Atheism and religious hate

[New Rogernomics]

Didn't Phil 101 teach you that repeating BS, doesn't make it true. If it did you did you would stop pushing that man was made out of mud, coupled with a rib woman; and accept the theory of evolution.

Observation of evolution. The theory's evolution by natural selection.

It is a creation myth, so it has to include more than the first portion of natural selection to discredit it; this has been the addition of genetics to the theory. Yet creationists still argue that the theory is 'full of holes', so scientists have to devote large amounts of time making creationists look more stupid than they already are.

[Ardunshin]

Observation of evolution. The theory's evolution by natural selection.

It is a creation myth, so it has to include more than the first portion of natural selection to discredit it; this has been the addition of genetics to the theory. Yet creationists still argue that the theory is 'full of holes', so scientists have to devote large amounts of time making creationists look more stupid than they already are.

You've pretty much hit the point of the OP there. Not being a creationist, I am not insulted. But it's a bit far to start stereotyping like that.

[Grimlundt]

Didn't Phil 101 teach you that repeating BS, doesn't make it true. If it did you did you would stop pushing that man was made out of mud, coupled with a rib woman; and accept the theory of evolution.

Observation of evolution. The theory's evolution by natural selection.

LOL!

Didn't you read Kant in Philosophy 101?
If so, you'd know that all knowledge is based on premises.
And that premises are based on premises until we reach what Wittgenstein called "Riverbed Propositions" -- which generally are just beliefs.

P..s. I am an atheist.
I believe in evolution.
I actively do so.

[Grimlundt]

I find it interesting that so many knee-jerk responses assume that just because I defend religious freedom, I must be a religious person. LOL
I am not.
But being an atheist, I am honest enough to examine the basis of my own views ... and I have to say ... if you think everything you believe is based in hard evidence, you are fooling yourself

There is NO evidentiary basis for aesthetics or ethics

You people ought to be more humble, imho

[Tlaceceyaya]

Observation of evolution. The theory's evolution by natural selection.

LOL!
So you believe that your discourse is not an act.
And that you do not have beliefs.
Didn't you read Kant in Philosophy 101?
If so, you'd know that all knowledge is based on premises.
And that premises are based on premises until we reach what Wittgenstein called "Riverbed Propositions" -- which generally are just beliefs.

By the way, arguments from definitions are just arguments from authority.
That's fallacious, baby.

1: What the fuck?
2: For the entire post, I mean. Except for the beliefs part - quote where I said that I lack beliefs of any sort - and the last part. It is not an argument from authority. You are using an incorrect definition of a word. I am showing you that you are wrong by showing you the definition. If pointing out that reputable dictionaries disagree with you on the meaning of a word is a fallacy, then we might as well just fork the kill spoon electrifying their.


Edit: And please at least try to format your posts in a manner which does not make them seem difficult to take very seriously if at all.

[Ardunshin]

I find it interesting that so many knee-jerk responses assume that just because I defend religious freedom, I must be a religious person. LOL
I am not.
But being an atheist, I am honest enough to examine the basis of my own views ... and I have to say ... if you think everything you believe is based in hard evidence, you are fooling yourself

There is NO evidentiary basis for aesthetics or ethics

You people ought to be more humble, imho

Off topic, but i have to say that I can respect that. I wish more people would question themselves. It would lead to a more sympathetic, silent and forgiving society.

[New Rogernomics]

It is a creation myth, so it has to include more than the first portion of natural selection to discredit it; this has been the addition of genetics to the theory. Yet creationists still argue that the theory is 'full of holes', so scientists have to devote large amounts of time making creationists look more stupid than they already are.

You've pretty much hit the point of the OP there. Not being a creationist, I am not insulted. But it's a bit far to start stereotyping like that.

