Here’s a nice idea for Independance Day, related to the last post: The founding and growth of our country, relative to Atheists. Use this space to post quotes and links to information about nonreligious people who have made the USA what it is today.An article I read this weekend refered to Ben Franklin, Saying he was “certainly Christian”, but that he never went to church, doubted the divinity of jesus, and refused to donate a church bell to Franklin MA because he wanted to concentrate on libraries instead. Doesn’t sound Christian to me!Thomas Edison, Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, All nonreligious. And lets not forget the Treaty of Tripoli!A Christian nation? Anyone who minimizes the diversity of our nation’s shapers minimizes the country itself. Let’s set some records straight.
This is addressed to people here other than Javier.
Javier’s own statements in this thread show him to be very ignorant of science in general, biology, and evolution, as well as chemistry.
Maybe he took but failed the courses he listed. I’d believe that. Or maybe he took them and barely passed. That’s possible. Or maybe he took the courses and merely remembered and then regurgitated what the teachers said to the class, without him actually assimilating any of the material, or wanting to.
I don’t know. But one thing that is pretty clear based on his own statements: javier sure didn?t in any sense master the material that would have been presented in those classes.
Another scientifically ignorant statement by javier.
First, biology is not based on faith: it is based on facts, evidences, theories, experiments, and so on. Saying that biology is based on faith is utter nonsense.
Second, all of the major fields of science are incomplete in one way or another. We do not know all of the physics, or astronomy, or cosmology, or geology, or biology, or chemistry, etc. that can be known.
Humans and fish shared their most-recent common ancestor several hundred million years ago. Of course there are lots of differences between humans and fish: that?s what evolutionary theory predicts.
But, the similarities in human and fish embryos ? in fact, all vertebrate embryos – does scream out common descent.
For example, human embryos develop embryonic postanal tails, just like cats, pigs, mice, and so on do. Ours just recedes before birth. Why do we form tails? Did God think it would be funny to make humans grow a tail? Did He think it would be funnier to make it then regress before birth, so that we wouldn?t even know we had one? The postanal human tail is not present in, or functional in, babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, or the elderly. So why does God make us grow one? It makes no sense. This explanation, however, does make sense: our postanal embryonic tails are a vestige of our evolutionary past.
The same general ?Why the hell would God do this?? problem arises for the notochord, as well as the aortic arches and pharyngeal pouches that human embryos, but not human babies or adults, share with fish and their embryos.
The logical explanation is that these are all embryonic vestiges held over from our evolutionary past.
I don?t know if I would call it a lie, but what Javier presented here is at least a distortion or a misconception on his part.
I’ve read many books on evolution (I mean actual books that discuss evolution, not religuous books that argue against evolution and distort facts) and have never come across any evolutionists saying that if evolution were true, we would be able to change the amino acids of a woman and make her have fish babies.
Javier knows that people in the biotechnology industry are trying to make women give birth to fish?!?!?!?
In that a theory is the highest form of explanation in science, yes, evolution will always remain a theory.
But javier?s implication that evolution is ?only a theory? is founded on his ignorance of how science works, and makes him quack like a typical Young Earth Creationist duck.
I am a strong believer that jesus crist was a magicion. He is no different from David Copperfield. It has been prooven through scientific weather patterns, Jesus never walked on water, the weather was so cold, the water was frozen.
He knew how to manipulate a persons mind with illusions and make believe. Jesus Crist formed a cult (not a negative one) that has carried on and progressed over the last 2000+ years.
Religion was created for comfort and to help keep the world at peace…a lot of fucking help that did.
I just happen to stumble across this site while searching for other things. After reading a number of the entries, quotes, and ideas–I must confess that I am unimpressed with the arguments and depth of thought.
Those who write on religion speak from the position of ignorance. I must confess, I am not a proponent of religion. However, I do feel a sense of obligation to have a cursory knowledge of the facts before I share opinion.
The cursing is childish. The quotes are out of context. The ideas are formed as a “rant” instead of a critical overview.
