In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Comments (Page 1,770)

Showing posts 35,381 - 35,400 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36571
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
...notable as the first Presidential candidate with a historical figure as a running mate...
"I don't need no VP! Jesus is my copilot!"
<NEWS DEBATE COMMENTATOR> "...and there goes the Jesus, stepping on *top* of the water in the baby pool in front of the podium. It's been a very effective tactic so far in this campaign.."

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36572
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The clip linked to by Ken Miller has been thoroughly debunked on the flagellum.
The flagellum is irreducibly complex. What Miller proposed as the precursor to the flagellum - the Type III secretory system, has been shown to come as a descendant of the flagellum. The flagellum is a precursor to the TIII system, not vice-versa.
Even if Miller were correct, there remains the irreducible complexity problem for him, as the 40 genes (30 more than the T-3 system) necessary for the flagellum do not produce a selective advantage individually, and could not have occured by natural selection.
This has been shown in great detail by Scott Minnich, along with a host of other scientists.
Right, Buck. "Thoroughly debunked". Please present the peer reviewed article that debunked it. <Bet ya can't...'cause it doesn't exist.>

As usual, all you are doing is parroting the Disco'tute, which has no credibility at all. They will lie trough their teeth, and often do.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36573
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not openly, at least not until their Wedge Strategy was leaked. ID is a political strategy to circumvent the law that prevents creationism from being taught as science in American public schools. The DI was damaged by that leak.
But its fellows often continue to distance themselves from supernaturalism in a bizarre parody in which they deny their obvious religious motivations. But they feel they have to. Supernaturalism in an origins hypothesis is poison to the movement. It's the sine qua non of both religion and pseudoscienc
Just stopping by.
__________
Darwin's Stepchild wrote:
I must say, you are doing a fine job of writing in support of science. A job well done.
__________
Both posts are entirely false on the facts.
1. "ID" has no wedge strategy. Never has.
Really funny, considering your point 2. The Wedge Document exists. It was written by the Disco'tute. It provides a strategy to get religion back into schools. Thus the term "Wedge Strategy".

Buck 0
DS 1
Buck Crick wrote:
2. The wedge strategy was never "leaked". It was published, put right out in the open.
It was never published by the Disco'tute. It was leaked by someone inside the Disco'tute. It was published by the people it was leaked to.

Buck 0
DS 2
Buck Crick wrote:
3. "ID" is not "DI". The reversal of letters is important. The Discovery Institute is a think tank with an ideology. Their goal is to compete with the ideology of "naturalism". They say so in a straightforward manner.
Well, I will agree somewhat on this one. Except for the "straight forward manner". They are quite disingenuous. They pretend to do science when all they really do is PR.

I'll call this one a tie.

Buck 1/2
DS 2 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
4. "ID" is not a political strategy. It is science.
Flat out, completely wrong...on both counts. ID is a PR stunt and you are so dense you have fallen for it. It in no way is science.

Counts for two since you made two claims.

Buck 1/2
DS 4 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
5. "ID" has never attempted to circumvent any law.
ID is just an idea. It can't circumvent anything. It is the people that push ID that do the circumventing. The whole purpose of ID is to circumvent the SCOTUS decision.

You lose this one on a category error.

Buck 1/2
DS 5 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
6. "ID" OPPOSES both creationism and intelligent design being taught in school. The idea that it is a movement to get creationism in schools is provably a lie.
Again, ID is an idea and can oppose anything. It is the people, again, that push ID that want ID and creationism taught in school.

Can you seriously claim they don't? Have you seen the number of bills in state legislatures that try to shoehorn in ID or creationism?

Buck 1/2
DS 6 1/2
Buck Crick wrote:
You people are willing to lie your asses off to try to undermine intelligent design research.
No Buck. No lies. At least, not from us. From you is another story.