Eh? A stereotype is an unfair generalization, whereas that is a summary of fact; that creationism has no basis on fact, and that the theory of evolution is a comprehensive theory like the theory of gravity. If creationism and the support of it isn't 'stupid' I don't know what is. Edit: It causes Dawkins no end of grief, hence why he has give blunt answers sometimes (as the pure ignorance of evidence gets too much).

[Grimlundt]

By the way, don;t you think arguing from definitions is sort schoolboy debating?[/quote]
1: No. Love is an emotion. Hate is a different emotion. Feeling a lack of love is a lack of love. Feeling a lack of hate is a lack of hate.

2: Evolution is an observation, so... I suppose, depending on the parameters of what you would consider to make something self-evident, yes.

3: First, you are insisting that a word does not mean what it means. Is it some sort of crime to use a dictionary to show that someone is using a word incorrectly? Secondly, if by schoolboy debating, you mean that it is immature, then I do find excessive smilies and text speech to be a sign of immaturity in a debate.[/quote]

So we agree. All psychological states are affirmative.
Even negation is an affirmation?
Do you concur?

Evolution is a theory based on observations. It is a set of inductions. i have no problem with that. But let's be precise?

No. But you ought to know that ancient definitions are NOT the be all and end all of the meaning of things.
Some definitions cannot be changed without doing violence to logic. These are definitions of a necessary sort.
Others are just cultural usage. Those can change -- and do!

[Grimlundt]

1: What the fuck?
2: For the entire post, I mean. Except for the beliefs part - quote where I said that I lack beliefs of any sort - and the last part. It is not an argument from authority. You are using an incorrect definition of a word. I am showing you that you are wrong by showing you the definition. If pointing out that reputable dictionaries disagree with you on the meaning of a word is a fallacy, then we might as well just fork the kill spoon electrifying their.


Okay ... so you did not read Kant nor Wittgenstein?
But you do want to take a Platonic attitude to an idea like "Atheism" ... which is really a word in common parlance?

When you adopt an ancient greek definition, you also adopt the theory that supported it. Do you really believe in ancient greek social theory?

[Ardunshin]

You've pretty much hit the point of the OP there. Not being a creationist, I am not insulted. But it's a bit far to start stereotyping like that.

Eh? A stereotype is an unfair generalization, whereas that is a summary of fact; that creationism has no basis on fact, and that the theory of evolution is a comprehensive theory like the theory of gravity. If creationism and the support of it isn't 'stupid' I don't know what is.

Do you know that there are no facts? Or have you just not found any? I have found none, but my mind remains open to any possibility. And, therefore, I won't call a person stupid. Maybe they understand something I don't. Also, even if creationism is entirely false, one false belief doesn't make a person stupid. Unless we all are. No one is infallible.

[Grimlundt]

1: What the fuck?
2: For the entire post, I mean. Except for the beliefs part - quote where I said that I lack beliefs of any sort - and the last part. It is not an argument from authority. You are using an incorrect definition of a word. I am showing you that you are wrong by showing you the definition. If pointing out that reputable dictionaries disagree with you on the meaning of a word is a fallacy, then we might as well just fork the kill spoon electrifying their.


Okay ... so you did not read Kant nor Wittgenstein?
But you do want to take a Platonic attitude to an idea like "Atheism" ... which is really a word in common parlance?

When you adopt an ancient greek definition, you also adopt the theory that supported it. Do you really believe in ancient greek social theory?

it's not a crime to use a dictionary. it is infantile to obey dictionaries
That's why no professional scholar includes them in a bibliography

[New Rogernomics]

Eh? A stereotype is an unfair generalization, whereas that is a summary of fact; that creationism has no basis on fact, and that the theory of evolution is a comprehensive theory like the theory of gravity. If creationism and the support of it isn't 'stupid' I don't know what is.

Do you know that there are no facts? Or have you just not found any? I have found none, but my mind remains open to any possibility. And, therefore, I won't call a person stupid. Maybe they understand something I don't. Also, even if creationism is entirely false, one false belief doesn't make a person stupid. Unless we all are. No one is infallible.