It’s a shame that people would get this mad and spend so much energy on a ‘being’ they don’t even believe exists.
unimpressed:
This is an old, OLD thread. You may want to move up to the newer ones. This is more representative of this blog being dive-bombed by an exceedingly obnoxious religious poster.
Last post was 8/31 of LAST YEAR. 8 months old.
Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to read someone else’s comments on the same subject. Until today–I didn’t know this site existed. I do find it interesting that the only rebuttal is “Old Thread.”
The reason I find the information laking in basic thought is because my undergraduate degree is from a public university in world religions. I was trained by an Imam for Islam, a Rabbi for Judaism, a secular humanist for Taoism, and the list could go on. Even in a secular, non-Christian, pro-fact finding setting–the scholarly minds would mock these discussions.
People who truly live with and believe in no god are few and far between. The rest are posers who got burned in the religious system and now find it more entertaining to mock belief systems.
Take the time to write an original thought as to your position and you will gain more respect.
unimpressed:
I was responding out of courtesy – you’re being ignored due to the fact that you ARE in an old thread. Go to the very top: it started in 07/2006.
Oh, an appeal to authority – that’s so trite ‘n old.
Another cliche – yeesh, junior, I’m terribly UNIMPRESSED w/you. I’ve heard this 1 about a thousand times as well. & you know what? I find it just as false as the 1st 100 times.
So you trot out a bunch of tired platitudes, & say that?!?!?
To which I say, ‘Tu quoque’.
I’d suggest a refund’s due: you’ve said nothing new whatsoever.
Once again–you have said nothing! You result to insults and claims that you’ve heard it before–but you have no intelligent reply. Saying, “That’s trite, old news, tired platitudes, etc” is an acknowledgement that you have been challenged by these ideas before, but its not a rebuttal to anything presented.
Just for the record, please do not confuse me with Javier. I don’t agree with a number of the assertions he made. He has his agenda, and I have a completely different one. My only argument with this whole blog is the group needs to take a position in either fact or feeling.
The tagline of the site is “In fact we trust,” yet when arguments center on facts or appeal to authority–they are either misquoted or ignored. I will admit–there are some facts that seem difficult to explain, but that doesn’t give us the right to say, “Oh, an appeal to authority – that’s so trite ‘n old.”
Pick a position: “I am an athiest because I feel that I am right,” or “I am an athiest because the facts tell me I am right.” If you pick the first position–then I respect that as personal opinion and you can feel free to hurl insults as much as you want.
However, if you pick the second position then take the time to intellectually back your assertions. Use science, philosophy, reason, logic, or anything you choose. Otherwise, this discussion sounds like nothing more than two 3rd graders arguing behind the bleachers.
You say, “There is no god!” Prove it. Don’t say, “It’s already been proven or you prove that there is a god.” That’s a deflection of the question. I want to know if you can articulately explain your beliefs.
I’ve read a number of other positions on the site, and it leaves a lot room for criticism. For example, poststructuralA on 7/3/06 wrote that he doesn’t think ‘facts exist either.’ At the same time, he says, “Of course, facts are the atheist’s best weapon…” It looks like he unloaded the athiest’s gun and still challenges people to shoot the weapon.
Anyway, I will pull my ramblings to an end. If you choose to reply this this comment–great. If not–I will go on about my normal life and leave the anger and agression to others. It takes too much energy to be mad.
unimpressed,
This is a blog. If you are as intelligent as you claim you will realize that there will never be unanimity of opinion. Seems terribly judgmental to read one thread and thus pronounce yourself superior. There are stupid atheists just as there are stupid theists.(Of course there are many more stupid theists).
You have no idea how many times this bit of nonsense arises. You know full well that one cannot prove a negative. What’s more it is the responsibility of the one making the extraordinary claim to prove IT. I for one am unwilling to enter into this roundabout. Perhaps someone else will take up this challenge. I think it would be better to engage in more meaningful argument.
unimpressive:
I insulted your opinion, not you. Mostly because it seems like the majority of religious people use some sort of boilerplate.
You present something of substance, & I?ll rebut it.
