Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter.

bulproof
Posts: 25,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:38:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I was talking to my friend heysoos and he said all he was doing was hanging around for easter, yeah I don't know how to spell his name.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 11:39:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Beware of jewish graveyards, less you see some zombies partying.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:14:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

#1 is obvious. If everyone of importance was part of the church, of course they will contain most of the intellectual tradition. I will claim that they held back certain philosophers more ancient, desecrated ancient poems and mathematics for prayer books (learn about The Method). They stalled true studies of origins, and contested the round earth, and imposed a nationalistic, supremacist viewpoint among the masses.

#2 is just a idiotic semantics issue. When I use faith to describe what theists have, I mean it in the sense of blind faith. Regardless of how my opponents take it or use it, I mean it as blind faith. Atheists don't point to Christians and say 'they have faith! They don't have evidence!'. That is imbecilic. I reached that conclusion apart from semantics. I have seen Dawkins debate. I have seen it get into the issue of semantics over that topic briefly, but the debate usually gets further when the opponent explains their definition of that word. Also, 'evidence' means different things to different people. My version of evidence is a large number of unbiased items pointing to one conclusion. The version of evidence for someone else might be personal experience, or a feeling. (not saying all theists take this emotionalist position, and not saying all atheists are intellectuals. Thinking that would be moronic)

#3 is just plain wrong. Yes, many Christians reject 6 day creation. Catholics and other closer related denominations, as well as more secularized or modernized churches, and many members of churches who do not fall under this category do accept evolution, or more probably, a form of intelligent design. However, many Christians (and people of other faiths) accept young earth creationism. If some Christians were not for 6-day creation, then who is still arguing about it? The few Muslims? The orthodox Jews? Who? If not Christians, then who is the one making the big ruckus?

I will post the others in my next post. I'm sure you all cannot wait.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:15:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

#1 is obvious. If everyone of importance was part of the church, of course they will contain most of the intellectual tradition. I will claim that they held back certain philosophers more ancient, desecrated ancient poems and mathematics for prayer books (learn about The Method). They stalled true studies of origins, and contested the round earth, and imposed a nationalistic, supremacist viewpoint among the masses.

#2 is just a idiotic semantics issue. When I use faith to describe what theists have, I mean it in the sense of blind faith. Regardless of how my opponents take it or use it, I mean it as blind faith. Atheists don't point to Christians and say 'they have faith! They don't have evidence!'. That is imbecilic. I reached that conclusion apart from semantics. I have seen Dawkins debate. I have seen it get into the issue of semantics over that topic briefly, but the debate usually gets further when the opponent explains their definition of that word. Also, 'evidence' means different things to different people. My version of evidence is a large number of unbiased items pointing to one conclusion. The version of evidence for someone else might be personal experience, or a feeling. (not saying all theists take this emotionalist position, and not saying all atheists are intellectuals. Thinking that would be moronic)

#3 is just plain wrong. Yes, many Christians reject 6 day creation. Catholics and other closer related denominations, as well as more secularized or modernized churches, and many members of churches who do not fall under this category do accept evolution, or more probably, a form of intelligent design. However, many Christians (and people of other faiths) accept young earth creationism. If some Christians were not for 6-day creation, then who is still arguing about it? The few Muslims? The orthodox Jews? Who? If not Christians, then who is the one making the big ruckus?

I will post the others in my next post. I'm sure you all cannot wait.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

#4 is also false. Of course no one goes around spouting 'I am for god of the gaps reasoning'. But there are people, who often will also use Pascal's wager as well, who spout something like 'you can't know there is no god!'.

#5 is imbecilic, and completely misses the point of the argument. The site makes an argument befitting a deist, not a theist. A deist claims an intelligent force behind the universe, a theist puts a name to that force. If you put a name to that force, then you have just eliminated every other named force, in favor of the one you just put forth. There is the possibility that you are more of a deist, and just think you are a theist, or borrow heavily from deist ideas, and believe everyone is worshiping the same god in different ways, but many people believe that everyone else is worshiping a false god, an idol, or satan.

