In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 47711 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#36573 Aug 20, 2012
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

#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

#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

#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......

#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

#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

#36579 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.
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......

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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......

#36585 Aug 21, 2012
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......

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36591 Aug 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
You have the whole "God the gaps" argument enfused into you and you are not even aware of it. So you are telling me, that looking for evidence of a god, entails finding a pattern that can only be explained by "positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.". In other words, you are looking for a god of the gaps. As an atheist, you should know how ridiculous it is when theists cannot explain things and conclude "God done it!", and yet that is the same criterion you are using when discussing a god.

"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." - Well this is a first for me. So tell me, how do you approach abiogenesis? All atheists that I know, argue the odds. They argue that the chances of life arising from non life in any particular place are slim, but considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and solar systems, it is hence theoretically possible that at least at some location, life would arise in this way. That is the common atheist argument.

Atheists don't believe that every single event occurs through chance, but they do believe that life arouse on this particular planet as a result of chance. Even though the laws of physics exist throughout this universe, it is at this particular solar system that the laws resulted in creating a planet suitable for life (as far as we know at this point). And even when the chances of life arising from a particular pool are slim, there were many pools, hence increasing the odds in life's favour. Is that not the general atheist argument? Is that not the general atheist belief?

Renowned atheist, Carl Sagan believed that somehow out of the various lifeless complex molecules, at least one molecule would've begun the process of replication, and thereafter evolved from then on. Is that not basically what you believe? You may state abiogenesis as the cause and technically that would be correct, but its evolution right from then on.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#36592 Aug 21, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? There is immense variation from leaf to leaf.
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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?
It is not about anthropomorphic arguments for me. I'm not an animist. Your statements about the growing number of unbelievers, as well as religious rituals and laws are of no relevance to what we are discussing. We are discussing the bottom line: Is there something which has caused and propagates life, or has life happened by a freakish event of the convergence of the laws of the universe suitable for life to form? Were these laws created by some kind of creator, or did they conveniently always exist?

That is the bottom line.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On his 757, Donald Trump dishes about Rand Paul... 2 hr Tazo 1
News What's in a Name? 16 hr Tazo 1
News Media Buzz: Why press should join Jeb and blow ... Thu Le Jimbo 7
News Romney on minimum wage: 'We ought to raise it' (May '14) Thu swedenforever 9
News 'Fear Caucus': Opposing immigration, opposing t... Wed ILLEGALS TERROR 13
News Milbank: Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy May 20 Tmm 1
News Mitt Romney says he is a big fan of vagina at a... (Aug '12) May 19 Tazo 5
More from around the web