Intelligent design.. for real!

[MidGe]

Baby With Heart Outside Body (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006112300278.html)

I have nothing more to say on this.

[Hopey]

This is just an example of god ending up with extra pieces once he was done constructing this baby. It was getting late, and he didn't feel like starting over, so he just glued the extra pieces to the outside.

That, or the baby was a sinner and deserved what it got. Don't underestimate the pettiness of the lord.

[Matt R.]

No way. God didn't glue anything together.

The universe began in a giant explosion slinging matter and energy every which way. I mean, of course a giant explosion would lead to the random assembly of particles that is now this baby! Not to mention the astounding ability of the doctors to surgically repair this random clump of cells... which came about from a giant explosion. Of course we would get conscious beings capable of the great ingenuity and creativity needed to repair such a defect... from a giant explosion. I mean, the probability that conscious beings should arise (uh... from a big bang) has got to be like 98... 99% right? Obviously nothing else is going on beyond random assembly of particles!

Gee, this misrepresentation of other people's beliefs to the point of silliness is kind of fun when you actually do it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

No way. God didn't glue anything together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. She's not responsible for anything that happens and nobody on these forums would give her credit for saving a child from a truck or punishing a town for voting gaypride in.

But there are people out there, Matt, that do think god does things and is responsible for what happens to people and they'd have no problem giving her credit for this. Heck, they give her credit for 'miracles' every day, this external-heart feature any halfway powerful god could pull-off while they slept.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
But there are people out there, Matt, that do think god does things and is responsible for what happens to people and they'd have no problem giving her credit for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't know anyone that would give God credit for a heart defect... which thankfully, the doctors were able to repair. If you happen to find anyone who thinks in this way, please let me know. I will contact the head of the church of Dawkins so we can send out an extermination squad ASAP.

[luckyme]

a miracle of god's love (http://brian.aggieteacher.net/miracle.htm)

it took only a minute to find a person that believes god determines what goes on in the womb and can effect outcomes - what comes out reflects his wishes and handiwork.

Are you really not aware of people who believe this? wow.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

I'm sure some people do believe such things. If their beliefs are so obviously ridiculous why bother taking the time to post such things on a message board? Also, not everyone who believes God had *some* hand in creation believes that God intervenes in every little detail.

I am also sure there are some atheists who believe that since there is no God, they are free to do whatever they please as long as there is no retribution here on this Earth (i.e. they're pretty sure they won't get caught). Thus, if they have the power and capability to steal, hurt, kill etc. without punishment they can do it and nothing is wrong with it. However, I do not feel the need to make posts about these silly atheistic beliefs because I realize not every atheist thinks this way and not every atheist needs to be exterminated by the church of not-Dawkins.

When good things happen sometimes people may like to thank the unknown force/entity/mechanism (God, if they believe in God) that allowed it to happen. Perhaps they don't feel like thanking probability. How dangerous.

[Matt R.]

BTW, that was a beautiful little story. Thanks for the link.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't know anyone that would give God credit for a heart defect...

[/ QUOTE ]

People that pray for god to 'fix it', or to have a healthy baby, etc, believe that what comes out is what god wants and determines, so when one comes out with defects it must be that is what god wanted because they know he has the power to fix it if he wanted to.

[ QUOTE ]
When good things happen sometimes people may like to thank the unknown force/entity/mechanism (God, if they believe in God)

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is they should be thanking him for the 'bad' as well, because it is also his wish and god can only do good ( or have you not heard that part of it either?)

You see them on TV thanking god for saving their child in the bus crash but nobody thinks to thank him just as lovingly for killing the neighbors kid. I know that if I was a meddling-god theist, I'd never make that error ... god's will be done.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

So your position is that if God exists, he must intervene in every little detail and insure equal happiness and a pain-free life for everyone? Err... I guess even the concept of "life" has no meaning in this hypothetical because God would not allow anyone to die either.

I agree that if God intervenes in everything and makes everything happen then we must "thank" him for everything. Although I'm not exactly sure why an all-powerful entity is required to do anything (or everything, in this case).

[Matt R.]

On second thought, perhaps you are not saying this is your position, but it is "their" position. I don't think you can assume that people believe God is responsible for everything. Maybe they believe sometimes God interacts with the universe for the greater good, but doesn't always intervene? Maybe something that appears bad on the surface only appears bad on the surface (and we can never see the underlying true reason)? Maybe God does not interact at all when bad things happen, and it is simply the natural order of the universe? I don't know what they believe. Which is why I'm not criticizing them because they aren't hurting anyone.

[thylacine]

Matt R. said:[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure some people do believe such things. If their beliefs are so obviously ridiculous why bother taking the time to post such things on a message board? Also, not everyone who believes God had *some* hand in creation believes that God intervenes in every little detail.

I am also sure there are some atheists who believe that since there is no God, they are free to do whatever they please as long as there is no retribution here on this Earth (i.e. they're pretty sure they won't get caught). Thus, if they have the power and capability to steal, hurt, kill etc. without punishment they can do it and nothing is wrong with it. However, I do not feel the need to make posts about these silly atheistic beliefs because I realize not every atheist thinks this way and not every atheist needs to be exterminated by the church of not-Dawkins.