BTW...there IS no ID research, so it can't be undermined.
Buck Crick wrote:
Pointing out your lies is like farting in the wind. I show the necessary documentation to prove you are lying, and then you just repeat the lies.
And so it goes.
Face it Buck, you lose. On this one. But then, you lose on just about every point you ever support. How one person can be so misinformed is beyond me. But you, Buck, succeed.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36574
Aug 20, 2012
 
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
FAntastic post. I'm so tired of this Obamanation of our country.
Not only is he our first black president ever, he's our worst president ever.
The problem with your country is that you idiots got together and turned your Creationist cult into an ignorant and racist political party.

Or was it the other way around?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36575
Aug 20, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. ID proponents oppose having ID or creationism taught in school.
2. ID is not creationism. The major creationist organizations in the world reject ID.
Being in command of just a couple of simple facts about ID would improve your education, as you presently do not know one thing about it.
ID is Creationism. Fact. You Lose. F*ck off liar.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36576
Aug 21, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your country is that you idiots got together and turned your Creationist cult into an ignorant and racist political party.
Or was it the other way around?
Please don't remind us, we messed that up big time.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36577
Aug 21, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent design is the claim that life contains designs - patterns that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.
Such designs have never been found, just claimed. For example, the flagellum and the clotting cascade were both claimed to be intelligently designed based their designs, which were called irreducible complex.
But the claim of irreducible complexity, unlike the claim of an intelligent designer, is falsifiable, and was shown to be wrong.e.
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective. An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe. In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause. At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well. A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.

Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained", but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.

A person who believes in ID and creationism, believes God built the factory of life and is designing and building each and every thing in that factory. A person who believes in ID and evolution, believes God built the factory and now the factory can run itself (which would far more intelligent than the creationist attitude). A person who does not believe in ID, believes the factory came to being over millenia of chance and randomness.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36578
Aug 21, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective. An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe. In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause. At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well. A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.
Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained", but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.
A person who believes in ID and creationism, believes God built the factory of life and is designing and building each and every thing in that factory. A person who believes in ID and evolution, believes God built the factory and now the factory can run itself (which would far more intelligent than the creationist attitude). A person who does not believe in ID, believes the factory came to being over millenia of chance and randomness.
Name some of the naturally occurring "designs" and "order."

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36579
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective. An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe. In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause. At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well. A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.
Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so. Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained", but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.
A person who believes in ID and creationism, believes God built the factory of life and is designing and building each and every thing in that factory. A person who believes in ID and evolution, believes God built the factory and now the factory can run itself (which would far more intelligent than the creationist attitude). A person who does not believe in ID, believes the factory came to being over millenia of chance and randomness.
How bout you prove your God actually exists before you start attributing things to it.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36580
Aug 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Name some of the naturally occurring "designs" and "order."
What do you mean name some them? Nature in and of itself is design and order.

Nature - derived from Latin "Natura", which refers to essential qualities and inherent disposition, which is why anything that behaves out of the ordinary is regarded as unnatural. Every single leaf of a mango tree in a mango orchard will look the same as if built in one factory. That is order and hence the tree is part of nature. Burn some copper chloride and you will get a blue flame every single time, given the conditions are the same. That reveals order, that reveals a plan.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36581
Aug 21, 2012
 
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
How bout you prove your God actually exists before you start attributing things to it.
Interesting that some people believe in ghosts lingering around Earth but don't believing that God actually exist. You will never get anyone to prove that there is a God but they can say that it is a matter of faith that creates the existance of God.

Before Christianity reached Europe, the European pagans used to believe in multiple Gods. When they encountered Christianity, they thought that believing ONE God was ridiculous.