No, obviously you?re not Javier ? or I?d have deleted your comment. He?s banned from this blog.
Now, excuse me: the atheist POV is entirely FACT-based. I?m not Mr. Spock, so you may get a heapin? helpin? of personality.
What the hell are you referencing in the 1st sentence? Where are the misquotes? What?s ignored? Please do define your parameters less broadly. As to the 2nd ? I?ve got every right to tell you that your approach is flawed ? just as much as you have a right to tell me mine is.
Your approach is flawed.
You think I was insulting? Dude, I was being polite. Ain?t my fault you?re so touchy.
Thanks for the permission. /sarcasm off
Sure. How much free time you got?
You realize there?s a surfeit of atheist blogs, don?t you? This isn?t where the buck stops.
Remy addressed this fairly well, but I?ll chime in:
NO. I?m not going to disprove something that you can?t prove.
We all don?t use the same gun. You?re running on more than 1 misconception, then. I think facts DO ?exist? – & I have no idea who you?re referring to, nor do I care. We don?t all share the same opinions. There?s not much standardization: we are each of us our own persons, & as such, it?s more like trying to get a group of cats to act in concert. Unlikely to happen.
Hey, I?m a pretty friendly person ? but when you come out swinging, expect to get slapped.
Thank you remy for your comments. On the positive side, you shared exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. There is no way to prove a negative (especially in a conversation about God). For that matter, it is extremely difficult to prove a lot of positives.
Proof, facts, and laws are often subjective based on who’s trying to spin them in their favor. We live in a world where we make decisions or form beliefs based on evidence. Our question is, “Where does the evidence lead?” For the athiest, they believe the evidence points towards no god. That’s fine! For the thiest, they believe the evidence points towards a god. That’s great for them too!
At the end of the day, each person feels justified and right in their position. So what’s the point in arguing to begin with? I have never seen a case where the argument swayed opinion. Instead, it just keeps people locked into meaningless dialogue that never changes reality.
My intentions are not to show how intelligent I am or to sound judgmental. I am not a proponent of religion and I have not made a claim for the existence of God. If I were blogging on the “ProGodBlog” then I would feel a need to substantiate god’s existence. Instead, this is the “NoGodBlog” where I’m guessing the purpose is to discuss objections to thiest thought.
Just to settle your minds, I have no intention of making this a roundabout discussion. There are so many things I would rather do with my time. I simply get annoyed by unsubstantiated claims. Many of the ideas that get tossed around in chat rooms, blogs, and coffee houses are little more than heresay. One person makes a comment that “science disproves the existence of god,” or “the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves an intelligent creator” and everyone just starts repeating the same thing.
No facts, no evidence–just statements. It’s all nonsense!
I agree that time would be better spent in meaningful conversation. But where exactly does meaningful conversation begin when the original premise is negative?
That’s all I’ll say on the subject. It’s been fun chatting with two of you. Have a great day! I’ll stop interrupting your discussion of ‘facts.’
unimpressive:
Until the positive is proven, the negative is given.
Oh, you’re so full of shit, it’s coming out your ears.
You didn’t even read the entire thread. DNAunion laid a # of facts, NOT spin.
We constantly trot out facts. You come by, you take a few brief snapshots, make a quick judgment. Then blather on about how you’re right w/o bringing anything to the table, outside of your alleged ‘religious’ training.
Typical drive by troll. Posts on an 8th mo. old post, makes a few stupid remarks, declares victory & says ‘Ta TA!”
Last time I’m courteous to some twit that can’t navigate around a blog.
KA,
I remember a scene in a movie where the character sticks his thumbs in his suspenders and struts around the room acting superior. “He was all like I’m sooo unimpressed.”
It also feels to me like another philosophy student where every pronoun is parsed into oblivion.
remy:
Well, I should’ve known better than waste my time on a pseudo-philosopher.
What movie was that? Pretty spot on.
Nah, you did the right thing; politely informed him of where he was. You were right about his being just a drive by.
Can’t remember the movie, just the image.