When good things happen sometimes people may like to thank the unknown force/entity/mechanism (God, if they believe in God) that allowed it to happen. Perhaps they don't feel like thanking probability. How dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt R., you are obviously so thoroughly brainwashed that it is impossible to get through to you. But you need to know that genuine atheists of the type you describe simply do not exist at all. You need to realize the difference between real atheists, and straw-man atheists that have been invented by religious propagandists.

[Matt R.]

OK, so you're saying that not a single atheist has existed since the dawn of humanity that believes that he can do whatever he wants because there is no God, if he can get away with it?

I actually remember a quote from the Columbine shootings, where one of the teens held a gun to a girl's face and asked her "Do you believe in God?". She replied "yes". The gunman then responded "there is no God.", and shot her in the head. Perhaps he believed that since there is no God and is no ultimate morality what he felt like doing (going on a killing spree) was okay since he felt like going on a killing spree?

If you didn't see it the first time, I said that I dont believe every atheist thinks this way. But you're deluding yourself if you really think NO ONE has ever thought this way.

Also, please explain how *I* am brainwashed, when you can't even admit that one atheist in the history of the world has even possibly thought in this way? This should be an interesting demonstration.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can assume that people believe God is responsible for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who believe that praying may get god to intervene ... must... believe that he has an option of interceding or not. I can't think of a type of situation that I haven't heard/read somebody pray over the outcome or thank god for the outcome, so outcomes of virtually everything are at his discretion by their belief. That seems obvious.

well, to me. Np, if not to you. If you think they're thanking/pleading with him but don't believe he has options , ..carry on.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

So, you're saying God has the option of whether or not to intervene. Yet, you said

" The point is they should be thanking him for the 'bad' as well, because it is also his wish and god can only do good ( or have you not heard that part of it either?)

You see them on TV thanking god for saving their child in the bus crash but nobody thinks to thank him just as lovingly for killing the neighbors kid. I know that if I was a meddling-god theist, I'd never make that error ... god's will be done."

a few posts up.

If God can choose to intervene or not intervene, why must he be responsible for "killing the neighbors kid"? If he has a choice, can't he choose to save the child from the bus crash, but not save the neighbor's kid? Can he make choices or not? I'm not exactly sure what your position is anymore...

[luckyme]

I beg the teacher to not hit me.
He doesn't.
He does.

No matter what his choice, my pleading indicates I believe he has a choice and the outcome is in his hands.

Repeat, I don't have a position, I'm reporting on common positions found in certain theistic cults. Pretty simplistic to grasp though, whether one believes it or not.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

So, this theistic "cult" believes God can choose whether to help or not.

They believe God helped save their baby. He chose to help save their baby.

Unfortunately, God did not help save their neighbor's baby. He chose not to help save their neighbor's baby.

Thus, they thank God for helping save their baby. God did NOT intervene to save the neighbor's baby. Thus, they and the neighbors did not "thank" him for saving the neighbor's baby.

Now, please explain to me again why a member of a theistic "cult" is not allowed to thank God for good things when they do not "thank" God for bad things as well? If God can choose, maybe he had no role in the "bad thing"?

I think I may agree with you on one thing (which may be the deeper issue you're trying to get at). One cannot presume to know the mind of God for certain. And thus it is dangerous to make suppositions about God when it can affect others in a negative way. I don't see the danger here when someone is simply thanking God for good fortune.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so you're saying that not a single atheist has existed since the dawn of humanity that believes that he can do whatever he wants because there is no God, if he can get away with it?

I actually remember a quote from the Columbine shootings, where one of the teens held a gun to a girl's face and asked her "Do you believe in God?". She replied "yes". The gunman then responded "there is no God.", and shot her in the head. Perhaps he believed that since there is no God and is no ultimate morality what he felt like doing (going on a killing spree) was okay since he felt like going on a killing spree?

If you didn't see it the first time, I said that I dont believe every atheist thinks this way. But you're deluding yourself if you really think NO ONE has ever thought this way.

Also, please explain how *I* am brainwashed, when you can't even admit that one atheist in the history of the world has even possibly thought in this way? This should be an interesting demonstration.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes I am saying that not a single atheist has ever existed since the dawn of humanity (nor ever will exist) that believes that he can do whatever he wants because there is no God, if he can get away with it?

This is tautologically true. An atheist is a person with absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever. But the belief that the absence of a god would imply that one could do whatever one wants because there is no God, if they could get away with it, is obviously a profoundly religious belief. It is a belief that is actively promoted by religions, and anyone that believes it is an indoctrinee of that religion (and obviously not an atheist). Obviously the perpetrators of the Columbine shootings were totally brainwashed by Christian propaganda, and their statements clearly demonstrate this.

[DonkBluffer]

The reasons people don't go around doing whatever they want to do are guilt, shame, social conformity/pressure, fear etc. Not 'God'.
Also, normal people do not desire killing or hurting or robbing other people!