#6 is taking it out of context. Here is something they say often. This is not an exact quote, though they have said something similar. "Without religion, a good person will do good, and a bad person will do bad, with religion, a good person may be convinced to do bad, and the bad person is still bad". Without religion, a nice warmhearted community can still be nice and warmhearted. With religion, they might seem warmhearted, but drive gays out or towards suicide, treat other people who don't share the faith as outsiders, and discriminate, and still believe they are good and warmhearted. The desire to do bad is the same with or without religion. Treating outsiders badly is part of human nature. However, we are rationalizing beings. We can rationalize our actions, and a good person will be empathetic and realize these are bad. With religion, a person may be driven away from empathy, and follow these bad group mentality ideas, believing they are doing good.

So, in short, a bad person will always do bad. You can argue whether they can do more damage with religion, but I will not make that argument, because I believe that to be false. However, religion can drive someone away from empathy, and that can cause someone to be cruel or to leave someone out of the 'in group'. That is what is meant by that statement.

Would 9/11 have happened if not for religion? Would the crusades have happened? The witch trials? The various massacres of 'heathens' throughout history? Bad things will always happen, but religion gives bad people an excuse, and drives good people to join in, or turn the other cheek when this happens.

Look, the point here is that different arguments apply to different people. Not all deisms or theisms are the same, and not everyone's interpretations of it are the same. You cannot possibly take one argument and apply it to every single theist, when it is meant for a very specific group. You can argue that some are given by some too broadly, but these arguments do apply to large groups of people. If you happen to be a more reasonable deist/theist, then good for you, most of the arguments don't apply to you. Not everyone is as rational as you.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:52:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

#7.

I have yet to have this proven to me. I agree that it is probable that he existed, but I failed to have it proven. Many times in debates this argument is just used as an extra kick, then the atheist would allow the premise that jesus did exist as a person. The problem is, we have very few accurate records. There are many time problems, such as internal contradictions (the date of Jesus's date changes from day before Passover to day of Passover over two different gospels), and other such time problems as Herod the great being in power (and alive. The first part assumes that Herod could be either Herod the younger, or Herod the great) and the census of Quirinius. (separated by about 10 years). We also have the problem of loss of texts and biased texts. If it didn't survive in a random scroll shop in the Middle East, it had hundreds of years to be whitewashed by the church, destroyed, or written over for a prayer book (this was a common practice, as paper was expensive).

I have asked for proof of Jesus being around, but have not been responded with good answers. However, this doesn't really matter. Jesus probably existed, it really wouldn't be that odd. He might have even been several people that were combined into one. Street preachers and messiahs were common during that era. But the thing is, if Jesus did all of these things, or were surrounded by all of these fantastical events, why did no one write about them? Why did no one see these fantastical events? Or why did some of the less fantastical events that were significant enough to be written about, not always seem to get written about?

#8. Yeah. This is true. Same to you though. I know that is a childish response, but yeah. I feel this way every time someone rejects evidence because they were taught god at an early age. I agree with this one, but redirect it at the theist.

#9 is irrelevant to god's existence. Yes it is a claim often made, but it is just one that is inane. It is meant to try to get people to question their god on an emotional level, because they fail to do so on an evidence level. And I still think that claiming god is good, and really looking at his actions, tells you a lot about the character, and a lot about the people who wrote it. As someone who studies Mediterranean culture, I find it quite interesting.

#10. Oh yeah, that's always a fun one. Again, same as number 9. Irrelevant to the claim of existence, trying to get people to question their beliefs on a emotional level, because they will not accept it on a evidence level.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 10:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Who cares about this guys writing. He obviously believes in the wrong version of Christianity and will either be going to hell or no where with the rest of us.

No heaven for you!
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 10:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When we strip away all the religious mythology and dogma, what we're left with is a story intended to convey an idea. And that idea is that we have a "divine spirit" within us, that is loving and forgiving, generous and kind. And that if we will allow that spirit within to own us: to become our modus operandi (our way of being), we will be healed and saved from ourselves, can help to heal and save each other, and thereby can heal and save the world.

It's a pretty simple idea, but it was revolutionary at the time, and it's still revolutionary, today. But to appreciate it, we have to be able and willing to recognize that we need to be saved from ourselves. And many of us are not yet willing to acknowledge this.

I guess that's the achilles heel of the message: that it requires us to recognize our need to hear it.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 12:43:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I think that every friggin atheist on the site needs to read that...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 2:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think it matters if you believe in the easter bunny or not, you can still enjoy candy and easter. People who do not believe in the easter bunny can still enjoy the holiday.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 12:03:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would say that this apologist article exposes ten weak spots in the Christian mindset that the author hopes to dissuade atheists from poking around too deeply in.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:23:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 12:03:23 AM, Keltron wrote:
I would say that this apologist article exposes ten weak spots in the Christian mindset that the author hopes to dissuade atheists from poking around too deeply in.

