some if YOU are...-
Posted By: MikeTheInfidel @ 07/17/2009 7:03:45 PM
You want evidence of new species? Google 'cichlid fish speciation' and be amazed!
-
Posted By: myau1 @ 07/15/2009 3:58:36 PM
polyhedral said "one of is right, one of us is wrong. I can't think of any negative results of ME being wrong, but can think of some if YOU are..." Why is it that Theists always fall back on an argument from authority and Pascal's Wager when all else fails? What polyhedral is essentially saying here is believe what you want, but if you're wrong you're going to hell, and I KNOW I'm not. No theist ever provides evidence for any of their claims because they can't. They construct fallacies, create illogical philosophies and reinterpret their texts, and beliefs so that feel both comfortable and correct. All because they're ignorant and fearful.
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 3:52:26 PM
p.s. I can think of one result of your being wrong--that you've wasted your life on a delusion.
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 3:50:38 PM
You only see what you want to see. Let go of your warm fuzzy beliefs and come into the light... http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/the-mistakes-that-argue-for-evolution/
-
-
-
Posted By: stholas @ 07/15/2009 10:56:49 AM
Please stop it. PLEASE! You think you are doing the world a favor by casting doubt on evolution but you are only pushing it back towards (another) massive war.
-
-
Posted By: ABwildcat @ 07/15/2009 11:47:42 AM
This is an insult to me, as I am a successful scientist, and a Christian. Not once have my beliefs affected my science. The biggest area of concern for you, I would think, is the creationism vs evolution argument, and that someone with Christian beliefs like Collins would remove evolution from the scientific agenda. Well, if you have read any of his books (or this article), you would realize he completely believes in evolution, and the evidence that supports it.
Stem cells, and therefore abortion may be the other concern. However, while pro-life or pro-choice is normally split between theists and atheists, this is a matter for the supreme court and congress to debate over. Collins will never write the laws. And funding of each individual grant is determined by a scientific review committee, not one person.-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 12:58:00 PM
"Reflexivity" Until you understand how your perspectives on reality affect your "science," you are merely a technician--not a scientist. Science is a philosophy to derive 'better more efficient' meaning from reality. I'm sure you have excellent technical skills, but so do I.
-
-
-
Posted By: seekeroftruth1984 @ 07/15/2009 3:29:55 PM
Do you know what I notice, as a young woman sitting here trying to decide where the truth ends and the lie begins? The the vehemently atheist commenters on this article are far nastier than those commenters who claim some religious affliation. Personally, I'd rather evolve next to the ignorant but kind rather than with the educated but intolerably rude. Speaking as someone on the sidelines, confronting a new idea in the face of what she's believed all her life, Atheists, you would do well to remember you catch more flies with sugar than with bile.
-
Posted By: MikeTheInfidel @ 07/17/2009 7:02:44 PM
When did it become rude to tell people that the puppet isn't really alive, but just some guy's hand inside a sewn-together bit of cloth?
-
Posted By: effilc @ 07/15/2009 3:37:42 PM
Reality is not always nice, people aren't either. You can't judge the veracity of a statement based upon how nicely or prettily the presentation. I'm sorry the opponents of religion offend your gentle sensibilities. Realize that many of us have been brutalized by religion and religious people all our lives. So, if we seem brutal when addressing these extremely harmful delusional people, maybe we are justified. I suggest some simple exercises that engender some empathy.
-
Posted By: myau1 @ 07/15/2009 4:37:27 PM
seekeroftruth1984, Many Atheists appear or are cited as being rude and intolerable by people only because they're defending truths and facts. They're also objecting to claims of miracles, pseudoscience and things that completely dismiss or ignore the scientific method. While I won't defend any Atheist or Theist who personally attacks another person in these types of discussions most of the people who think Atheists are being rude only think so because they're uncomfortable with what they read, hear, or feel.
For you to state that you'd rather evolve next to the ignorant but kind people here or anywhere in the world is indicative of a major problem human beings have. Throw the truth or facts aside so that you feel good or look good in the eyes of others. Sure there are Atheists that can be nasty but it's many of the Theists here who resort to name calling and other various insults, not the Atheists.
Questioning and disagreeing with the claims of others and demonstrating how Theist logic repeatedly falls apart and fails isn't rude, isn't an attack..it's stating a position and backing that position up with facts.
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- It is my intention to finish the job Obama, on sending additional troops to AfghanistanUSAT
- We cannot, by ourselves, win Carl Levin, on the U.S. needing help from Afghans in the warAP
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
Discuss