[Matt R.]

thylacine,
Yes, the act of the shooter saying "there is no God" as he shoots his victim is clearly the result of Christian propoganda. Damn their beliefs that they should force atheists to not believe in God and tell others that God does not exist as they shoot them in the face.

[ QUOTE ]
But the belief that the absence of a god would imply that one could do whatever one wants because there is no God, if they could get away with it, is obviously a profoundly religious belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

So implications to the *lack* of belief in God is a religious belief in your world? I think we have our definitions crossed somewhere.

Also, I hope you are able to hold steadfast in your belief that you know the mind of every atheist to have ever existed. If you were able to brainwash yourself into believing that, I salute you. I bet it took a lot of effort.

[Matt R.]

DonkBluffer,
I agree. Not everyone is normal though /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[thylacine]

Matt R.

You totally misrepresented what I said.

And I think christian propagandists owe America an apology for the Columbine shootings.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I am saying that not a single atheist has ever existed since the dawn of humanity (nor ever will exist) that believes that he can do whatever he wants because there is no God, if he can get away with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversely, there have been a number of theists who thought that to commit atrocities was OK because that is what they understood to be god's will.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can assume that people believe God is responsible for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who believe that praying may get god to intervene ... must... believe that he has an option of interceding or not. I can't think of a type of situation that I haven't heard/read somebody pray over the outcome or thank god for the outcome, so outcomes of virtually everything are at his discretion by their belief. That seems obvious.

well, to me. Np, if not to you. If you think they're thanking/pleading with him but don't believe he has options , ..carry on.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's misguided to apply this line of reasoning. If religious people were operating on reason, they wouldn't be religious in the first place. I don't see how intercessionary prayer to someone who won't intercede is any less rational than the rest of the bollocks.

I'm sure that there are people out there who will pray for something one day, and the next, tell you that God doesn't intercede in human affairs.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
thylacine,
Yes, the act of the shooter saying "there is no God" as he shoots his victim is clearly the result of Christian propoganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you honestly believe that the Columbine shooters are representative of atheists as a whole? And not that they were just two very troubled individuals with an axe to grind and access to a whole lot of weaponry?

It's actually quite sickening if you actually believe this. What's even more troubling is that, by extension, you must believe that if it wasn't for their belief in God, many Christians would be off shooting up their schools/workplaces as well -- as apparently "fear of punishment in the afterlife" is the only thing holding most people back from doing so.

If this is the case, I guess we can all be thankful that you believe in an invisible man in the sky. Otherwise, you'd be off killing anyone who looked at you sideways.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
No way. God didn't glue anything together.

The universe began in a giant explosion slinging matter and energy every which way. I mean, of course a giant explosion would lead to the random assembly of particles that is now this baby! Not to mention the astounding ability of the doctors to surgically repair this random clump of cells... which came about from a giant explosion. Of course we would get conscious beings capable of the great ingenuity and creativity needed to repair such a defect... from a giant explosion. I mean, the probability that conscious beings should arise (uh... from a big bang) has got to be like 98... 99% right? Obviously nothing else is going on beyond random assembly of particles!

Gee, this misrepresentation of other people's beliefs to the point of silliness is kind of fun when you actually do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this scenario is less believable to you than a scenario that involves an omnipotent being creating the universe (in 6 days, no less)...an omnipotent being who has always existed, and can be everywhere at all times...but chooses not to show himself (unless you count the times he appears as a grease-stain under an overpass, or in the burn-pattern in a piece of toast).

Yes, that's much more believable.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But there are people out there, Matt, that do think god does things and is responsible for what happens to people and they'd have no problem giving her credit for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't know anyone that would give God credit for a heart defect... which thankfully, the doctors were able to repair. If you happen to find anyone who thinks in this way, please let me know. I will contact the head of the church of Dawkins so we can send out an extermination squad ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's statements like these that really bring to light the deep-seeded anger and hatred some theists have for anyone not in their particular sect. You're calling atheists "murderers"...which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
So your position is that if God exists, he must intervene in every little detail and insure equal happiness and a pain-free life for everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that this is beyond his abilities? If the answer is "no", then God is sitting idly by and watching as horrible things happen to good people. He's quite the sadist, apparently.

If you're answer is "yes", then he's not really god.

[ QUOTE ]
Err... I guess even the concept of "life" has no meaning in this hypothetical because God would not allow anyone to die either.

[/ QUOTE ]

He allows them to die so that you can join him in heaven and live happily ever after? Don't you listen in mass?

Well, except for the bad people, they burn forever in hell. And by bad, I mean "non-Christians".

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that if God intervenes in everything and makes everything happen then we must "thank" him for everything. Although I'm not exactly sure why an all-powerful entity is required to do anything (or everything, in this case).

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he just intervenes when he feels like it. When there's nothing on TV and he's bored, I guess. He's really big into helping athletes perform well, anyway. They're constantly praying to him and thanking him for their success. He must be a big sports fan.

Of course, once a year he will be credited with helping a football team win the Super Bowl, but then he refuses to stop a baby from being born with a heart outside its body. He has a strange sense of priorities, that guy!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so you're saying that not a single atheist has existed since the dawn of humanity that believes that he can do whatever he wants because there is no God, if he can get away with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

What a horrible argument. Who cares if ONE person believed such a thing. I'm sure there were plenty of people who believed such a thing and killed and raped and stole because "it doesn't matter anyway". So what?

In any event, I will wager that there were MANY MANY more religious types who felt that they were doing god's work by doing horrible things to non-believers. Evil people will always rationalize a reason to kill, rape, steal, etc... be it because "life is meaningless" or "god wants me to do this".

[Matt R.]

Well, you managed to miss my point completely. Congratulations.

I said pretty explicitly that since so few atheists believe what I wrote, there is no point in my going around criticizing atheism because that specific belief is so ludicrous and wrong.

Similarly, since the idea that God intervenes in such detail as to be reponsible for EVERY good thing as well as EVERY bad is so obviously wrong and self-contradictory (if you believe in an all-loving and all-powerful God) that it is obviously incorrect to believe in it. Thus I think it to be pointless, a waste of space, and insulting to fill up SMP with links of developmental defects with the idea that it "disproves" intelligent design. Of course it is then followed up with hilarious sarcastic wit by other posters (like you) that point out that everyone who believes in God (or ID) believes that God glues on body parts if he forgets to put them inside the body. I tell you, it never gets old! It's just as funny every time, those sarcastic remarks.

Yes, we know those who believe that ID should be taught in schools over evolution are wrong and probably dumb. ID isn't a scientific theory. Not everyone who believes in God in here believes it should be. Some people may, but if it is so obviously wrong why make these types of threads (and then make the obligatory asinine sarcastic remark clearly misrepresenting others' beliefs)?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
It's statements like these that really bring to light the deep-seeded anger and hatred some theists have for anyone not in their particular sect. You're calling atheists "murderers"...which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

[/ QUOTE ] Edit -- pasted the wrong quote.

Your sarcastic remarks with no attempt to understand why people believe some things (or why they should be allowed to) is clearly evidence that you have no hatred or bias against religious people. Right.

I like atheists just fine. The ones who go around preaching how dumb any theist is, followed by sarcastic remarks and a random wikipedia link showing how atheists have higher IQs than theists are the ones that bother me. Ignorance and stupidity bother me, what can I say? I lot of religious people bother me too.

That quote was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at how a lot of threads in here profess that we need to essentially exterminate religious beliefs. I was being sarcastic and having a bit of fun... didn't realize that wasn't allowed around here!

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your position is that if God exists, he must intervene in every little detail and insure equal happiness and a pain-free life for everyone?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you believe that this is beyond his abilities? If the answer is "no", then God is sitting idly by and watching as horrible things happen to good people. He's quite the sadist, apparently.

If you're answer is "yes", then he's not really god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this is at least somewhat on track to where the thread was going...

No, I don't believe this is beyond his abilities. I believe he chooses not to insure equal happiness and endless life for everyone here on Earth. If he did so, there would be no point in creating ANYTHING according to the rules of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. He would have to intervene every time someone exercises their free will and decides they want to shoot someone, every time someone decides they want to jump off a building, every time someone hits their funny bone and it hurts, etc. Yes, horrible things happen sometimes from the perspective of our physical world. If God exists, I don't think he always intervenes to stop these things. If he exists, he may intervene sometimes when he sees it fit to. If there is no afterlife, I agree this is incredibly unfair. No, I don't know how every little detail of everything works -- nor do I think science will EVER be able to figure out every little detail of how everything works. I do not think it is silly to believe it is possible God exists or intervenes in the world sometimes.

I do think the idea that if God exists, he MUST insure equal happiness and infinite life for everyone on this Earth, is a little absurd.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think the idea that if God exists, he MUST insure equal happiness and infinite life for everyone on this Earth, is a little absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

No more absurd than there exist a god.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually remember a quote from the Columbine shootings, where one of the teens held a gun to a girl's face and asked her "Do you believe in God?". She replied "yes". The gunman then responded "there is no God.", and shot her in the head.

[/ QUOTE ]
ROFL. That's priceless, if it was true. Unfortunately... (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm)

Guess it wouldn't be the first time believers twisted facts to suit them. All is irrelevant before the Glory Of God. Even the truth.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually remember a quote from the Columbine shootings, where one of the teens held a gun to a girl's face and asked her "Do you believe in God?". She replied "yes". The gunman then responded "there is no God.", and shot her in the head.

[/ QUOTE ]
ROFL. That's priceless, if it was true. Unfortunately... (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm)

Guess it wouldn't be the first time believers twisted facts to suit them. All is irrelevant before the Glory Of God. Even the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just yet another case of Christian propaganda. They can justify such lies to themselves as long as it keeps their followers within the fold. There's no better way to maintain followers than to demonize anyone who is not part of their sect.

[Matt R.]

Phil,
I read the story in Time magazine. I assumed it was a reliable source. If you think the story is not in dispute, you should perhaps re-read the last 2 paragraphs of the article which you linked (without the blinders on).

What is funny, is that the specific example I gave was just something that popped into my head, and whether it was true or not had about zero relevance to the overall point I was trying to make. But of course, you and Hopey have convinced yourself that my source (Time magazine) must definitely be wrong, and certain, specific eye-witness accounts mentioned in your OWN internet article must definitely be wrong as well. And this must make you "right" somehow, even if the one specific example that I used was virtually irrelevent to my point. Somehow the article failed to mention that Phil153 and Hopey were at the scene of the crime, unfortunately. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Phil and Hopey, I encourage you to keep believing that every time someone disagrees with you, it is because they are twisting the truth or are victims of Christian propaganda. It can't possibly be because there are two sides to the story or more than one account or eye-witness. This injects humor into SMP, which I feel is lacking sometimes.

[vhawk01]

Lets not get too self-righteous here, Matt. Your example of the Columbine killings was to show us that there are some people who apparently kill in the name of atheism. Your example was a horrible one. Even if they killed some girl because she said she believed in God, it is completely irrelevant to your 'point.' It was a bad example. Because of the bad example we are now on this terrible tangent.

[Matt R.]

I'm not quite sure how I was being self-righteous.

I didn't say people kill "in the name of atheism". I said that some people, in all likelihood, reason that because there is no God that it is "okay" to do things that would normally be deemed immoral if they could socially get away with it. Since they won't get caught "now" or after they're dead, they reason that their action, normally deemed immoral, is okay.

The Columbine example is, in all likelihood, a very good example of this. No afterlife, no God, I'm unhappy and don't care about myself or others so it's okay to go on a killing rampage. Of course I don't know FOR SURE that this is what was going on in their heads. Neither do you.

My point, which I think you missed as well, it that there are potentially "silly" beliefs that can stem from atheism, just like theism. I don't go around making posts about these irrational atheistic beliefs because it is insulting to other atheists and wastes time and space. I also do not assume because one or a few atheists think these things that all atheists do. Thus I don't make sarcastic remarks about atheistic beliefs to mock them.

We're on this terrible tangent because people are plucking out one debatable point that I was trying to use as an example, when it honestly doesn't matter what exactly happened in that ONE instance.

[thylacine]

Matt R. said:[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure how I was being self-righteous.

I didn't say people kill "in the name of atheism". I said that some people, in all likelihood, reason that because there is no God that it is "okay" to do things that would normally be deemed immoral if they could socially get away with it. Since they won't get caught "now" or after they're dead, they reason that their action, normally deemed immoral, is okay.

The Columbine example is, in all likelihood, a very good example of this. No afterlife, no God, I'm unhappy and don't care about myself or others so it's okay to go on a killing rampage. Of course I don't know FOR SURE that this is what was going on in their heads. Neither do you.

My point, which I think you missed as well, it that there are potentially "silly" beliefs that can stem from atheism, just like theism. I don't go around making posts about these irrational atheistic beliefs because it is insulting to other atheists and wastes time and space. I also do not assume because one or a few atheists think these things that all atheists do. Thus I don't make sarcastic remarks about atheistic beliefs to mock them.

We're on this terrible tangent because people are plucking out one debatable point that I was trying to use as an example, when it honestly doesn't matter what exactly happened in that ONE instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt R. how can I get it through your thick skull that atheists do not hold theistic beliefs. The belief that you repeatedly attribute to a minority of atheists, is in fact held by exactly zero atheists, because it is a theistic belief that is part of standard christian dogma/doctrine/propaganda. It is one of the most dangerous beliefs that humans have ever had. And it is a belief taht would never have existed if religion had never existed.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
My point, which I think you missed as well, it that there are potentially "silly" beliefs that can stem from atheism, just like theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point entirely, it seems. Or are you saying that there are potentially silly beliefs that can stem from a lack of believe in astrology, numerology, father xmas, etc?

[Matt R.]

thylacine,
Hi. You don't make any sense.

I never said atheists hold theistic beliefs. I'm not sure what you are talking about. You continue to argue that a lack of belief in God, and its implications to one's own personal morality, is a theistic belief. And then it follows that purple monkey dishwasher, of course.

Basically, what you appear to be doing is classifying any negative atheistic belief, if you do not personally hold it, as a theistic belief. This is convenient. Thylacine, I promise you that some atheists are immoral. Just because they are immoral and have immoral thoughts it does not make them a theist. Christian propoganda does not make people atheists. It does not force atheists to harm others.

Again, you make no sense.

[Matt R.]

Midge,
What?

Pretend that I don't believe in God for a second. This has implications to my morality, because I believe there is no... "ultimate truth" if you will. If I believed in God, the implications may or may not be different.

I am saying one can take the lack of existence of God as an assumption, and come to erroneous conclusions from that assumption (not necessarily related to ethics, but possibly).

Yes, there can be potentially silly beliefs that derive from the lack of belief in astrology. You can have potentially silly beliefs that derive from the belief that evolution is true. Do you think that no one has ever used faulty reasoning to come to a silly biological conclusion, even though one of their assumptions is that evolution is true? [Edit -- poor wording]

No, Midge. You are the one who is missing the point entirely.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretend that I don't believe in God for a second. This has implications to my morality, because I believe there is no... "ultimate truth" if you will. If I believed in God, the implications may or may not be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have said elsewhere. morality is only possible within an atheist context. The belief in god is more likely to make you act immorally since you have god as a model. That is unless you are a psychopath, then it makes no difference.