I would say you haven't substantiated that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 9:15:36 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

#1 is obvious. If everyone of importance was part of the church, of course they will contain most of the intellectual tradition. I will claim that they held back certain philosophers more ancient, desecrated ancient poems and mathematics for prayer books (learn about The Method). They stalled true studies of origins, and contested the round earth, and imposed a nationalistic, supremacist viewpoint among the masses.

#2 is just a idiotic semantics issue. When I use faith to describe what theists have, I mean it in the sense of blind faith. Regardless of how my opponents take it or use it,

So use a term regardless of how your opponent actually means it....? Ummm...

Ok, so. Evolution = man came from monkeys. I'll use that regardless of how my opponent actually uses it. When I say evolution, that's what I mean.

I mean it as blind faith.
Atheists don't point to Christians and say 'they have faith! They don't have evidence!'. That is imbecilic.

Yes they do. Quite a lot do, actually.

I reached that conclusion apart from semantics. I have seen Dawkins debate. I have seen it get into the issue of semantics over that topic briefly, but the debate usually gets further when the opponent explains their definition of that word. Also, 'evidence' means different things to different people. My version of evidence is a large number of unbiased items pointing to one conclusion. The version of evidence for someone else might be personal experience, or a feeling. (not saying all theists take this emotionalist position, and not saying all atheists are intellectuals. Thinking that would be moronic)


#3 is just plain wrong.

No, it isn't.

Yes, many Christians reject 6 day creation. Catholics and other closer related denominations, as well as more secularized or modernized churches, and many members of churches who do not fall under this category do accept evolution, or more probably, a form of intelligent design. However, many Christians (and people of other faiths) accept young earth creationism. If some Christians were not for 6-day creation, then who is still arguing about it? The few Muslims? The orthodox Jews? Who? If not Christians, then who is the one making the big ruckus?


I'm not sure if you read it correctly. It says that many atheists take YEC to be the "default" Christian position on the matter and that PLAINLY isn't true. So disproving YEC is the not same as showing Christianity to be false. They'll also treat any different position as a "deviation" from the "real" Christian position of YEC.

I will post the others in my next post. I'm sure you all cannot wait.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:40:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I'd say they're ridiculously patronising and entirely miss the point of the disagreement. In fact, I'd say they show a profound lack of understanding regarding the position of the vast majority of atheists. I'm guessing... satire?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:41:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 1:40:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I'd say they're ridiculously patronising and entirely miss the point of the disagreement. In fact, I'd say they show a profound lack of understanding regarding the position of the vast majority of atheists. I'm guessing... satire?

Pretty sure it isn't aimed at the vast majority of atheists. It's aimed at a particular subset of them.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:44:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 1:41:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2014 1:40:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I'd say they're ridiculously patronising and entirely miss the point of the disagreement. In fact, I'd say they show a profound lack of understanding regarding the position of the vast majority of atheists. I'm guessing... satire?

Pretty sure it isn't aimed at the vast majority of atheists. It's aimed at a particular subset of them.

I've never met any to whom it would be remotely applicable. I mean, the author doesn't appear to understand the "one fewer" argument (and yes, it is an argument and no, trying to paint over the point it is making doesn't do any favours for the theist position), which I'd have thought would be something he'd want to check before commenting on it in such a way.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:46:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 1:44:26 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/21/2014 1:41:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2014 1:40:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I'd say they're ridiculously patronising and entirely miss the point of the disagreement. In fact, I'd say they show a profound lack of understanding regarding the position of the vast majority of atheists. I'm guessing... satire?

Pretty sure it isn't aimed at the vast majority of atheists. It's aimed at a particular subset of them.

I've never met any to whom it would be remotely applicable.

I have, so....

I mean, the author doesn't appear to understand the "one fewer" argument (and yes, it is an argument and no, trying to paint over the point it is making doesn't do any favours for the theist position), which I'd have thought would be something he'd want to check before commenting on it in such a way.

What's your take on the argument?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:53:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 1:46:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
What's your take on the argument?

