According to an Associated Press report, Levada “…described as ‘absurd’ the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.” And reportedly he was speaking on behalf of the Vatican.
I have to say that the notion that atheists hold a “notion that evolution proves there is no God” is absurd. Just as I cannot think of one atheist who has ever said “I believe that nothing created everything,” I cannot think of one atheist who ever said “evolution proves there is no God.” That is not to say that I have heard every atheist who has ever existed speak on either topic, but, if it were a dominant line of thinking, I would expect to have run across it at least once. But, I haven’t.
What ever happened to “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?” Oh, I forgot… all they have to do is apologize to Jesus… no harm, no foul. It seems that asking Jesus for forgiveness is like having a “Get out of Hell free” card. Read More
I need to agree with the reporter on this one. How many times have we been told that we believe we descended from monkeys (why are the monkeys still here) or that we hate god, etc. I just wish they’d tell the truth — you know, about us, the child-raping, etc.
DARN! There I go again reminding everyone that the Catholic Church actively hid child molesters for their own political protection, and that the Pope was involved directly. Shame on me. But at least I’m not lying.
dave silverman you really didn’t think the cardinal was going to say nice things about atheists did you.now that would be news.
off topic hope everyone here has been doing well.get ready for the economic tidal wave that is coming no one can stop it.we as atheists are going to be tested you can count on it.
What’s the matter Jared…were my questions to tough to answer?
The Believer says, “Leprechauns exist!”
The Atheist says, “Leprechauns do not exist!”
The Agnostic says, “I don’t know if leprechauns exist or not, and neither do you.”
Atheist_rep
That is not what most Atheists would say and you should know better.
What said:
What would most Atheists say? Gee, I don’t know. Don’t leave us hanging.
I think you missed my point. I was ridiculing Agnostics.
David said:
Can you provide a source for that Asimov quote?
Atheist_rep
I got your point and thanks. However most atheists would say: “I don’t believe in Leprechauns”. There are so called “strong Atheists” that would say: “Leprechauns do not exist!”. They are probably over represented on this blog with respect to the general population of Atheists.
I call myself an Atheist only because it’s the best commonly understood label to describe my perspective on religion. My actual perspective is that the labeling of oneself according to one’s answer to a nonsensical question – “Do gods exist?” – is at its core just silly. Nevertheless I realize the need to show solidarity against the religious and religious power brokers. Therefore I wear the Atheist label – sometimes literally.
The only thing that might prove the nonexistence of God is the Babel Fish. It proves he exists and therefore he doesn’t, QED. However, most leading theologians regard that argument as a load of dingo’s kidneys.
The fine work of Adams aside, what part of “the affirmative bears the burden of proof” don’t these people understand? An infinite number of things do not exist. If I am wrong about a few of those things not existing (God, unicorns, flying saucers, the west half of Iowa…), I am still 0% wrong overall. The futility of proving negatives for me collapsed the agnostic/atheist debate and makes what this cardinal has said all the more silly.
Found another Asimov quote at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-a2.htm that I may have very well read long ago and absorbed like a sponge. It describes my experience and attitude about calling myself an atheist very well …
Whutthole challenges me again, big surprise that a skinhead never gets a clue. LOL
“Come on NeoWolfe tell us all what this means:
Well simple mathmatics tell you that zero equals negative one (electron) plus positive one (proton). You split zero and suddenly you have a hydrogen atom (by far the most abundant element in the universe).”
Sorry to make fool of you Whutthole, but here’s another quote from that same post:
“How about a HYPOTHETICAL alternative theory.”
Like all amoeba’s would, you missed the point. While we have an angry jealous god who demands worship, and the big bang which says that all matter, energy, space and time resulted from the explosion of a subatomic particle, I simply proposed a third theory, while ridiculous and unfounded, makes more sense than either one.
And by the way, thanks for correcting my spelling, but, you forgot to thank me for pointing out your idiocy. But, you’re welcome.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe
Your third theory makes no sense at all and you don’t understand the big bang. You know next to nothing about Physics. Please keep your magical thinking under control.
Whutthole has absolutely demanded that I embarrass him again:
“Your third theory makes no sense at all and you don’t understand the big bang. You know next to nothing about Physics. Please keep your magical thinking under control.”
I said:
“I simply proposed a third theory, while ridiculous and unfounded, makes more sense than either one”
Can you read? Can you think? Do you ever bother to? Where is your intelligent argument? Pardon me, silly question. You never have one.
Now, Whutthole, I have already trashed you about human behavior, do you want to take me on in quantum theory? Some astro physics? Hasn’t your self esteem suffered enough? If you feel it’s go time, skippy, bring it on.
NeoWolfe
neowolfe:
Well, rather than banter smarmy witticisms and insults, let’s cut to the quick of it:
How is life ‘intelligently designed’? Intelligence is simply a by-product of natural selection. But natural selection is blind, remorseless, messy. It took billions (perhaps trillions) of mutations, large and small, to bring us to where we are.
But how is it designed intelligently? That something works does not make it intelligent. The break in our DNA strand doesn’t allow us to process Vitamin C – rather we need to seek external sources. As Tyson states, who put an entertainment center in the middle of a waste disposal plant? If wisdom teeth aren’t pulled, the rest become smunched together. The human eye cannot perceive all the spectrums of light – indeed, it is poorly designed, the mechanisms are placed in dangerous proximity outwards. A man’s testicles are easily struck, a major weakness. Our only means of dominance as the prominent species is that the female bears young out of season, and our profligacy. & how is it intelligently designed, that our planet is covered by 2/3 water, & we have no gills? Or that we cannot survive on a major portion of this planet, or indeed, in outer space?
That is just our species. Generous flaws persists throughout nature, too numerous to enumerate here.
If we start w/the smaller scale, that of nature, the errors that run thru it are vast.
what:
Now THAT was well said.
NeoWolfe
LOL. Bring it on Zippy!!!!!!!
NeoWolfe
Zippy, do you think you could manage to learn how to use blockquotes. Your posts are an indecipherable tangential flight of ideas interlaced with pseudoscience and disorganized thinking but, hey, at least they would look better with an appropriate use of blockquotes.
KA
There is room for common ground.
NeoWolfe
Here’s a little test that I whipped up for you in five minutes. Let’s see if you can answer even one question correctly. They are worded in such a way that only someone that understands physics would understand the question let alone answer them. These are undergraduate junior level questions. If you can get even one correct we can move into graduate level questions and then on into my world.
(1) I direct a beam of spin 1/2 particles into a magnetic field gradient thereby creating two streams of particles. A filter blocks out one stream. The exiting stream enters a second gradient and filtering system in-line and following the first. This second gradient and filter is identical to the first except it is orthogonal to it. What spin state are the particles in after exiting the second gradient and filter?
(2) Why E/kT?
(3) A book sits motionless on a table. Describe the third law forces at work upon the book.
(4) Derive the charge/current conservation equation from the classical laws of EM.
You have one hour to finish since I know you are presently online. Good luck Zippy!
at work -> acting
Not that it is going to matter!
That’s an F for NeoWolfe. Should I make it easier for him?
testing testing
testingtestingIf we still had the preview function, I wouldn’t have to do this. Sorry.