Agreed, that is why I put you on my ignore list a long while back. Claiming a belief is stupid doesn't make a person stupid, I never argued that; rather an amalgamation of many false beliefs makes someone ignorant of reality; making them stupid (defined as a lack of knowledge).

[Grimlundt]

In the Bible it says God created domestic animals (eg. dogs and Angus beefs cows) before he created humans ...


Humans did not domesticate animals ... God did ....

[Ardunshin]

Do you know that there are no facts? Or have you just not found any? I have found none, but my mind remains open to any possibility. And, therefore, I won't call a person stupid. Maybe they understand something I don't. Also, even if creationism is entirely false, one false belief doesn't make a person stupid. Unless we all are. No one is infallible.

Agreed, that is why I put you on my ignore list a long while back. Claiming a belief is stupid doesn't make a person stupid, I never argued that; rather an amalgamation of many false beliefs makes someone ignorant of reality; making them stupid (defined as a lack of knowledge).

No actually, you ignored me for a satirical comment relating to the biology behind sexuality. And creationism is one belief. Therefore, by saying that creationists are stupid, you are stereotyping a group of people based on one belief. Would it hurt to open your mind to the other side? Maybe then you could convince them, rather than mock them.

[Grimlundt]

Btw. Please formulate your replies in a way that does not make you look like such a condescending pedant.

You are a schoolteacher, right?
LOL

[New Rogernomics]

Agreed, that is why I put you on my ignore list a long while back. Claiming a belief is stupid doesn't make a person stupid, I never argued that; rather an amalgamation of many false beliefs makes someone ignorant of reality; making them stupid (defined as a lack of knowledge).

No actually, you ignored me for a satirical comment relating to the biology behind sexuality. And creationism is one belief. Therefore, by saying that creationists are stupid, you are stereotyping a group of people based on one belief. Would it hurt to open your mind to the other side? Maybe then you could convince them, rather than mock them.

The truth hurts, if you don't want to offend people then say nothing and just give into them. Whatever you say or do you will 'mock them' as their ideal is to have their belief as fact; and science beneath religion just like it was in the medieval ages. Edit: BTW, some members of Westboro are attending university so 'convincing them' clearly doesn't work.

[Ardunshin]

No actually, you ignored me for a satirical comment relating to the biology behind sexuality. And creationism is one belief. Therefore, by saying that creationists are stupid, you are stereotyping a group of people based on one belief. Would it hurt to open your mind to the other side? Maybe then you could convince them, rather than mock them.

The truth hurts, if you don't want to offend people then say nothing and just give into them. Whatever you say or do you will 'mock them' as their ideal is to have their belief as fact; and science beneath religion just like it was in the medieval ages.

I believe I said that you would be wiser to simply disprove them, not mock them. Is that untrue?
I also said that my personally choosing not to dictate beliefs to others, stems from my acceptance that I am human and therefore fallible. I can never be 100% sure of the truth. And, therefore, I refuse to insist upon my beliefs being seen as true or superior. Live and let live. We'll all find out who is right in the end I am sure.

[Yankee Empire]

In the Bible it says God created domestic animals (eg. dogs and Angus beefs cows) before he created humans ...


Humans did not domesticate animals ... God did ....

Because people can only be talking about the abrahamic conception of God when they say they beleive in God right?

[Grimlundt]

Well ... not at all ... as you point out ... I do wonder how many Hindus are involved in this debate ...?

In the Bible it says God created domestic animals (eg. dogs and Angus beefs cows) before he created humans ...


Humans did not domesticate animals ... God did ....

Because people can only be talking about the abrahamic conception of God when they say they beleive in God right?

[New Rogernomics]

The truth hurts, if you don't want to offend people then say nothing and just give into them. Whatever you say or do you will 'mock them' as their ideal is to have their belief as fact; and science beneath religion just like it was in the medieval ages.