My take on the argument is this:

A Christian theist does not believe in the literal existence of, for example, the Hindu pantheon. They do not believe the description of, for example, Zeus is accurate. They do not believe there is evidence that the laws laid out in, for example, Islam represent the way people should live.

The underlying point is not that they otherwise believe and how this may or may not mesh up with those things. The point is the reasons for disbelief of the claims made by the other religions. Sure, you agree there is a higher power and therefore share that one position. But the reasons for your disagreement with the other religious claims made in those examples are the issue; why do you not believe them?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 2:50:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I couldn't help but notice a glaring misgiving, in this article. The points that were brought up about the inaccuracies of atheists (and agnostics like myself) were countered by ranking intellectuals among the religious/faithful. The fact that the average atheist/agnostic is infinitely better educated and more intelligent than the average religious believer (and most of it is the direct result of the religious institutions) cannot be ignored. This includes a better knowledge of their own beliefs, doctrines, tenets, and scriptures. Why, then, would the writer of the article tell us to stop using these arguments, when the religious are under no such obligation to stop sputtering their obviously falsified drivel?

If we have to stop using these arguments, then the religious have to stop asserting the fallacies that trigger their usage. Religion must stop claiming morality as their sole and exclusive dominion, and claiming their right to edict the terms of our life on the authority of an entity that does not exist outside the pages of their ignorant pseudo-intellectual biblebabble woo-woo... :

#1: The 'giants' of intellectual thought are only giants on theistic 'thought.' None of what they have posited has ever led to any broadly usable discoveries or inventions... Notice that the author attempts to pit the average atheist/agnostic against the 'giants' he adores. Further, I don't think the conversation would go quite the way he has painted it...

#2: Irrespective of '...how believers use the word "faith,"' even one of the 'holy' authors defined faith exactly the way the author tried to direct us away from using it. No matter how it's viewed, faith requires the suspension of reason. Period.

#3: Irrespective of how 'mainstream' christianity may define the creation myth, the basis for their faith/belief clearly defines the 'one day' as the passage from light to dark in a complete cycle. Even if the length of the day were redefined, the stupidity of the story, in its essence, still leaves the myth with the status of 'easily dismissed' as fiction.

#4: As annoying as the argument is for theists, it's even more annoying having to use it. 'The Gaps' are the only places left for the faithful. The christian god cannot be reconciled with a rational reality. The immorality and hypocrisy alone are enough to dismiss such a god; let alone the ever-more-rapidly vanishing gaps...

#5: While the monogamy/celibacy analogy was 'clever,' admittedly, the conclusion was not. Jehovah and Allah are simply the last names needing to be relegated to the dusty cave where gods go to die.

#6: This one is simply a poorly disguised, bold faced lie. Compassion is not the sole dominion of christianity. Neither is it the sole dominion of atheists/agnostics. Compassion was, is, and ever shall be an individual choice. If it needs to be mandated (by scripture or holy edict), it isn't compassion, anyway. Poor choice, here. The violence of christendom is not 'dwarfed by' anything.

#7: OK, a person named Jesus lived. None of the supernatural or 'holy' elements of the fable, however, are true. Even the details are inaccurate, from narrator to narrator. The critical statement that was 'slipped in under the radar' was '...by his followers.' The same claim has been made about modern personages...

#8: (logos)... regarding stories and contrivances that fly directly in the face of rational, concrete reality... No. (pathos)... with regard to the institutions that intentionally minimized the availability of information and educated allowed to the masses... No. (ethos)... with respect to the institutions responsible for more bloodshed, tyranny, oppression, violence, and hatred than any other reason in human history... No. Personally, my first persuasion was psychological, second was emotional, and intellectual came last. I was also a pre-adolescent, at the time of my first doubts.

#9: No, prestidigitator... Not OT violence... OT immorality. It is not just violent, but grossly immoral to sanction imperialistic aggression, rape, murder, blood sacrifice, and human trafficking. More time is spent detailing the punishments for even questioning the deity than is ever offered to the indictments against acts of man's inhumanity to man, let alone their punishment.

#10: Not even worth mentioning. Hell is among the most easily dismissed of all christian doctrines.

In short, this was an emotional piece, aimed at bolstering the faith that the religious institutions know to be waning, in ever-increasing numbers. Face it, Dickson: religion's days are, thankfully, numbered.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:23:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

I think these are pretty good tips. Thoughts?

I Am an atheist when it concerns Christianity, I simply lack belief in the Christian God.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 6:57:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:32:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The butthurt was palpable.

