Top 10 Creationist Arguments, Part 2

Submitted by: Yap71 6 years ago in Funny

The Thinking Atheist returns with his next top 10 Creationist excuses.
There are 166 comments:
Male 12,365
I don`t find it time-consuming to write posts that are restricted to about 950 characters, so this doesn`t take up much of my time.

I find it amusing that you have made a very basic error in English while praising the clarity of your own posts.

Would you like to explain what point you were trying to make that you think I`ve missed?

In particular, I`d like to see you explain why science is like religion. I`m just not seeing how "this is the best explanation we have based on the available evidence" is so similar to "this is the truth because someone wrote it down centuries ago, no evidence is needed."
0
Reply
Male 34
@Angilion

I`ve seen that you reply in alot IAB threads, maybe you should get a hobby or something...

Also, instead of stating your opinion so much maybe it would be a good idea to improve your reading skills on what other`s write...

You seem to completely miss what I and others are trying to say.

Congratz.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
The media doesn`t help much here. This is what normally happens:

Scientist: It`s possible that <x> is true. There`s some evidence to support it.

Media: Scientists prove <x>! Will change the world!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Moosh, esmifra:

The points in question were:

i) Why does the fact that belief is not fact means that science is the same as or similar to religion?

ii) Why does that lead to a rejection of atheism?

I`m still hoping that SarahofBorg will answer.


Incidentally, I am well aware that science is not necessarily about absolutely proven facts and I`ve never claimed otherwise. Science covers everything from "the maths works but we`ve no physical evidence" to "this has been tested a billion times and always comes out the same way".

Science allows for degrees of confidence in the accuracy of an explanation and allows for any explanation, no matter how well it`s held up so far, to be wrong.

That`s sometimes portrayed as a weakness by people who don`t understand it and prefer a system in which an arbritary explanation made up without any evidence is claimed as absolute fact.
0
Reply
Male 34
@Angilion:

Many of "science facts" are unproven theorems with only a mathematic basis assumed true.

And our current knowledge has deep gaps in them where we don`t know the "truth".

Astronomy is specially rich in this department and so is quantum theory.

So SarahofBorg has a point.

I think its funny how many people think about science without knowing much about its history and current development, almost as it was a religion and then criticize religious people.

I`m also agnostic by the way. Just in case some wacko assumes i`m a religious fanatic or something like that...
0
Reply
Female 196
I know this post wasn’t directed towards me but I wanted to put my opinion on here. Cause I can do that.

Angilion--you have to believe in your perception of evidence. If science has taught me anything, it`s that nothing can be proven. I could be one of those delusional people who think aliens are coming to get me, but instead I think that gravity is affecting me. I can`t say with certainty that my reality is everyone else`s. Or that we can`t learn something that changes our realities.

Compared to science, the vulnerability of my brain makes it untrustworthy. I act on things that I see supporting evidence for, but I never believe them to be infallibly true. That`s why I am also agnostic.
0
Reply
Male 151
For the record: I`m not sold on God, I`d rather let Science figure that out. We`ll see what happens.

I hardly think that these videos really do anything for atheists here. In fact, the atheists here come off just as biased as anyone who is religious. Both make the point that they have all the answers and both claim adamantly that the other is wrong. They even come off as smug non-nice individuals who only pander to people that agree with them. Just let people have their own opinions. If someone doesn`t agree with you on something that doesn`t mean they`re wrong. The only way to get a decent conclusion is to be arguing over something that is PROVABLE and that you can provide evidence for that. At least then someone gets to act like the smug jerk who has all the answers because... you know... they actually HAVE THEM.

Ok, rant over.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"no amount of belief make something a fact"
Same could be said for science, which is why I`m agnostic, not atheist.[/quote]

Would you explain what you meant, because I`m not seeing any sense in that statement.

You don`t think science is about believing things against evidence, do you?
0
Reply
Female 3,562
"no amount of belief make something a fact"
Same could be said for science, which is why I`m agnostic, not atheist.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
"Now, please give me some totals that equal over 76 million that were "in the name of God"."

Why does the number of deaths have to be more than that for any number of deaths caused for religious reasons to be unacceptable?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Buck176

"And their fighting over who would win a fight, Snarf from the Thunder Cats or Curly from the Three Stooges."

The difference is that Thunder Cats and Three Stooges fans aren`t out there slaughtering and oppressing in the name of their favourite fictional characters.

It`s a big deal because the religious ARE.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Heck, I could go and write a creation story right now in 5 minutes, and it would have exactly as much evidence to support it as any of those others mentioned above.[/quote]

Tolkien did exactly that with Ainulindale (the creation of the world) and Valaquenta (the shaping of the world). Not his best known work, but it`s an excellent creation story. It`s the best creation story I`ve read and seems more plausible than the others I`ve read.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Davymid`s 3 posts saved me having to type any more in reply. Just read those and treat them as my reply, since it`s what I would have written.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angilion Where in the following statement did I say the christian view of creationism?[/quote]

When you advocated teaching creationism in schools in the USA as science. That`s the whole point of that idea.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Look, all of those various belief systems have a Creation story, but that`s all they are, stories. There`s not a single shred of observable evidence to back ANY SINGLE ONE of them up. Heck, I could go and write a creation story right now in 5 minutes, and it would have exactly as much evidence to support it as any of those others mentioned above.

Science deals with facts. You know, things like evidence, empirical enquiry, repeatable experimentation, observable reality and all that. Those are the things which should be taught in the science classroom. Not religion, which peddles the opposite: blind faith, belief without evidence. There`s religious studies classes for that. Keep it out of the science classroom, please, for the sake of the advancement of our goddam species.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
3) I applaud that you want to teach children Christian, Hindu etc creation myths, but then were do you draw the line? Kids only have a certain amount of time to spend at school, to gain an education. So, you advocate teaching the Christian and Hindu versions of creation, fine. Let`s throw in the Islam and Judiasm creation stories, as a freebie. Now you start getting into murky territory. Where do we stop taking up classroom time by teaching creation myths? Shintoism? Chinese animism? Central African tribal religions? Zoroastrianism? Aboriginal Australian creation myths of the Dreamtime? Native American myths of creation with the feathered serpents? Norse mythology? The Celts? The Romans? Ancient Greek? Heck, to bring it back to the present, Scientology? And if not, why not? Where and how do you draw the line, using what criteria?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Icedragon, I know you addressed your question to Angilion, and I`m sure he`ll answer in time, but if I may venture a few points:

1) Scientists are not trying to "shove their belief down students throats". They`re trying to share the accumulated knowledge of science over millenia of scientific advancement with the next generation. I think you`re confusing the terms "indoctrination" and "education".

2) Children already do learn about creationism, in Religious Education class (at least, when I went to school), encompassing many different versions of creation. Why bring it into the Science classroom?
0
Reply
Male 490
@Angilion Where in the following statement did I say the christian view of creationism?

"Also, @leeann591, why should scientists shove their beliefs down students throats? Honestly, I am one of those people that would want students to see both sides of it all, and make the decision for themselves (and yes, for those who will bug me about it, say that evolution has more evidence or whatever). Course you wouldnt want that, as you wouldnt want your child having the chance to be `indoctrinated,` as any creationist wouldnt want their child to be either.."

You are trying to make it seem like I am implying that I would only want the christian version taught, but instead I were referring to mainstream creationism beliefs, SUCH AS christian, hindu, etc. You also make it seem like the teachers would have to teach it like a pastor or something, which would most likely be false. However I cannot expect much from someone whom I see to have a fairly closed and narrow
0
Reply
Male 34
Have your faith, believe what you want. just keep the creation bull**** out of text books and science classes. That is what was science class is there for to do, science not make random guesses about why something is or isn`t. As said in the video people seem to use God more and more as a cop-out as to why something is or isn`t.
I guess ignorance is truly bliss. And to all those that have a level headed mind about science and god... well thank you for proving that not everyone who is religious is blissfully retarded
0
Reply
Male 150
Wow, i cant believe all this controversy started with something i posted.
0
Reply
Male 3,915
lol this was pretty good...

gave me a good laugh
0
Reply
Male 379
The atheists are getting as bad as the creationists. Its like being in 2nd grade listening to a "no, you`re the idiot!" fight between the two kids who eat their own boogers. And their fighting over who would win a fight, Snarf from the Thunder Cats or Curly from the Three Stooges.
0
Reply
Male 675
A belief in God is just that, a belief. While there are many religious people who literally go by the metaphor of sheep following a shepherd, people today try and take an entity that is supposed to have created the universe, and expect that being to be fully understood within the confines of a ~2500 page book (written by man, -not- God); when all the scientific research and progress that has been made in history, probably couldn`t fit in the Library of Alexandria. So if there is a greater being out there, how is the Holy Bible a sufficient enough text for us to understand him?

If you are an Atheist, that`s okay, really, its alright. You are a logical, sane human capable of making your own decisions. I respect that as I respect you as being a fellow man. All I say is that not all of us religious folk are close minded, dogmatic, pretentious pricks who think that they are the savior of man.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
The problem is, I have no need to use any of the 21 arguments they posted thus far.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Ok, well, in that case I accept the points of Angilion and David thus far. Now really sleep time.
0
Reply
Male 143
>>>I`m not sure that without the often the statement needs to be changed. Can you actually give me an example of a case where scarcity != increased value?<<<

I have an old Scrooge Mc Duck magazine that is prety rare, but nobody wants it. When my neighbors beagle got pregant by my Bassett Hound, more rare than either the Bassett or Beagle, but not as valuable as either of them. Atari 2600 are declining in availability and value. Radon is relatively rare, but I do not know of any uses for it or places that would purchase any. I am sure there are dozens of rare plants that have no use or value, we just dont hear about them because there is no reason to.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Baalthazaq: No.

It`s a topic I don`t mind spending a few minutes on here at IAB, but I`m not involved enough to spend the hours required for a formal debate.

Besides, our positions probably aren`t greatly different if we get down to it in more detail than is possible in the terse posts imposed here by the tiny character limit. For example, I don`t think you actually completely dismiss the strong tradition of Arabic scholarship dating back into the iron age. I think it`s more that you can`t fit it into ~950 characters when arguing about the effects of religion a thousand and more years later.

Also, is it practical to seperate a new religion from pre-existing culture anyway? They must affect each other, even when religion openly wars against it (e.g. Christianity and ancient Rome).
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Aaaand sleep.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Ok;

Lets look at the original statement and see if we can avoid those pitfalls. I guess we could make it absolutely explicit.

Priori: A lifetime is more valuable the scarcer that lifetime is.
Priori: An individual`s lifetime is infinitely scarce in an infinite system.

... well I think that`s a better representation, only now I disagree with it more. It also offers a slightly differently worded conclusion, but leads to the same 4 boxes I used to describe the amended wager.

Conclusion: A finite lifetime is infinitely valuable when compared to an infinite system.

(System here not being the best word though admittedly).
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Actually I`m not sure I agree with you David.

I`m not sure that without the often the statement needs to be changed. Can you actually give me an example of a case where scarcity != increased value?

Diseases, as stated do become more valuable with rarity.

Maybe something in the energy industry when yield goes below a profitable boundary? Would that count, or would the fact that the value lies elsewhere invalidate that argument?
0
Reply
Male 143
>>David:
It`s not my argument. It is an existing argument. It is deductive, and therefore, as all deductive arguments, built on the acceptance of the premise<<<

Fine and dandy, but it does not hold up to Logic, therefore it is an invalid syllogism. An argument is valid if it is impossible for its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. The premise of your arguement contains a modifier, `often` to make it true. That means that any conclusion drawn against it is open to interpretation as to whether or not it is a fact or not. "Often" valuable or "less than often" not valuable.

The fact is, your original statement with the word "often" in it, is correct, but useless to draw a logical equation against, and if you omitted the word "often", then it is not a correct statement.

I do not argue your conclusion, but point out that your arguement does not support it.
0
Reply
Male 143
>>>Hey david you know more people have been killed and genocide has been declared in the name of god then anything else right. If you need a book telling you that killing and stealing is wrong then you are probably a retard<<<

That is factually incorrect. There were over 60 million casualties in WW2 alone. Add another 16 million for ww1, brings the conservative total of those two wars to 76 million. Neither war was in the name of God.

Now, please give me some totals that equal over 76 million that were "in the name of God".
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Angilion:
I`ve wanted a formal debate with you for a while, though I`ve never openly challenged you like I have certain other people.

Would you like to make this it? It feels like a topic we could both sink our teeth into.

We could make it official, and move it to a proper debate forum.

My points will be however that it isn`t fair to:
Minimize the impact of the religion on the age.
Reterm the whole thing as Arabic scholarship rather than Muslim.

Thought we can discuss the exact debate question. Feel free to email me. Or just go "No" in the forums.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Why were they philosophers? Because they were educated.
Why were they educated/literate? Islam encouraged it.[/quote]

I very much doubt if early Islam included the time travel necessary to make that true.

A relatively high level of literacy and education existed in that area long before Islam existed and was already well established when Islam was founded. Arabs were trading with Greeks a thousand years earlier and it wasn`t just goods being traded.

Islam thus had two choices - destroy this well established tradition of scholarship or control it. It went with the latter, which is not at all the same as creating it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Baalthazaq:

I did read your post and the posts you were replying to and my reply covers that.

If you were just making a counter-argument to the claim made in the post you replied to, i.e. you were arguing that Islam didn`t hold scientific (and the resulting technological) advances back for centuries, I`d agree.

You`re going much further than that and putting Arabic scholarship forward as Islamic scholarship, i.e. putting forward the argument that Islam advanced scientific progress.

That`s a different argument and it`s that different argument that I`m making a counter-argument against.

My position, as I stated and supported in my posts, is
[quote]It`s fair to say that early Islam didn`t suppress learning as much as late medieval Christianity did.[/quote]

But it did suppress learning wherever it might conflict with Islamic ideas. Anatomy is the best known example, but not the only one.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Cuthere:

Sorry apparently the second claim was @Malakamike
"Hey david you know more people have been killed and genocide has been declared in the name of god then anything else right."

The second point... now if you`ll address the first we`ll be well on our way.

""Angry Diatribe?" lol! I smile as I type this. :) <<< See?"

Excellent, smile as you address my point.
0
Reply
Male 322
"Why were they educated/literate? Islam encouraged it."

And yet the very same belief system goes so far as to imprison, torture, and murder when said education reveals something that disagree`s with their narrow world view.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Angilion:

Do me a favor. Reread my post, including the people it answers, without presuming my motivations.

I said neither that "It was because they were Muslims" nor "It was because they were Jewish". This should be demonstrated by the fact that I also mentioned the cold war.

How many times do I have to repeat, that the reason I included the first one, was because of the encouragement of literacy.

"They didn`t make that progress because they were Muslims. They made it because they were philosophers."

True. Now. Keep going. Don`t just stop before you get to the only point I was making:
Why were they philosophers? Because they were educated.
Why were they educated/literate? Islam encouraged it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@davymid You hope I am not a parent because I would want my children to know all sides of everything, and to know why they believe what they do?[/quote]

That isn`t what you said.

You said that you wanted children to be taught that faith in Christian creationism (and it`s ONLY Christian creationism, not creationism of any other religion) has the same scholarly weight as science and should be taught to all children in your country as such.

In short, you`re advocating that science should be made into a host for Christianity to be a parasite to, which corrupts and kills science. And then you`re making false statements about what you`re doing.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@tedgp: No, that`s just plain wrong - the dark ages have been found to be not that dark after all...[/quote]

True, but consider the reason why they were called the dark ages in the first place - an almost total lack of written records of anything as a result of the massive drop in literacy following the collapse of the Roman empire.

I live in a country that`s an excellent example. The Romans withdrew the army in 410 and by 450 the entire system had gone. No government, no civil service, no building above wattle and daub roundhouses, no schools, no maths, nothing. Total reversion to Iron age in less than a single lifetime.

It wasn`t a dark age in social terms, but it certainly was in terms of education, scholarship and technology.

The Christian church was beneficial to knowledge during those times - it was the only large-scale organisation promoting any sort of non-trade education.
0
Reply
Male 322
Baal - It appears you`re confused about many things, most notably, who you are debating. Please show me where I have said:

"As is your second claim: "More genocide due to religion than anything else." (Look up genocide committed by China and Russia. It outstrips all others combined.)"

Either you are greatly confused, or putting words in my mouth, which would demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty. Please due try to keep your facts straight?

"Angry Diatribe?" lol! I smile as I type this. :) <<< See?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
"Trees are a solid"
"Staplers are a solid"
"Therefore Trees are Staplers".

So you`re going on the basis of it sounding like an argument? It`s not a haiku.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Off on a tangent of curiousity that`s sort of relevant:

Was Marian Rejewski Jewish?

I`m thinking that a lot of people fled Nazism for reasons other than religion.
0
Reply
Male 670
@Ballthazaq - you are not a very good debater, are you? I am clearly not illiterate, and despite your best attempts at being more knowledgeable and superior to EVERY single IAB user, you argue both FOR and AGAINST Pascal`s Wager. Bye for now. See you in Heaven.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The reason we explore the solar-system at all now is:
Islamic Scholars in the 700 to 1200s paving the way for the renaissance.[/quote]

Arabic rather than Islamic. A high level of scholarship in that area dates back to trade with ancient Greece and thus hugely predates Islam. Unlike in Europe, it didn`t collapse after the fall of the Roman empire and that lack of collapse also predates Islam.

It`s fair to say that early Islam didn`t suppress learning as much as late medieval Christianity did, but it`s not fair to credit it with the centuries of work of various Arabic philosophers who built strongly on the foundation of ancient Greek philosophy. They didn`t make that progress because they were Muslims. They made it because they were philosophers.

[quote]Jewish scientists escaping Nazi Germany in ~1920-40s. Look up the Amerika Bomber.[/quote]

Same as above - it was their science, not their religion.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Angry, already refuted diatribe Cuthere.

1) This claim: "because of religion, medical technology and scientific progress has been held back by hundreds of years."

I gave a reason for including Islam as the cause of the Islamic Golden Age. It requires, as I said before, 0 faith in Allah, acceptance of Islam, or accordance with Islam.

It is in no way a justification.

So when you say you could use the same method to justify Nazis, your logical failings are not my problem.

All it does is address your initial flaw in reasoning. That claim up there at the beginning of the post: It`s bullpoo.

As is your second claim: "More genocide due to religion than anything else." (Look up genocide committed by China and Russia. It outstrips all others combined.)
0
Reply
Male 322
"The reason we explore the solar-system at all now is:
Islamic Scholars in the 700 to 1200s paving the way for the renaissance.

Your argument is misdirected. Remove the fact they were Islamic, and could they still make the observations and "progress?" Remove their powers of deductive reasoning and the scientific process - And leave them with their Islamic faith and see what you get? No progress.

Your reasoning attempts to make a shell-game of the very simple and unrelated facts.
0
Reply
Male 322
"@Baalthazaq
"The reason we explore the solar-system at all now is:
Islamic Scholars in the 700 to 1200s paving the way for the renaissance.
Jewish scientists escaping Nazi Germany in ~1920-40s. Look up the Amerika Bomber.
The Cold War."

Talk about drawing the wrong conclusion! The only reason a large portion of the life saving medical procedures we enjoy today exist is because of Nazi scientists experimenting on live human subjects.

Using your logic, I suppose I could use this as an argument to support Nazi agenda?

Was it the fact that these doctors and surgeons were Nazi`s that moved medical science forward?

No, it was their MEDICAL training, and the fact they were using the deductive reasoning process taught to all scientists regardless of discipline.

Albeit their experiments were carried about in horrible ways, it was the scientific process that brought about the progress, NOT the Nazi agenda.

0
Reply
Male 52
Hey david you know more people have been killed and genocide has been declared in the name of god then anything else right. If you need a book telling you that killing and stealing is wrong then you are probably a retard.
0
Reply
Male 322
"Ideology is the real killer, not religion. If we didn`t have religion, the demagogues and dictators will just find anything else to control people with. Religion is relatively harmless and the pathetic arguements that try to amplify the horrors caused by religion pale in comparision to just the things man do to obtain power. We are just looking at one of the causes when we blame religion."


Well of course we`re only looking at one of the causes - Seeing as how that particular cause (religion) happens to be at the center of this debate! Why would we deviate from the subject at hand?
0
Reply
Male 497
@Baalthazaq

"Now, you do it with "Tree are staplers"."

trees are a solid
staplers are a solid

therefore trees are staplers.