[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that everyone who believes in evolution has never come to a silly conclusion based on faulty reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of faulty reasoning yes, but no silly beliefs ever have been based on a lack of belief in the tooth fairy, easter bunny or god.

[Matt R.]

Similarly, no silly beliefs have ever been based on belief in God. It is faulty reasoning that leads one to the silly beliefs.

[MidGe]

Plenty of silly beliefs have been based on belief in god, without any faulty reasoning, imo.

As I said, no morality is possible outside of an atheist framework. It is just the reverse. Belief, requires you to surrender your innate ability to search for the moral action, to the orders of your chimera (god).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
As I have said elsewhere. morality is only possible within an atheist context.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when something seems so clear to me.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of silly beliefs have been based on belief in god, without any faulty reasoning, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[ QUOTE ]
Belief, requires you to surrender your innate ability to search for the moral action, to the orders of your chimera (god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief in God requires the surrendering of nothing. THIS is faulty reasoning.

[madnak]

Belief in Christianity requires plenty.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
As I have said elsewhere. morality is only possible within an atheist context.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know morality when you see it without a belief in God?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have said elsewhere. morality is only possible within an atheist context.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know morality when you see it without a belief in God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably in the same way that you see god. LOL

That being said, I have been wondering whether christians who ask that question are truly the psychopaths they appear to be when they have difficulty defining morality without a reference to a book which, ironically, contains many contradictions and present some serious atrocities as just?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably in the same way that you see god. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean, exactly? Please be specific.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,
I read the story in Time magazine. I assumed it was a reliable source. If you think the story is not in dispute, you should perhaps re-read the last 2 paragraphs of the article which you linked (without the blinders on).

[/ QUOTE ]
Hopey,

I read the article in its entirity, without blinders. There's a very good chance this story, as told, is false. If you present examples to make a point which are false - and it WAS relevant to your point - otherwise why mention it?? - then expect to be called out on it. This isn't church where we sing hymns and utter praise the lords whenever some BS story glorifying God is told. We have morals and ethics here.

[ QUOTE ]
Phil and Hopey, I encourage you to keep believing that every time someone disagrees with you, it is because they are twisting the truth or are victims of Christian propaganda. It can't possibly be because there are two sides to the story or more than one account or eye-witness. This injects humor into SMP, which I feel is lacking sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again you distort things. People disagree with me for a variety of reasons: stupidity, lack of knowledge, lack of reasoning skills, lack of morals, lack of common sense, powerful social reinforcement of their beliefs, the desire to believe, strong childhood conditioning imprinted in their brains, or sometimes, because I'm wrong.

I hope you can see how one eyewitness account, contradicted by many other eyewitness accounts, got taken up by the Christian fraternity with no regard for truth, and presented as fact. There are a million such stories. Most of them false or of dubious credibility. Have a look on Snopes, for example.

[Matt R.]

Unfortunately, this is one of those times where someone is disagreeing with you because you are wrong, Phil153.

You stated that the one eyewitness account, which Time quoted, was contradicted by "many other eyewitness accounts". I'm sorry you have to misrepresent facts from an article that YOU link because you reeeeally want it to be true. Want to know how many eyewitnesses contradicted the Time witness? One! Gasp! It was Emily Wyant.

TWO witnesses (gasp again!) support the Time magazine claim. Joshua Lapp and Craig Scott. Craig Scott had some contradictory evidence as to the placement of the gunman as the dialogue was exchanged. So he probably should not be relied on as an accurate witness. See how easy it is to give the facts from the article Phil? It is possible, in such a crazy heated moment, that some people don't remember the details exactly correctly. It is unfortunate that some of us have to make claims like there were "many witnesses" that contradict Time's version, when their OWN source does not even make such a claim. Make things up to support your agenda much, Phil153?

Note that the article also said that "your" eyewitness wondered if the gunmen singled Cassie out because she was praying.

Despite the fact that the details are fuzzy, my point remains the same.

Also, it is unfortunate that you cannot see that this one specific example does not have much bearing on the overall argument I was making. It was simply an example that came to mind, as I said before. Even if I don't know the thought processes of the Columbine gunmen, it is still possible that some other atheist can take the non-existence of God as an assumption, and come to irrational conclusions based off that assumption. If you disagree with this then you either think atheists use perfect logic, by definition, or that it is impossible to draw inaccurate inferences from such an assumption. I'm not sure which is more stupid.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plenty of silly beliefs have been based on belief in god, without any faulty reasoning, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[ QUOTE ]
Belief, requires you to surrender your innate ability to search for the moral action, to the orders of your chimera (god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief in God requires the surrendering of nothing. THIS is faulty reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe its a good idea to murder my son.

[Matt R.]

1) God exists

2) Therefore, it is a good idea to murder my son.

No reasoning is present there.

If you came to that conclusion simply because you assume God exists, I think the reasoning in between is probably faulty.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
1) God exists

2)Abraham: He asks me too, therefore, it is a good idea to murder my son.