Why would there be any butthurt over a group that accounts for 0.4% of the population?
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 3:34:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 1:33:54 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:15:36 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 4/18/2014 11:35:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://mobile.abc.net.au...

#1 is obvious. If everyone of importance was part of the church, of course they will contain most of the intellectual tradition. I will claim that they held back certain philosophers more ancient, desecrated ancient poems and mathematics for prayer books (learn about The Method). They stalled true studies of origins, and contested the round earth, and imposed a nationalistic, supremacist viewpoint among the masses.

#2 is just a idiotic semantics issue. When I use faith to describe what theists have, I mean it in the sense of blind faith. Regardless of how my opponents take it or use it,

So use a term regardless of how your opponent actually means it....? Ummm...

Ok, so. Evolution = man came from monkeys. I'll use that regardless of how my opponent actually uses it. When I say evolution, that's what I mean.

Okay, but when I say evolution, I mean the change in species as defined by the scientific theory of evolution. It matters more that we understand what we mean, rather than how we each use specific words. Getting into arguments over your opponents definition of a word, or taking the word in their context and putting it in yours is not at all what intellectual atheists try to do.

I mean it as blind faith.
Atheists don't point to Christians and say 'they have faith! They don't have evidence!'. That is imbecilic.

Yes they do. Quite a lot do, actually.

They only use it when a theist only says to them 'I have faith' and fails to provide any evidence or other argument. I have watched debates, and I have seen them start off sometimes on this line of reasoning, but if their opponent tries to put forth evidence, then they back down from claiming that they just have faith, and will only use that in saying their evidence is biased.

I reached that conclusion apart from semantics. I have seen Dawkins debate. I have seen it get into the issue of semantics over that topic briefly, but the debate usually gets further when the opponent explains their definition of that word. Also, 'evidence' means different things to different people. My version of evidence is a large number of unbiased items pointing to one conclusion. The version of evidence for someone else might be personal experience, or a feeling. (not saying all theists take this emotionalist position, and not saying all atheists are intellectuals. Thinking that would be moronic)


#3 is just plain wrong.

No, it isn't.

Umm. Try watching the debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell, a catholic who accepts evolution guided by a deity. Dawkins does admit that there are many Christians who subscribe to evolution (though he does wonder why they remain Christians if they are open to science that directly opposes scripture), and George Pell admits that there are Christians who do accept 6-day creation. In the US, the polls indicate about 44-47% (depending on year and what poll you look at) accept creation, though 6-day creation is not indicated, guided evolution was a separate category, so we can be sure that these people are mostly young-earth creationists. Out of the top 25 most industrialized nations, US is 24 in the percentage of people that accept any form of evolution. I think Turkey was 25th.

Yes, many Christians reject 6 day creation. Catholics and other closer related denominations, as well as more secularized or modernized churches, and many members of churches who do not fall under this category do accept evolution, or more probably, a form of intelligent design. However, many Christians (and people of other faiths) accept young earth creationism. If some Christians were not for 6-day creation, then who is still arguing about it? The few Muslims? The orthodox Jews? Who? If not Christians, then who is the one making the big ruckus?


I'm not sure if you read it correctly. It says that many atheists take YEC to be the "default" Christian position on the matter and that PLAINLY isn't true. So disproving YEC is the not same as showing Christianity to be false. They'll also treat any different position as a "deviation" from the "real" Christian position of YEC.

No it isn't, but it sure disproves some of the more moronic forms of Christianity that do believe in 6 day creation.

I will post the others in my next post. I'm sure you all cannot wait.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:49:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 6:57:27 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:32:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The butthurt was palpable.

Why would there be any butthurt over a group that accounts for 0.4% of the population?

Atheists comprised an estimated 2.01%, and non-religious a further 9.66% of the world population, according to The World Factbook in 2010. https://www.cia.gov...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 5:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 6:49:54 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/21/2014 6:57:27 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/19/2014 4:32:03 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The butthurt was palpable.

Why would there be any butthurt over a group that accounts for 0.4% of the population?

Atheists comprised an estimated 2.01%, and non-religious a further 9.66% of the world population, according to The World Factbook in 2010. https://www.cia.gov...

And in the US, atheists and agnostics combined make up 5.5%, and adding in other unaffiliated, make up 19.7% as of 2010.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved