To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[goldcatt]

If science is elevated to the level of God, it's up those that subscribe to it to say so, not for others to label their beliefs as faith in the way religion is faith.

But that would be rational. And not controlling, manipulative, vindictive and condescending. What kind of bait would it make?

Can't have that.

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

Keep chumming, Polly. You'll catch somebody willing to bite at your copied and pasted together strawmen eventually. There's a sucker born every minute, right? Go ahead and keep rdeaning if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Although, it's not really rdeaning. Rdean at least has the brains and guts to write his own material.

But hey, points for persistence!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Do you ever feel the need to inquire as to the source of the universe...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Very well put by Political Chic. It's interesting that, when faced with death, non-believers have a way of crying out to God for mercy, a cure, a miracle, anything to spare them from impending death.

I also think it's a convenience to not believe when someone wants to do something that's against a moral code - it relieves them of any feeling of guilt - "if it feels good, do it." God is an authority figure and they rebel against authority.

Been at many RL death scenes, Granny? I've been at a few and never seen nor heard this phenom you claim is so universal. I dun want immortality; I dun even crave an especially long life. I've known people who've lived past 75 or so and no thankies.

I'm not so egotistical as to think my "essence" is so precious and unique it must, as a matter of logic, persist forever. I'm sure another snotty New York bitch is coming up now who can more than replace me.

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

 

[MelissaD]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Do you ever feel the need to inquire as to the source of the universe...

Why, do you know it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic, if religion is such a good thing, what's your POV on Islam? Are American Muslims more desirable in your world than atheists? What about American Jews? American Buddists?

Most people who write drivel like the Op secretly (or not so secretly) believe only christianity should be contemplated when discussing religion. Are you one of these intellectually dishonest types?

"...more desirable in your world than ..."

I don't know whether this nugget from your post represents my inability to explain my perspective, or your inability to understand it...

Every human is, as you put it, desirable.

Since you sunk to the use of the term 'drivel,' it is clear that you cannot or choose not to deal with the idea posed...

but I appreciate the opportunity to offer it.

 

[uscitizen]

From CG: "...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Ahh yes that "god shaped hole" in our minds that many preachers speak of.
The need to explain the unexplained.

Well not all of us have that "hole" in our minds. Perhaps we are a bit more complete?
Perhaps not, but different. And according to you God made us this way....
I can accept that I do not understand everything and never will.

I have no need for heroes. Some earn my respect, but heroes? I have none.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is NOT faith.

Atheism is NOT a religion.

And Stupididy is NOT a word. (At least not yet)

Pretty empty rebuttal to

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

This made zero sense to me, Political Chic. Care to expand the thought in your own words?

Sure.

While science can explain some things, it cannot explain others. Folks like the scientist in the quote above admit that, essentially, that makes science a kind of religion, and largely requires that essential feature of religion, faith.

Folks like you who puff themselves up and chaff at such an idea are less informed than they think they are.

If the shoe fits...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Paraphrasing Richard Dawkins, religious people are already "atheistic" about every other religion but their own. I just went one religion further.

Absurd definition.

 

[del]

If science is elevated to the level of God, it's up those that subscribe to it to say so, not for others to label their beliefs as faith in the way religion is faith.

But that would be rational. And not controlling, manipulative, vindictive and condescending. What kind of bait would it make?

Can't have that.

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

i just love how cut and paste passes for thinking on your side!

just hit ctrl-c and ctrl-v...yeah, that works, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic, if religion is such a good thing, what's your POV on Islam? Are American Muslims more desirable in your world than atheists? What about American Jews? American Buddists?

Most people who write drivel like the Op secretly (or not so secretly) believe only christianity should be contemplated when discussing religion. Are you one of these intellectually dishonest types?

Yep and Islam believes in the same god that Jews and Christians do.

If she was intellectually honest, Political Chic would be defending American Muslims all over USMB, not writing Ops bemoaning the presence of non-christians in her midst.

This is a sleazy and slanderous post...

please provide any indication that I am "writing Ops bemoaning the presence of non-christians in her midst."

1. I have not discussed Christianity at all...a figment of your imagination.

2. The real reason for your post is the anger that you have been unable to counter or intellingently discuss mine...I understand that, but usually it comes from the less intelligent.

Perhaps you're just having a bad day.

Let's give you another chance: the OP is generally about the provenance of this division of truth, known as the fact/value split, or the divided concept of truth. Simply stated, it means that objective knowledge is possible only in the realm of empirical facts, and, therefore, values and morality, i.e., religion, are outside of the realm of real knowledge.

a. While the vast majority of Americans recognize a higher power, and state that they regularly pray, and, therefore, acceptance of an invisible spiritual world, they also, syncretically, accept the empirical definition of truth. In short, they accept a secular worldview without realizing it. This would pretty much include you.

b. The consistent view would be to simply challenge the use of the definition, since the separation of facts from values is the basis for the secularization of much of Western thinking.

You seem unable to incorporate into your thinking that any person, religious or not, is entitled to the same protections and respect based on morality and values. The acceptance of this, while largely non-verbalized, is why America is one of the most religious of the industrial nations.

 

[goldcatt]

Political Chic, if religion is such a good thing, what's your POV on Islam? Are American Muslims more desirable in your world than atheists? What about American Jews? American Buddists?

Most people who write drivel like the Op secretly (or not so secretly) believe only christianity should be contemplated when discussing religion. Are you one of these intellectually dishonest types?

Yep and Islam believes in the same god that Jews and Christians do.

If she was intellectually honest, Political Chic would be defending American Muslims all over USMB, not writing Ops bemoaning the presence of non-christians in her midst.

Never expect intellectual honesty from a person who believes in mind reading and whatever her magic 8 ball tells her. It's an exercise in futility.

Oh, wait...you were talking about somebody who actually writes OP's. My bad!

 

[PoliticalChic]

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.

Yes! Please do.

Certainly.

1. . “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.” Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort
und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim. http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf

2. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip From his thesis:

a. Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes happen naturally. The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.

b. Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only , there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

c. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.


d. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
(emphasis mine throughout)

The point? Much of the theory is unproven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But that would be rational. And not controlling, manipulative, vindictive and condescending. What kind of bait would it make?

Can't have that.

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

Keep chumming, Polly. You'll catch somebody willing to bite at your copied and pasted together strawmen eventually. There's a sucker born every minute, right? Go ahead and keep rdeaning if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Although, it's not really rdeaning. Rdean at least has the brains and guts to write his own material.

But hey, points for persistence!

I understand why you feel left out of any intelligent discussion...but you should keep this in mind, as it will save you future embarrassment:

It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and remove any lingering doubt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But that would be rational. And not controlling, manipulative, vindictive and condescending. What kind of bait would it make?

Can't have that.

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

i just love how cut and paste passes for thinking on your side!

just hit ctrl-c and ctrl-v...yeah, that works, huh?

The very lowest of all rebuttals is criticism of the method used to present an idea...

 

[del]

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

i just love how cut and paste passes for thinking on your side!

just hit ctrl-c and ctrl-v...yeah, that works, huh?

The very lowest of all rebuttals is criticism of the method used to present an idea...

and yet, no rebuttal was offered. if i was to offer one, i'd offer it to the actual author, not some wannabe c & p *artiste* who probably has to sound out many of the larger words.

would you like more straw, rapunzel?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

i just love how cut and paste passes for thinking on your side!

just hit ctrl-c and ctrl-v...yeah, that works, huh?

The very lowest of all rebuttals is criticism of the method used to present an idea...

wrong, it can get much lower.

"your" "idea" has already, as usual, been exposed and disposed.

and you, as usual, still expect further "rebuttals".

cute.

 

[goldcatt]

I just love how you guys handle posts that spotlight the gaps and foibles in what passes for thinking on your side!

Just cover your ears and shut your eyes tightly...yeah, that works, huh?

Keep chumming, Polly. You'll catch somebody willing to bite at your copied and pasted together strawmen eventually. There's a sucker born every minute, right? Go ahead and keep rdeaning if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Although, it's not really rdeaning. Rdean at least has the brains and guts to write his own material.

But hey, points for persistence!

I understand why you feel left out of any intelligent discussion...but you should keep this in mind, as it will save you future embarrassment:

It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and remove any lingering doubt.

I see no intelligent discussion here. What's the matter, want a cracker?

 

[PoliticalChic]

i just love how cut and paste passes for thinking on your side!

just hit ctrl-c and ctrl-v...yeah, that works, huh?

The very lowest of all rebuttals is criticism of the method used to present an idea...

and yet, no rebuttal was offered. if i was to offer one, i'd offer it to the actual author, not some wannabe c & p *artiste* who probably has to sound out many of the larger words.

would you like more straw, rapunzel?

Talk is cheap!

Let's see that rebuttal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep chumming, Polly. You'll catch somebody willing to bite at your copied and pasted together strawmen eventually. There's a sucker born every minute, right? Go ahead and keep rdeaning if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Although, it's not really rdeaning. Rdean at least has the brains and guts to write his own material.

But hey, points for persistence!

I understand why you feel left out of any intelligent discussion...but you should keep this in mind, as it will save you future embarrassment:

It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and remove any lingering doubt.

I see no intelligent discussion here. What's the matter, want a cracker?

Another brilian post.

How about bringing something to the table?

 

[Foxfyre]

Theists and atheists are equally as deluded as each other. Neither can prove their position. Hence, the only logical, intelligent path is agnosticism in which nothing either way has yet to be proven but I am open to proof of either position at any time if some should become available.

I believe there is no god.

I belive many things on the basis of evidence.

If the evidence changes what I believe changes.

If evidence for the exsistance of god emerged then I would believe in god.


Agnostics think it is unknowable.

Not this one. Agnostic means you don't know either way and so far take no position.

You're like someone who says, gravity didn't exist until someone proved its existence. I'm saying, prove something either way and I'll start paying attention. You can't at this point prove that god doesn't exist just because we are at a stage in human development where we can't prove that.

Agnosticism is not a religion. It requires no faith in its assumptions. It acknowledges a void in information and draws no conclusions one way or another. The agnostic is truly open minded and unprejudiced in his views.

Even the courts have come to proclaim Atheism a religion. More often than not, it jumps in with its prejudicial and dogmatic assumptions and proclamations, sets up its own websites, demands its own rights, proselytizes openly, and denigrates all who do not embrace its tenets.

If there was no other reason than the fact that some sort of religion develops among ALL people, no matter how primitive or isoloated, that alone should be sufficient to peak scientific curiosity. And when that is coupled with what appears to be a perceived threat from other religions by the Atheists, it gives even more pause for thought by the open minded.

I always question the source of faith of the religious who presume to denigrate others who believe differently. That question includes the Atheists.