I believe I said that you would be wiser to simply disprove them, not mock them. Is that untrue?
I also said that my personally choosing not to dictate beliefs to others, stems from my acceptance that I am human and therefore fallible. I can never be 100% sure of the truth. And, therefore, I refuse to insist upon my beliefs being seen as true or superior. Live and let live. We'll all find out who is right in the end I am sure.

In that case, your claim that that it is 'wiser to simply disprove them' is in fact a claim of what is true i.e. 'x is better than y' based your belief that it is, thus undermining your position that you don't hold your own beliefs as being seen as true or superior.

[Ardunshin]

I believe I said that you would be wiser to simply disprove them, not mock them. Is that untrue?
I also said that my personally choosing not to dictate beliefs to others, stems from my acceptance that I am human and therefore fallible. I can never be 100% sure of the truth. And, therefore, I refuse to insist upon my beliefs being seen as true or superior. Live and let live. We'll all find out who is right in the end I am sure.

In that case, your claim that that it is 'wiser to simply disprove them' is in fact a claim of what is true i.e. 'x is better than y' based your belief that it is, thus undermining your position that you don't hold your own beliefs as being seen as true or superior.

It is advice, not dictation. And it isn't a belief chosen by me. It is a fact. Why has this turned into a criticism of me? Can't you just accept that other people don't always share your beliefs and leave it at that? Give me one example where it's a good thing to insult and ridicule someone else, without actually taking the time to properly debate with them. I am calling for acceptance, while you seem hell bent on justifying meaningless insults. I am not superior. My beliefs are not superior, My thoughts are not superior. Truth is superior. "ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα hèn oîda hóti oudèn oîda" - "All that I know, Is that I know nothing"

[New Rogernomics]

In that case, your claim that that it is 'wiser to simply disprove them' is in fact a claim of what is true i.e. 'x is better than y' based your belief that it is, thus undermining your position that you don't hold your own beliefs as being seen as true or superior.

It is advice, not dictation. And it isn't a belief chosen by me. It is a fact. Why has this turned into a criticism of me? Can't you just accept that other people don't always share your beliefs and leave it at that? Give me one example where it's a good thing to insult and ridicule someone else, without actually taking the time to properly debate with them. I am calling for acceptance, while you seem hell bent on justifying meaningless insults. I am not superior. My beliefs are not superior, My thoughts are not superior. Truth is superior. "ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα hèn oîda hóti oudèn oîda" - "All that I know, Is that I know nothing"

So evolution is a 'belief' now. Sorry I just can't take your bitching seriously. So long.

[Grimlundt]

I listened to this today ... you have to wait awhile before it gets into it
Well ... it's fascinating
New notions of God are emerging
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9DaTNB6uTI
However, for now, I remain an atheist
I only cite the link because I get the feeling you might be interested in new conceptions of God?
This one seems quite Hindu?

In the Bible it says God created domestic animals (eg. dogs and Angus beefs cows) before he created humans ...


Humans did not domesticate animals ... God did ....

Because people can only be talking about the abrahamic conception of God when they say they beleive in God right?

[Yankee Empire]

It is advice, not dictation. And it isn't a belief chosen by me. It is a fact. Why has this turned into a criticism of me? Can't you just accept that other people don't always share your beliefs and leave it at that? Give me one example where it's a good thing to insult and ridicule someone else, without actually taking the time to properly debate with them. I am calling for acceptance, while you seem hell bent on justifying meaningless insults. I am not superior. My beliefs are not superior, My thoughts are not superior. Truth is superior. "ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα hèn oîda hóti oudèn oîda" - "All that I know, Is that I know nothing"

So evolution is a 'belief' now. Sorry I just can't take your bitching seriously. So long.

Belief in evolution isn't a belief?

[New Rogernomics]

So evolution is a 'belief' now. Sorry I just can't take your bitching seriously. So long.

Belief in evolution isn't a belief?

There is no absence of evidence or lack of proof for the theory of evolution, nor is it a religion tenet, hence it is not a belief.