No reasoning is present there.

If you came to that conclusion simply because you assume God exists, I think the reasoning in between is probably faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
1) God exists

2) Therefore, it is a good idea to murder my son.

No reasoning is present there.

If you came to that conclusion simply because you assume God exists, I think the reasoning in between is probably faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. If those are the only two steps you are allowing me to take, then I wonder how you get ANY sort or morality from your belief in God. I mean, even:

1) God exists.
2) Therefore there is an ultimate morality

is completely baseless.

[Matt R.]

You are now making an assumption that the Bible is true, and that God spoke to someone saying that he should murder his son. Do you accept the premise that the Bible is true and that God speaks to people?

Irrelevant point: Note that God did not have Abraham go through with it.

[Matt R.]

vhawk,
I'm not limiting you to any number of steps. Why do you think I am?

I said that silly beliefs leading from the belief that God exists are due to faulty logic. You stated what you think is a silly belief. There was no logic present. I do not see how belief in God should necessarily lead one to think they should kill their son. I cannot fill in the blanks for you, as I don't see the connection.

I also never made the claim that if God exists, there is an ultimate morality. If you notice, my point from before was regarding IRRATIONAL beliefs that atheists can potentially have, yet I don't go around making posts about them, nor do I make posts mocking ALL atheists for one irrational belief that they may, or may not, have.

[vhawk01]

So wait...you want me to present a logical argument, with premises and conclusions, in order to show the irrational conclusions one can come to with a belief in religion? I dont get it. If I lay it out rationally its not an irrational belief. If I fail to do so, you claim it is silly or illogical. How exactly do you lose?

[Phil153]

Mattr,

Read the article again. There were multiple witnesses who did not support the story. Read other sources too. This is the end of it as far as I'm concerned:

[ QUOTE ]
Salon says that in the end, the investigators concluded that Valeen's [who lived] was the only encounter in the library where anyone was asked about God.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's more

[ QUOTE ]
The News says that Cassie was crouched under a table when she was shot and that another student, 16 year old Emily Wyant, was next to her. Emily survived the ordeal and says she never heard Cassie asked about belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

<u>The very witness that was next to her says she was not asked about God before being shot.</u>

I'm right, as usual. At the very least you used a highly disputed, and probably false story as an example to your point. And then in typical dishonest fashion, refused to own up to it. But it's all for the Glory of God, right? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is unfortunate that you cannot see that this one specific example does not have much bearing on the overall argument I was making.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you misrepresent me. I don't debate your points about atheists using lack of God as a reason for atrocities. Simply calling you out on your lack of rigor, followed by lack of honesty. Glory to God!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You are now making an assumption that the Bible is true, and that God spoke to someone saying that he should murder his son. Do you accept the premise that the Bible is true and that God speaks to people?

Irrelevant point: Note that God did not have Abraham go through with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I thought it was from the bible that your got your idea of god. Of course, if the bible, koran, whatever is not true and you propose a god with attributes that you pull out of the air, or without defining any, it is very hard to argue with you.

[Matt R.]

Midge made the claim:

"Plenty of silly beliefs have been based on belief in god, without any faulty reasoning, imo."

I am asking someone, anyone, to give me a silly belief based off the assumption that God exists and arrived at through reasoning that is logically sound.

In other words, he is making the claim that by necessity, if you believe in God, you must come to "silly" conclusions. Yet those conclusions will be rational if you take the existence of God as a true assumption. Therefore the assumption that God exists, is in itself, a silly assumption.

I can lose if you can start with said assumption and arrive at a silly conclusion based on a logical argument.

No, I don't think anyone can do it. Which is my point. Belief in God does not necessarily lead to silly conclusions. Faulty reasoning does.

[Matt R.]

Phil153,
The biased tone in your posts becomes all too prevelant when you become angry. When you try to mock people in ways that have nothing to do with their actual argument, it may diminish your position in the eyes of some. I would advise against doing this in the future. Some people may think you are stupid and have to rely on mockery to make your point.

[ QUOTE ]
There were multiple witnesses who did not support the story. Read other sources too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your link. Why do you want me to dig up other sources too? I have my source. Even if it was wrong, it does not diminish my point as I've stated... oh, 4 times now maybe. The fact that you don't understand there is no point in me researching it further is astounding. One of the eyewitnesses is correct, the other is wrong. Wow!

The investigators did indeed conclude that it was a different girl in the end. Even though there was contradicting evidence. I'm sorry that you take their word for it as absolute fact, when there is contradicting evidence. Of course they cannot be wrong. They agree with you, after all. But... you agree with them because they are *THE* investigators. Yet, they are right because you say they are right. Ahh! Circular logic! How are you sure the investigators are right again and are 100% sure that they have the account perfectly straight? Didn't the article state at the very end there were conflicting accounts? Crap! It did! Who to believe?! Phil or.... PHIL!!! It's gotta be Phil. He's Phil, and he's right... PHEW!

Also, it doesn't change the fact that there were two atheist gunmen running around a school killing people as they asked them if they believed in God or not, and singled out a girl because she was praying. OK, maybe they didn't single her out, but your eyewitness speculated on this at least. It's funny how we can speculate on the details as much as we want yet my example still has merit.

Edit -- On further review, I notice that you aren't debating my "overall" point. Just that one example, which you are clinging to for your dear life. Question: Do you thoroughly research every little detail you post on an internet message board? Like, if you found something in say... TIME MAGAZINE, would that be sufficient enough for you to post it? Or do you cross-reference everything you put in SMP and check it with multiple other sources? I'll answer this for you: you don't.

Yes, my account from Time may have been wrong. Get over it.

[Phil153]

I'm mocking you because it brings out a very interesting side of your personality. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm not clinging to anything. Merely doing a demonstration of how religious belief alters the subjective importance of facts.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Midge made the claim:

"Plenty of silly beliefs have been based on belief in god, without any faulty reasoning, imo."

I am asking someone, anyone, to give me a silly belief based off the assumption that God exists and arrived at through reasoning that is logically sound.

In other words, he is making the claim that by necessity, if you believe in God, you must come to "silly" conclusions. Yet those conclusions will be rational if you take the existence of God as a true assumption. Therefore the assumption that God exists, is in itself, a silly assumption.

I can lose if you can start with said assumption and arrive at a silly conclusion based on a logical argument.

No, I don't think anyone can do it. Which is my point. Belief in God does not necessarily lead to silly conclusions. Faulty reasoning does.

[/ QUOTE ]


Warning, the post above contains reasoning errors!

[Matt R.]

Phil,
Please exlain this "interesting side" of my personality that mocking me brings out. I have stayed on my intended course from the beginning, mocking present or not. Aside from the occasional sidetrack to do some mocking myself, which I find kind of amusing. BTW, I set off a firecracker in my back yard. It was a hell of an explosion. I set up a camera. Hopefully in a few billion years conscious beings will evolve. woot

I also don't follow what demonstration you are doing. You are trying to demonstrate there are conflicting views to some random example I gave that has little merit in relation to this thread. Congratulations, you have shown Time magazine may have been in error.

Seriously, please expound on this interesting side of my personality -- I'm legitimately curious. I am well aware of yours from other threads.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopey,

I read the article in its entirity, without blinders. There's a very good chance this story, as told, is false. If you present examples to make a point which are false - and it WAS relevant to your point - otherwise why mention it?? - then expect to be called out on it. This isn't church where we sing hymns and utter praise the lords whenever some BS story glorifying God is told. We have morals and ethics here.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are now making an assumption that the Bible is true, and that God spoke to someone saying that he should murder his son. Do you accept the premise that the Bible is true and that God speaks to people?

Irrelevant point: Note that God did not have Abraham go through with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I thought it was from the bible that your got your idea of god. Of course, if the bible, koran, whatever is not true and you propose a god with attributes that you pull out of the air, or without defining any, it is very hard to argue with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- most theists just make it up as they go along.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm mocking you because it brings out a very interesting side of your personality.

[/ QUOTE ]The religious and the theists come out the best from such debates.

Mickey Brausch

[wazz]

Matt, you've obviously got passion for your beliefs and are happy to debate them.... but you're quite arrogant and your arguments are being ripped to shreds by these guys. Cut your losses. Oh, and renounce jesus while you're at it.

[Matt R.]

wazz,
Thank you for your input. Unfortunately, you (just like them) cannot pick out where the arguments are wrong. You simply state they are "getting ripped to shreds", with some hand waving, and, voila!, you are right.

Again, thanks for the brilliant insight.

Edit -- Hi again wazz. I just realized I never brought up Jesus once in the context of my argument. Are you one of those atheists that can't separate the actual content of an argument from the beliefs of the person? You appear to be one of those that sees "oh, someone that believes in God" and then automatically dismisses any argument with some hand waving. Is this the case? If not, why did you bring up Jesus?

[Seraphim]

You Godfreaks need to listen to more Slayer lyrics.

Have fun with your pathetic weakling humanist religion. I'll stick to paganism thanks.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
Midge made the claim:

"Plenty of silly beliefs have been based on belief in god, without any faulty reasoning, imo."

I am asking someone, anyone, to give me a silly belief based off the assumption that God exists and arrived at through reasoning that is logically sound.

In other words, he is making the claim that by necessity, if you believe in God, you must come to "silly" conclusions. Yet those conclusions will be rational if you take the existence of God as a true assumption. Therefore the assumption that God exists, is in itself, a silly assumption.

I can lose if you can start with said assumption and arrive at a silly conclusion based on a logical argument.

No, I don't think anyone can do it. Which is my point. Belief in God does not necessarily lead to silly conclusions. Faulty reasoning does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt R.,

noone has really bothered to respond directly to your challenge as far as i can tell w/ mild skimming but hows this:

God exists.
The bible is the word of god.
All the stories in the bible are the inerrant word of god and therefore are also true.
And all that mumbo jumbo that goes along with it...people being raised from the dead, 3 gods=/=1, virgin births, angels, the devil, burning in hell, any kind of afterlife for that matter, power of prayer, noahs arc, the ten plagues, world created in 6 days, man in gods image etc etc etc...............................


-JP