In regards the atheists still being in the closet, this is no big surprise as more and more people are becoming more open-minded towards science and evidential fact-finding. Improved education has enabled people to think for themselves as even religious people have begun questioning their faith.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36582
Aug 21, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean name some them? Nature in and of itself is design and order.
Nature - derived from Latin "Natura", which refers to essential qualities and inherent disposition, which is why anything that behaves out of the ordinary is regarded as unnatural. Every single leaf of a mango tree in a mango orchard will look the same as if built in one factory. That is order and hence the tree is part of nature. Burn some copper chloride and you will get a blue flame every single time, given the conditions are the same. That reveals order, that reveals a plan.
Nature may appear ordered when you don't actually study it, but it's not really that ordered. Nature accounts for all of the universe now, FYI

Chemistry is predictable, that does not demonstrate order. Order would entail that something demonstrated a planned and predetermined function before it came to be as it is. What purpose does the blue in the flame serve? To us it's a marker, but other than that there is no purpose to it, it's just the result of the chaotic event of burning, atoms and molecules going into randomness momentarily.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36583
Aug 21, 2012
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Intelligent design is the claim that life contains designs - patterns that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer. Such designs have never been found, just claimed. For example, the flagellum and the clotting cascade were both claimed to be intelligently designed based their designs, which were called irreducible complex.

But the claim of irreducible complexity, unlike the claim of an intelligent designer, is falsifiable, and was shown to be wrong.
True Truth wrote:
What do you mean that such designs have never been found? Designs are found all around us. All over there is order and proportion. It is just a matter of perspective.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that there have been no patterns identified yet that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer except those known to have been made by mortals on earth.
True Truth wrote:
An atheist believes that everything around us is ultimately the product of chance, weighing the odds against the vastness of the universe.
I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does.

I also don't believe that everything around me is the product of chance. There are laws of physics that have a little to do with it. For example, drop an apple in a gravitational field, and it's path, time of falling, velocity on impact, momentum and more are all predictable, not random.
True Truth wrote:
In such a case, an atheist sees evolution as a cause.
Evolution is not a cause. It is a process, like rusting. Evolution has a cause, like rusting, but is not properly called a cause. A cause is a physical force, like gravity or an impact.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36584
Aug 21, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
At some point, matter made a jump from non-life into life, on this planet and possibly others as well.
We were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.
True Truth wrote:
A theist on the other hand believes that the jump between life and non life was at the very least, facilitated by some higher entity, a creator or designer.
Creationists believe specifically in "the hand of God", but ID need not necessarily believe so.
If the intelligent designer is not a universe creator, then it is just a clever alien, and itself a product of unguided abiogenesis and evolution.
True Truth wrote:
Creationists believe in irreducible complexity "some things can just never be explained"
That's not what irreducible complexity means. It's a claim about biological structures, not the origin of the singularity, for example, which may never be explained.

And just because many things remain as yet unexplained does not mean that they can never be explained. That may turn out to be correct, but at this time, that's a faith based assumption.
True Truth wrote:
but with ID, one can endeavour to explain things and one can believe that everything can theoretically be explained.
ID is not an explanation, just like goddidit is not an explanation. Explain how a god could exist. Explain how it could create a universe. Then you'll have an explanation.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36585
Aug 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
How bout you prove your God actually exists before you start attributing things to it.
When scientists attribute certain phenomena to the existence of atoms, they were not dismissed because they didn't prove the atoms existence at the time. When scientists attributed phenomena to the Higg-Boson particle without proof of existence, they were not dismissed. Scientists still attribute phenomena to dark energy and dark matter, which have have not as yet been able to detect, yet they are not dismissed for doing so.

There is order all around us, laws of matter and energy that have resulted in complex nature around us, and I attribute that to a Creator, a God which I believe in. Why do you scrutinise such a belief, yet when scientists do the same thing, you would regard it as noble and courageous and advancing?

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36586
Aug 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature may appear ordered when you don't actually study it, but it's not really that ordered. Nature accounts for all of the universe now, FYI
Chemistry is predictable, that does not demonstrate order. Order would entail that something demonstrated a planned and predetermined function before it came to be as it is. What purpose does the blue in the flame serve? To us it's a marker, but other than that there is no purpose to it, it's just the result of the chaotic event of burning, atoms and molecules going into randomness momentarily.
Well, it seems we have different perceptions of order. To me, anything that is predictable, is displaying order. To me, order need not have any function. The blue in the flame may serve no purpose, but it is a product of different molecular vibrations absorbing certain frequencies of light and allowing others to pass through, during combustion. All of that depends on the different atoms constituting the molecule, their mass and electronegativity, which is the same everytime. The blue flame is the product of a series of physical and quantum laws, never broken, always observed and obeyed. In other words it is a product of order.

It would burn in that way every single time, and if there was true chaos and randomness, it simply would not do that.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36587
Aug 21, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
When scientists attribute certain phenomena to the existence of atoms, they were not dismissed because they didn't prove the atoms existence at the time. When scientists attributed phenomena to the Higg-Boson particle without proof of existence, they were not dismissed. Scientists still attribute phenomena to dark energy and dark matter, which have have not as yet been able to detect, yet they are not dismissed for doing so.
There is order all around us, laws of matter and energy that have resulted in complex nature around us, and I attribute that to a Creator, a God which I believe in. Why do you scrutinise such a belief, yet when scientists do the same thing, you would regard it as noble and courageous and advancing?
You're a theist liar who doesn't understand science. Why would anyone give a flying f*ck about your opinions about science, when you're a proven idiot who doesn't even get it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36588
Aug 21, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
Every single leaf of a mango tree in a mango orchard will look the same as if built in one factory. That is order and hence the tree is part of nature.
Seriously? There is immense variation from leaf to leaf.
True Truth wrote:
Burn some copper chloride and you will get a blue flame every single time, given the conditions are the same.

That reveals order,
Weren't you just telling me that atheists believe that everything is random? Did you think that I don't know about regularities like that in the universe?
True Truth wrote:
that reveals a plan.
Not to me, nor to a rapidly growing contingent calling themselves unbelievers. You pretty much have to assume that there is a god to attribute the regularities in nature to it.

If you need to anthropomorphize the forces of nature, you can call them Mother Nature instead, and skip the worship. Mother Nature only gets respect. She doesn't doesn't have a plan, and she doesn't require your cooperation. Breaking her laws is not possible. Does that resemble a god at all, which can be ignored and even blasphemed?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36589
Aug 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
Chemistry is predictable, that does not demonstrate order. Order would entail that something demonstrated a planned and predetermined function before it came to be as it is.
I see order in chemistry. That's why there is a periodic table, and why there is a mathematical treatment of chemistry possible, as with enzyme kinetics: V = Vmax[S]/Km +[S] and stoichiometry: O2 + 2H2 &#8594; 2H2O

What isn't apparent is purpose or intent.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36590
Aug 21, 2012
 
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it seems we have different perceptions of order. To me, anything that is predictable, is displaying order. To me, order need not have any function. The blue in the flame may serve no purpose, but it is a product of different molecular vibrations absorbing certain frequencies of light and allowing others to pass through, during combustion. All of that depends on the different atoms constituting the molecule, their mass and electronegativity, which is the same everytime. The blue flame is the product of a series of physical and quantum laws, never broken, always observed and obeyed. In other words it is a product of order.

It would burn in that way every single time, and if there was true chaos and randomness, it simply would not do that.
I agree with that. What person familiar with science doesn't?

So I am still amazed that you say that a skeptic attributes observable nature to random chance. That seems like a typical straw man argument that you found in some apologetics resource, and just repeated without thinking about what you were saying.

As best we can tell, all of reality is the result of repeated iterations of four forces on the particle zoo. And we know that such simplicity can generate enormous complexity, as demonstrated by both cellular automata: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomato... , and organic chemistry, where entire families of carbohydrates and lipids are all merely permutations of C, H, and O, and vary in function from energy storage molecules to structural components of cells.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,381 - 35,400 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••