0
Reply
Male 322
"@Cuthere:
1) I`m not Christian, so really, the biblical definitions of things don`t apply... however it`s possible I`ve imposed my understanding of definitions on top of biblical definitions.

2) I doubt it though, and I`d like a little evidence of your claims please."


What claims? Please be more specific.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Beard of Zeus:

I`ve just spent at least 4 posts discussing that Pascal`s wager is invalid.

"You essentially argue Pascal`s Wager"

You`re essentially illiterate.
someone asked what was wrong with the wager.
I`ve been pointing it out.

Also, unless you`re arguing there *isn`t* choice in belief, then you also misinterpreted that statement I made too.

My argument was that as you cannot choose to believe, pascal`s wager is invalid.

Anything else?
0
Reply
Male 670
@Baalthazaq the fact that you claim to be able to `truly believe that there is no computer` is in some way meant to impress me as to your superior mind? This isn`t the matrix, this is the real world. You essentially argue Pascal`s Wager (which is the most likely explanation for most believers` faith), yet you proclaim that you truly believe. If you are to be believed then your strength of faith is to be admired. Personally, I prefer to struggle with my own reality of existence. All your posturing about infinity, value, and your overuse of the word `ergo` is starting to get a little old. Let`s just agree to disagree, but agree that life is beautiful, valuable, and we should all strive to do better for ourselves and each other!

BOZ
0
Reply
Male 4,546
David:
It`s not my argument. It is an existing argument. It is deductive, and therefore, as all deductive arguments, built on the acceptance of the premise.

Ergo, I put it forward.

I did double down on the first priori though. I included the word often to basically add another unnecessary "if you agree with this".

However, I would add that diseases, as well as poisons, can be quite valuable due to their rarity. They are used in vaccines. The rarer, the more valuable.

Feel free to argue however that life has no inherent value or desirability enhanced by scarcity when compared to an infinite version of itself. That`s you not accepting the priori.

They`re still fairly reasonable though.
0
Reply
Male 490
@davymid You hope I am not a parent because I would want my children to know all sides of everything, and to know why they believe what they do? Wow, you really are a bigot arent you?
0
Reply
Male 143
Ideology is the real killer, not religion. If we didn`t have religion, the demagogues and dictators will just find anything else to control people with. Religion is relatively harmless and the pathetic arguements that try to amplify the horrors caused by religion pale in comparision to just the things man do to obtain power. We are just looking at one of the causes when we blame religion.
0
Reply
Male 143
>>>Priori A) The scarcity of a commodity often determines the value of an individual unit. (The rarer the more valuable).
Priori B) An individual`s lifetime, when compared to infinity, is infinitely scarce.
Ergo: Conclusion: Life is infinitely valuable<<<

Your statement is not valid. You first Priori is "often times", yet your conclusion is a definate. If Priori A is "Often", then your Priori B does not support the conclusion.

Priori A - yadda yadda yadda
Priori B -Rabies are scarce in Illinois
Conclusion: Rabies are valuable! Get top dollar and get yerself some rabies today! We will throw in some Leporacy for no additonal cost.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
One point, it`s not comparing it simply to infinity, but the infinity expressed in the wager itself.

Basically making the 4 sections.

Believe + Wrong = Waste the only (infinitely valuable) life you have. Gain nothing.

Believe + Right = Gain infinite reward, waste (immaterial) lifetime.

Disbelieve + Wrong = Lose infinite reward for infinite punishment. Gain immaterial lifetime.

Disbelieve + Right = Gain fulfilled (infinitely valuable) life. Lose nothing.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Bophus:

1) The reason I tied Islam to the progress at the time is entirely secular, requires 0 faith in Allah, and in my last post: Mandatory literacy.

2) I could itemize some examples for you where that`s certainly not the case, but I hate that tactic so I won`t.

3) "I could also argue that tree are staplers". You could.
Here`s a logical argument for the mathematical counter to Pascal.

Priori A) The scarcity of a commodity often determines the value of an individual unit. (The rarer the more valuable).
Priori B) An individual`s lifetime, when compared to infinity, is infinitely scarce.

Ergo: Conclusion: Life is infinitely valuable.

That`s the argument. I`m not sure I agree 100% with the prioris, but they`re reasonable.

Now, you do it with "Tree are staplers".
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Beard of Zeus:
You assume of course that I`m trying to convert anyone. I don`t argue against anti-black content in the hopes that everyone will become black. I do it because it`s bullpoo, and it being exposed as bullpoo is easy and fun.

Also, I don`t need to look up anti-theism, or agnosticism, nor the aspect of calculation vs choice in belief.

Now, disbelieve in the computer for 10 minutes. Go on. Choose not to believe, without changing any of the surrounding evidence.

Don`t imagine. That`s different. That`s pretending the computer isn`t there. Genuinely make your mind not believe the computer is there.

When you do that, I`ll have a discussion with you on the choice in belief. Until then feel free to claim my statement "fails".
0
Reply
Male 144
Believing in a God never hurt anyone. religion on its own is harmless, but religion in the hands of the wrong people = disaster, no difference to religion in the right hands = Win. But you can say this about anything when it comes to the Human race. Atheist, Christian or Buddhist, we all have the abilities for Good or Evil. Now I`m not religious at all, but the way some atheists and this video talk down and belittle religion is a little hypocritical. you have to realize that religion has been around a loooong time, so its not going to disappear straight away, but times are changing and things are progressing, will it ever disappear? prob not, but it will not hold the same values or power that it once had. but believe me when i say, the world will still have its fair share of problems! Atheism will not magically save the human race and its problems.
0
Reply
Male 497
@Baalthazaq
"The reason we explore the solar-system at all now is:
Islamic Scholars in the 700 to 1200s paving the way for the renaissance.
Jewish scientists escaping Nazi Germany in ~1920-40s. Look up the Amerika Bomber.
The Cold War."

I think you have this a little skewed in your direction.

They didnt expore the solar system because they were islamic or jewish. They were islamic and jewish and expolored the solar system. Their religion had nothing to do with the solar system.

"One could argue that the finite nature of life increases its value to infinity too. "

I could also argue that tree are staplers.

0
Reply
Male 697
Eskimo: "If I didn`t know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
0
Reply
Male 663
What makes an act "good" or "bad"?
0
Reply
Male 4,793
Silly religious people, stop wasting your time and brain power worshiping fairy tales. If you MUST worship a fairy tale, there are much better ones out there vs. the bible.
0
Reply
Male 670
@Baalthazaq - you seem to relish shooting down the weaker arguments with your infinite wisdom. You fail to make a convincing argument for yourself. Unfortunately, you will fail in converting non-believers, just as I will fail in converting believers. I do not try. You, like all believers, have no evidence that you are correct, and although you may be correct, I highly doubt it. You fail when you say that `You don`t choose belief, ergo, you can`t choose which box you fall in` - this supports the main flaw in belief, which is that it is forced upon us through childhood or cultural fear and pressure. If we were given all the information and asked to choose for ourselves I reckon most would choose a form of agnosticism or antitheism (look it up).
0
Reply
Male 535
@ryann24: not really. It was the final point, and that source, as of the time of my writing, is well documented on their site. It provides a rather concise and documented collection of facts. If you can`t be assed to follow the links and read the documentation for yourself, and thereby take my links as fact, then you, to use your poorly constructed vernacular, LOSE.

The fact that you choose that one point, and disregard the others, proves that you didn`t bother to read anything, and just focused on that one point, which has zero substance. Good day to you.
0
Reply
Male 83
@Deviros, You just took research from wikipedia and used it as fact.

YOU LOSE.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Ok, it does actually seem like you were talking to me Ted.

Your point was "religion bad looky".
Mine was "religion good looky".
That`s a fairly valid counter.

"Look at the progress lost" by you, vs "Look at the progress created" by me, is similarly valid.

Or are you just trolling here?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
@Ted: Wtf are you talking about, and wtf are you talking to?

@AJ: Ta. :)

@Gradde:
Many things are wrong with Pascal`s Wager.
1) Assumes only options are belief/disbelief. Discards different beliefs (Islam vs Christianity, vs Judaism vs Hinduism etc).
2) You don`t choose belief, ergo, you can`t choose which box you fall in, making it pointless.
3) It is faith based, not works based. (Though this is in line with much of Christian doctrine, it is not in line with many believers).
...
and I feel like I`m missing one....

Oh yes, the mathematical counter.

PW assumes only the afterlife is valuable, because it is infinite. One could argue that the finite nature of life increases its value to infinity too.

0
Reply
Male 535
@tedgp "scientific progress hmm. Guess those chinese had computers back them. Guess the native americans in the undiscovered US were advancing cybernetic systems. And those cheeky spanish, trying to turn their sea armada into rocket ships. "

WTF are you talking about? Do you even pay attention to what you write?

science does not mean computers or cybernetics. Science includes studying the physical world, positing theories, exploring what is around us, and running experiments and tests. The wheel is science, basic mechanics is science, proper growing of crops and meteorology is science! UNDERSTANDING is science! Math! Exploring the natural world! It`s science - and awesome!

Geez, atheists can be thick.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
scientific progress hmm. Guess those chinese had computers back them. Guess the native americans in the undiscovered US were advancing cybernetic systems. And those cheeky spanish, trying to turn their sea armada into rocket ships.

We know you are religious through and through, but take a step back and put forth a valid arguments to the athiest counter. Instead of either focusing on one piece which you take out of context, or blindly ignoring what has been put forward and choosing to go off on a tangent.
0
Reply
Male 535
@tedgp: No, that`s just plain wrong - the dark ages have been found to be not that dark after all...

http://bit.ly/mLOIAu "Abacus and the Cross"
"In fact, the Church considered mathematics the highest form of worship. Before you were allowed to study theology, you had to study the seven liberal arts—grammar, rhetoric and dialectic [the trivium], and then the quadrivium."

http://bit.ly/mLkop9 "Archaeology News Network"
http://bit.ly/lFG0VV "James Hannam"
http://bit.ly/kFMLL5 "10 reasons the Dark Ages Were not Dark"

http://bit.ly/iPuxwf "Wikipedia: Dark Ages (historiography)"
"The rise of archaeology and other specialties in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments.[11] Other terms of periodization have come to the fore..."


Research is your friend.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
The first round had rather decent points, but this one doesn`t seem to ring as true. I still don`t understand what`s wrong with Pascal`s Wager. Isn`t a little faith better than rejected little faith, rejected only because it was little?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Baal. I don`t often agree with you, but on this I gotta say HUZZAH!

They gots pwned.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Incidentally, no, we would not be exploring the stars. During the dark ages scientific progress was still being made outside of Europe.

Sparked in part by mandatory literacy that was encouraged by religion. Irrespective of if you agree with religion or not, this is pretty straightforward here.

The reason we explore the solar-system at all now is:
Islamic Scholars in the 700 to 1200s paving the way for the renaissance.
Jewish scientists escaping Nazi Germany in ~1920-40s. Look up the Amerika Bomber.
The Cold War.
0
Reply
Male 535
The first one was far more fun to pick at, this one is mostly conjecture and opinion.

However - this is still far from humble, and "Habitat for Humanity" is far from a secular organization =D

And I quote from HFH "A nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing organization building simple, decent, affordable housing in partnership with people in need."

Seriously - first the monkeys, now inaccuracies in the organizations that they list as secular... these are just laughable.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
@Ted:
"You call it hate and bullying... Have you ever heard a religious argument?"

Many, the bad ones sound like this:
"Theyre blidnly led like sheep, and refuse to look at or even consider the possibility that they are wrong. "

@Cuthere:
1) I`m not Christian, so really, the biblical definitions of things don`t apply... however it`s possible I`ve imposed my understanding of definitions on top of biblical definitions.

2) I doubt it though, and I`d like a little evidence of your claims please.
0
Reply
Male 77
All hail TED, creator of the universe and exploding beer
0
Reply
Male 143
I liked the first one better. This version was mostly ridicule, straw man arguements, and fallacious logic.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@tsiemens Typical religious believer arent you. You focus on one thing he said ( which you took entirely out of context to the videos meaning) and choase to focus solely on that, ignoring the other perfectly valid objections/opinions he made.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
You call it hate and bullying... Have you ever heard a religious argument? Theyre blidnly led like sheep, and refuse to look at or even consider the possibility that they are wrong. As the saying goes, we lock up "crazy people" who hear voices, why not lock up the religious people as well?
0
Reply
Male 514
so the proof against god is that you didn`t eat the right junk food? This guy is a master of non facts to prove his points, its nonsense
0
Reply
Male 3,285
We would be exploring the galaxy now if religion hadnt of held us back for hundreds of years through the middle ages.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Never once have I ever heard a Christian imply that someone was an idiot for not believing.

This, and the other video, is just filled with hate and bullying.

Why even make it?
0
Reply
Male 92
why are there still religions?

that something for Middle Ages

0
Reply
Male 670
@cuthere2 - I completely agree with your arguments, and many many others that can be called upon. Unfortunately, no matter how many rational arguments are placed in front of believers the act of faith itself is irrational and so it is impossible to convince a `believer` otherwise. They will hold on to blind faith until the bitter end. The fear is too strong. The best chance for humanity is to educate the new generations and to let them make up their own minds without imposing fear from an early age. Fat chance.
0
Reply
Male 322
`The problem isn`t religion, at its basis is fairly good willed."

I`m going to have to disagree with you there. Look at history. The very nature of using a belief system to control the actions of a large group of people never, NEVER turns into something good in the long run. (Don`t misunderstand my meaning here. I`m not saying that people never do good in the name of religion)

The reason? Because you are taking large groups of people, and telling them to believe something illogical, without a shred of evidence or proof.

Once you turn people into "sheeple" in this manner, then these people are now armed with the built-in rationalization to do things they normally would not in the name of serving a higher power.

Murder your son because "god said so?" Check. Are there people who never go to this extreme? Of course, but look around the world. Making a VIRTUE out of being gullible never turns into good.
0
Reply
Male 144
The problem isn`t religion, at its basis is fairly good willed. The problem has always been PEOPLE! PEOPLE SUCK!!
0
Reply
Male 322
For those who claim it`s "mean" and "ridiculous" for Atheists to be so outspoken against the religious folks ignore the fact that because of religion, medical technology and scientific progress has been held back by hundreds of years. Remember the dark ages?

Recall that the birth of medical understanding was held back by hundreds of years because it was considered a "sin" to experiment on a cadaver! It was "evil" as what goes on inside the human body is the work of God, and not for us to know.

Scientists did their work quietly, and risked life imprisonment, or even torture and death by religious leaders if caught.

Same with Astronomy, and nearly every other facet of science that flies in the face of current religious belief. Imprisonment, torture, death.

Imagine the BILLIONS of lives that could have been saved if not for this ancient belief system getting in the way of FACTS.
0
Reply
Male 322
"Assumption you`re making: Good and Evil are fixed mathematical concepts in opposition to one another.

They are not. Killing Hitler could be considered evil, but it would be to prevent a greater evil, therefore the act could be considered a little evil, and a lot good.

In a greater example: Eliminating free will could easily prevent all war. God clearly allows evil as a reaction to the greater good of free will.

Ergo, mutually exclusive they are not. "

Baal, just as you did in the previous thread, you are ignoring what the Bible itself says in an attempt to rationalize, and explain away the logical fallacies of religion.

Sorry, but you are now contradicting Biblical claims at this stage in order to make your point.

Amazing the lengths people will go to, and the mental gymnastics they`ll engage in to hold onto an ancient belief system.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Good stuff.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
So you could say John Doe who was part of group A heard/knew of better reasons to be a part of group B then there were to be in group A. Therefore John Doe left group A to join group B.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Baal

There`s a lot BS in any religion and ergo and the BS-ers. My thought is that people who tend to leave or choose to no longer affiliate themselves with a certain group did so probably because they were simply surrounded by people of said group who could not provide a good rationale as to why they should continue to do so. That is one of a few big reasons anyway.

I used to consider myself christian and liberal.
I consider myself libertarian now because of Bush Jr. and my college macroeconomics course.

I consider myself agnostic because I thought about a lot of other different religions and their views on life and spiritually, and I was never really commited to the faith (which is ironic because I`m an Eagle Scout).

Ultimately I chose to no longer affiliate myself with said groups as there was no solid rationale to do so.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
@Cajun again:

In fact, I even apologized on Infidels.org sometime around September 11 when people were making the claim that those who committed the acts "had no religion".

I thought it was unfair to Atheists.

I`ve tried to be consistent in stating they`re Muslim, but clearly doing it wrong.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
@Cajun:

Hey, I`m not sure what you mean by your post. I try to argue that someone is unIslamic, but I try to never tell anyone they`re not Muslim.

That includes the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. To do otherwise is the no true scotsman fallacy.

The one exception of course being if they don`t... you know believe in God or something. There are conditions, but they`re pretty lax.

I`m even ok with them not following all 5 pillars even though that`s the standard very much agreed upon definition of a Muslim, just because it`s also an interpretive construct.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
@Antagonizer

Theist: Hello
Antagonizer: You said you believe in God because of your elbow injury. You`re an idiot.
Theist: ... I just said hello.
Antagonizer: I WIN!

P.S. If we can paraphrase that badly, arguing becomes a lot easier.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
"Baal: God is Omniscient. He know what we will do before we ever do it. If God knows what we will do before we even do it, how do we have free will?"

I`ve been through this on IAB before with Angillion I think.

Super short oversimplistic but still totally workable answer: God lives in the future.

You have free will to make a choice, but you still make a choice at some point. Doc Brown still knows what you`ll do, because he saw you do it.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Which is why I`ll never live in Texas[/quote]


I`ve lived in Texas for almost 22 yrs and it is not the worst place on the planet to live. I`ll bet real estate here is cheaper here than where you live.

Also we`re not as big on that creationist or abstinence crap like our neighbors to the East of us are.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
To close, I`ll post one my favourite things ever. Click it if you like. http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=34934
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Also, @leeann591, why should scientists shove their beliefs down students throats? Honestly, I am one of those people that would want students to see both sides of it all, and make the decision for themselves[/quote]
True dat, give it equal time in the classroom, Let the children decide for themselves!

We should teach both Alchemy and Chemistry. We should teach both Heliocentricity and Geocentricity. We should teach both Radiometric decay and Noah`s Ark.

I mean, seriously, who do these so-called scientists a.k.a. "teachers" think they are, shoving their beliefs down students throats?

IceDragon77, seriously, you speak of indoctrination? I sincerely hope you`re not a parent.
0
Reply
Male 490
@Keegan31 I like to think of it in the terms of possibility. Think of your life as a giant tree diagram of choices. God can think of everything you possibly CAN do at one given point in time, but it would all be probability. He does not know what choice you make, but he knows what ones you can. At least that is the way I think of it, hope you understand what I am saying.

Also, @leeann591, why should scientists shove their beliefs down students throats? Honestly, I am one of those people that would want students to see both sides of it all, and make the decision for themselves (and yes, for those who will bug me about it, say that evolution has more evidence or whatever). Course you wouldnt want that, as you wouldnt want your child having the chance to be `indoctrinated,` as any creationist wouldnt want their child to be either..
0
Reply
Male 4,902
@inaria/ have you ever been to Texas? Turn off the tv and go outside.
0
Reply
Male 228
Baal: God is Omniscient. He know what we will do before we ever do it. If God knows what we will do before we even do it, how do we have free will?
0
Reply
Male 934
If you`re religious, you`re deluding yourself. Wake the drat up and join reality.
0
Reply
Male 508
Christian: You`re evil and you`re going to hell unless you repent. This country was founded on christianity.

Atheist: I don`t believe in god, therefore I don`t believe in hell. I think god has no place in politics.

Christian: How dare you attack my faith and infringe on my right to believe?

Atheist: I`m not attacking your faith, I`m just saying that I don`t believe as you do, and don`t think I should have to pledge allegiance to a deity that I don`t feel exists.

Christian: If you don`t like America then feel free to leave it!

Atheist: 3==>
0
Reply
Female 446
Give the gift of love. Do not kill unless self defense. Help the weak. Learn to forgive. Be amazed by all that is on this earth and in the heavens. May everyday be an oportunity to better yourself. May the day that you take your last breath be a time of peace, knowing that you`ve done your best here on earth. This, in a nutshell is what i believe in... religion or not.

Not easy to live by that as life is a jumble of duties and work and play and anger and joy and trials and errors and unfairness and envy and missunderstandings.

I choose not to argue about my neighbours beliefs. They belong to them and they have their reasons. And i have mine. I don`t feel compelled to prove any of my beliefs because, it, *the arguing*, becomes a bottomless pit of frustration and judgements.

Peace!
0
Reply
Female 1,515
@davymid who said "don`t encroach on science", those are my thoughts exactly! Which is why I`ll never live in Texas.

But yeah I feel like these videos aren`t really explaning their arguments properly. For example the thermodynamics one in the last one...

And it bothers me that the subtitles and what the person is speaking are different.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]The number of times I`ve been told "Oh then you weren`t a real Atheist" is astounding.[/quote]


Fair enough, but don`t believe it when anyone (especially people like al Qaeda/Wahhabayists) tells you weren`t a true Muslim.
0
Reply
Male 359
This was boring.
0
Reply
Male 358
We`re still talking about this? I think we get it.

The first group hates the second because they are despicable sinners bound for hell. The second hates the first because they are ignorant fools who are blind to scientific evidence.

Everyone sucks.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
"There is only one argument against God needed. Omniscience and Omnibenevolence, as promised by the bible are mutually exclusive."

Agreed. This problem of evil was first posed somewhere around 300BC. It has had an easy refute since about 50 years after that.

Assumption you`re making: Good and Evil are fixed mathematical concepts in opposition to one another.

They are not. Killing Hitler could be considered evil, but it would be to prevent a greater evil, therefore the act could be considered a little evil, and a lot good.

In a greater example: Eliminating free will could easily prevent all war. God clearly allows evil as a reaction to the greater good of free will.

Ergo, mutually exclusive they are not.

See last thread for secondary explanation of the PoE.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Even worse than last time.

In particular #9. I didn`t used to have belief in God before I became a theist. The number of times I`ve been told "Oh then you weren`t a real Atheist" is astounding.

It`s almost as if being Atheist hasn`t fixed the flaws in their logic, made them scientists, improved their education, taught them logical flow, increased their intelligence, decreased their confirmation bias, or strengthened their argumentation.

One of the many many many many many reasons the superiority complex of non-nice individuals like this guy get on my nerves.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
* with limited success. Not all their points are against Creationism specifically, but against religion in general. I think their message would have been more meaningful without the general anti-religious points.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I have no problem with people being religious. Yes, I do genuinely believe that the world would be better off without it (growing up in Northern Ireland will do that do you), but I would never push that belief on anyone.

But this series of vids is directly countering Creationists, not religious people*. I know plenty of religious people who also accept scientific facts such as the age of the universe, evolution, etc. No beef there. But Creationism positions itself directly opposed to science and the scientific method. Look, when people start to retard children by telling them that science is wrong, and that the Bible has all the answers regarding science, then that is disgusting, even a form of child abuse.

Religious folks, you`re welcome to your religion. Just don`t try to force it down my neck, and I`ll return the mutual respect. But once you try to encroach on science, we`re going to go to the f*cking mattresses.
0
Reply
Male 1,582
@Fleaman1797 Why is he being an outspoken human being after thousands of years of religious oppression? Oh I don`t know, maybe because after so many people are so outspoken about their religion, and about how "all atheists are wrong, and retarded for not believing", someone stood up and said "drat you, and shut the hell up", with actual proof, and was roostery about it.

I`ve been called a "drating idiot" at my place of work for not believing in god, and I`ve got to tell you, that poo is infuriating. To hold your tongue when someone is outspokenly belittling you, is not easy. I would love to say these exact same things to this guy, so kudos to the man who made this video for not holding back.
0
Reply
Female 41
I agree with leeann. Personally, I think no one should be silenced in their beliefs, whether they are atheist or religous. We should all be free to voice our opinions and try to prove/justify our views.
0
Reply
Male 142
@Fleaman1797

more stupid
0
Reply
Male 718
God im so sick of this Atheist bullpoo.. i mean im not a christian.. its a silly thing to believe in, but this douche bag is openly trying to ruin peoples lives, what the hell does it matter if the stupider, none important people are christian? they are not gonna find the cure to cancer! and JUST because you dont believe in god doesnt mean your some sort of drating genius! it doesnt make you look smart. it makes you look like the cynical non-nice individual for always trying to ruin peoples beliefs. its a BELIEF! EVERYONE GETS THAT! NOW SHUT UP (thinking) Atheist
0
Reply
Male 1,452
aww both posts don`t have a hilariously stupid comment by crakrjak, I`m disappointed :(
0
Reply
Female 19
Lots of people are complaining about how rude these mean old atheists are being about their assertions. Why should they be nice about it? The nut-jobs, who are trying to force creationism and religious propaganda into schools, obviously have no respect for all the extremely substantial evidence that evolution provides, so why should they show respect for fairy tales that the zealots are trying to pass of as science?
0
Reply
Male 493
Plain and simple, this is even worse than the first one.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
[quote]There is only one argument against God needed. Omniscience and Omnibenevolence, as promised by the bible are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Let`s not forget the problem of divine foreknowledge.
0
Reply
Male 59
There is only one argument against God needed. Omniscience and Omnibenevolence, as promised by the bible are mutually exclusive.
0
Reply
Male 639
Angillion

1. We have an entire branch of science dedicated to events that won`t repeat with 100% certainty, so to say all experiments are repeatable is ignorant.

2. Under certain conditions all laws break down, this has been observed. We do not know the exact conditions at which these events occur but we assume we will not encounter these events in our day to day routines.

3. Modern science operates under the assumption that these laws are, always have been, and always will be constant everywhere. We have existed for a brief period of time and cannot truly know that constants are constant throughout time. Nobody can prove that G has been constant for the past 14 billion years at all points in the universe, yet our current understanding of the universe is entirely based on the assumption that it is. I`m curious as to how science and faith are incompatible when our current scientific understanding of nature requires us to have untestable assumptions.
0
Reply
Male 226
THIS QUESTIONS EVERYTHING I`VE LIVED FOR!!!
MUST. TRY. TO. DISCREDIT.....
0
Reply
Female 513
I believe in God.
And I believe in evolution and science.

Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. It merely explains how things happened. Oh no, it`s not how a 2000 year old book translated many times by imperfect humans living in the Dark Ages said it would be. Shocker!
0
Reply
Male 237
First off, why do some atheists have to bash on people who believe in God? I can understand it if they were pushing their faith on them but still.

Second, how about this argument. God CREATED science to EXPLAIN what he created...hmm?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And Angillion, science requires faith that your observations are repeatable[/quote]

No it doesn`t, because the observations will be repeated.

At most, you could say that science requires faith that fundamental laws of the universe don`t spontaneously change.

[quote]Religion and science can go together, for example the "clockwork god".[/quote]

One person can do both, but that doesn`t mean the two go together and it certainly doesn`t mean they are unified.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
Does anyone think that *one* thing this person said was based on an original thought? To me this just sounds like someone regurgitating what he was told about how *atheists* should view christianity. He probably first heard this on some youtube video lecture by one of his profits (Richard Dawkins I bet) and just blindly following along (Hey, he even brought up the flying spaghetti monster, er Ted)
0
Reply
Male 639
Streisandtarianism, totally know the kids that started that religion. They often conflicted with the Winfrenites. All parties involved smoked a lot.

And Angillion, science requires faith that your observations are repeatable, yet I can provide examples of any situation that will have varying results. Religion and science can go together, for example the "clockwork god". If you build your religion on science, as most deists did, then the two are perfectly reconcilable.

Anyway, I could easily refute all of these arguments even though I agree.
0
Reply
Male 490
This sort of crap irritates me, and even i`m open minded. -.=.-;
0
Reply
Male 605
@splurbyburbl It can piss off more than zealots or theists, I`ll tell you that.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
I love this stuff because it pisses off all the zealots. You can pick them out in the thread.
0
Reply
Male 3,327
None of these were arguments against or for Creationism. They were all theological arguments that have nothing to do with evolution v creation.
0
Reply
Male 56
Atheists take the soul out of everything. They`re like those green-blooded, pointy-eared, hobgoblin Vulcans.
0
Reply
Male 605
God, The Thinking Atheists are such up-themselves assh*les.
0
Reply
Male 110
I am bored of this now.

If god exists he will prove it. If he doesn`t we`re all screwed anyway.
0
Reply
Male 697
It`s not like atheists are actively going around campaigning at churches (or mosques and synagogues etc) and trying to convert people. These videos are for the entertainment of other atheists. Why can`t they gather and laugh at others` beliefs? I`m serious. It`s actually fun to take the piss outta the fact some people seriously believe some of the stuff they do.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Viewing science as holy work might seem an odd idea, so I`ll elaborate.

If you are a theist in a religion that includes creator(s) of the universe (or even just this part of it) then you can view science as holy work in two ways:

1) An ongoing attempt to gain a ever more thorough and accurate understanding of the work of your god(s) and thus a route to a more profound appreciation of it.

2) You could believe that your god(s) made humans with intelligence and curiosity so that humans would develop through gaining knowledge.

3) Similarly to (2), if your faith has parental god(s), you could view the universe as a learning area they made for humans, like those activity play mat things for babies.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]why is the union of science and religion so hard to conceive?[/quote]

Because they are fundamentally seperate and different, and mutually exclusive whenever religion enters the real world. Science requires that evidence has total priority and belief has none. Religion requires that belief has total priority and evidence has none.

Because religion has consistently attacked science and continues to do so.

It`s possible to be a theist and a scientist, but not if you follow a religion that contains any explanation for anything that happens. For example, you have to reject the idea that thunder is the noise of Thor`s chariot.

You can reconcile the two for some forms of religion. You can even view science as holy work. But you can`t unify science and religion.
0
Reply
Male 369
Wow, this just blew my mind... I have to convert to Cowism imediatly!!!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Creationists have the right to believe in whatever they want...just like we have the right not to believe...and we should both respect that.[/quote]

If scientists ever start a determined campaign to infiltrate Christian churchs and force them to corrupt Christianity in order to serve science, then it would be time to start treating them similarly.

It`s not just about believing or not believing in things. It`s more importantly about what people do as a result of those beliefs or lack thereof. Christian creationism requires the destruction of science and Christian creationists are going all out for it by corrupting science into a tool to give their faith false authority. Hence, for example, the attempts to try to get Christian creationism (usually under the name "Intelligent Design") taught as science.
0
Reply
Male 510
while i dont disagree with what this video has to say, i feel that they are being total dicks about it.

I find it almost laughable that science and religion can`t coexist peacefully. My family consists mostl of scientists, but we are all religious as well. In our belief, there is an omnipotent entity, but it isnt as directly active as traditional religion likes us to believe. If it did anythign at all, it created a situation in which a bang could occur to begin life and allow it to evolve naturally. we belive that god works through these small acts of chance and chain reaction, not through direct intervention.

why is the union of science and religion so hard to conceive?
0
Reply
Male 1,268
Better Off Ted was such a great show. Portia de Rossi is such a fox. I`ve been worshiping Ted for close to two years now.
0
Reply
Male 552
This is amazingly presumptuous.
0
Reply
Male 273
I don`t mind other beliefs either but trying to change a belief into a reality backed up by erroneous facts and illogical thinking is something different.. Not only is it stupid but very hypocritical when you know the history between religion and science.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
Nothing original here, notice how the vast majority of both the religious and atheist camps just repeat what others already said. So imo these folks are not that different from one another, and certainly not what I would call "thinking".

Every once in awhile I come across a real thinker, and they are also from both camps... but no one really listens to them.
0
Reply
Male 229
All hail barbara strisane :P
0
Reply
Male 670
Haven`t we just done the `religion vs science` debate? Let`s talk about sex, baby...
0
Reply
Male 346
I didn`t make it past the second point...
0
Reply
Male 1,440
My comment with all the (comedy) related religion wasn`t me claiming to be an atheist or religious, I remarked on the fact that Comedy tends to make fun of religious people/icons. ( just to clear it up )
0
Reply
Male 132
Being an athiest doesnt mean you have to try to disprove others beliefs....or that you have to be a total dick...I`m an athiest and I cant stand other athiests that think it means that they have to get on their damn high-horse and be like "Jesus is fake and you`re a dumbass for believing in him! The bible is just a really long fairy tale!" Creationists have the right to believe in whatever they want...just like we have the right not to believe...and we should both respect that.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
ok then
0
Reply
Male 10,440
These are arguments used by creationists, not arguments about creation, so stop complaining that it`s not relevant, because it is.

We need to make fun of islam, to keep things balanced.
0
Reply
Male 436
All hail Ted.
0
Reply
Male 1,440
Without religion, comedy won`t survive...and without proof, it means nothing to me.





Family guy
FuturamaSouth park
Misc parody
Shirt
And my personal favorite
0
Reply
Male 2,868
Also, I`m gonna start worshiping Ted.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
[quote]Haha! Loved this, so funny and clever. [/quote]
I wouldn`t call it clever, each of these points have been brought up thousands of time just on this board alone.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Seem- lol.
0
Reply
Male 78
Haha I like that actually.

This debate has no real end, but it`s still important to speak out.
0
Reply
Male 697
Not as much to do with creation this time. In fact, nothing to do with it. Still a good watch though, sure feels good up here.
0
Reply
Female 171
Haha! Loved this, so funny and clever.
0
Reply
Female 118
inb4 more whining.
0
Reply
Male 150
Link: Top 10 Creationist Arguments, Part 2 [Rate Link] - The Thinking Atheist returns with his next top 10 Creationist excuses.
0
Reply