Atheists - The new tyranny

[sparklehorse]

From the Mail & Guardian: The new tyranny (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/insight/insight__national/&articleId=309457)

These increasingly hysterical books may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised -- the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition -- but they will do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand
And in reply: Fighting fire with fire (http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=309458&area=/insight/insight__national/)

I already commented on this, not gonna repeat myself:
http://forum.skeptic.za.org/religion-and-philosophy/atheists-the-new-tyranny/0/

[noxibox]

It does not matter if religious people cherish their beliefs. They are not entitled to any specific privilege for their particular fantasy world.

[Tux]

When we were children: "My dad can beat up your dad!"
Now that we're adults: "My god can beat up your god!"

[Pr⊕phet]

when we play pc games: "my weapon is better than your weapon!"

[DarthCat]

Let other people believe what they want to. Dont force your believes on others

[Prometheus]

Harris goes further, concluding that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like the medieval Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we're familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance.

The new atheists aren't interested in this debate; theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding.

But even on the political front, one must question whether their aggression isn't counterproductive. Biologist Robert Winston voiced increasing concern among scientists when he argued that Dawkins's insulting and patronising approach did science a disservice. Meanwhile, American critics argue that the polarisation of the debate in the US is setting back the cause of secularism, rather than advancing it.
lol :D

[Tux]

Dawkins.. He makes a couple of valid points but overall I bin him with the rest of the religious fanatics. That's all that he is. A fanatic.
He's made a religion out of atheism.

[The_Librarian]

Let other people believe what they want to. Dont force your believes on others

Same here.

[noxibox]

I agree that Madeleine Bunting seems to be more concerned with being polite. It also appears that she is misrepresenting the writing of the authors to whom she refers.

[Claymore]

Dawkins.. He makes a couple of valid points but overall I bin him with the rest of the religious fanatics. That's all that he is. A fanatic.
He's made a religion out of atheism.

If you read his stuff or view videos of him, you'll see he's actually a nice, very reasonable, polite guy.

[noxibox]

Dawkins is outspoken. When he thinks something is stupid he doesn't pretend he thinks otherwise.

[cyghost]

If you read his stuff or view videos of him, you'll see he's actually a nice, very reasonable, polite guy.
I agree. I love the dude. Reading his books and have all his you tube movies. And I only discovered him fairly recently. My new hero :p

[FlyingPika]

Let other people believe what they want to. Dont force your believes on others
...unless God tells you to preach the word to all nations and all people.
So apparently you should.

[cyghost]

Does she now?

[DarthCat]

...unless God tells you to preach the word to all nations and all people.
So apparently you should.

Yes. Preach. Not force

[Prometheus]

Dawkins.. He makes a couple of valid points but overall I bin him with the rest of the religious fanatics. That's all that he is. A fanatic.
He's made a religion out of atheism.
Now you see our point.

If you read his stuff or view videos of him, you'll see he's actually a nice, very reasonable, polite guy.
Bullcrap.

Yes. Preach. Not force
Same here.

I see some pattern developing here, the people who are just like Dawkins and jump into an argument with their constant criticisms are the only ones who agree that he is an "okay" person. Meanwhile he is doing exactly what they are accusing religious people of doing.

[PeterCH]

It does not matter if religious people cherish their beliefs. They are not entitled to any specific privilege for their particular fantasy world.

Well it all depends. Depending on what you say you may be sued into eternal debt. Respecting other peoples' beliefs is also what modern civilisation and a free society are based on.
Compulsory institutionalised atheism is just as bad as forced institutionalised religion. People should be free to believe in the tooth-fairy if they want, as long as,
they don't infringe on other peoples' rights.


However I find that some people who are obsessed with religion to be lacking other things in their lives. So why don't you find something interesting in your life,
like maybe a hobby? Or perhaps you could get a second degree or a first
one if you don't have one. It could lead to a better job or at least an improved understanding of the world. I'm sure getting off the religion-bashing-bandwagon will improve the degree of enjoyment of your life. Then again,
you can carry on, it's a free world, and I'm sure there are many pro-atheistic
publications around which will be happy to take your cash. :)

You should realise that most educated and intelligent people don't get involved in internet discussions over religious dogma. Also I hope you know
that your perceptions of reality are based on the relative levels of
dopamine, serotonin, substance P, endorphins, ACTH and numerous
other neurotransmitters found in your brain. What you may think is real,
may in fact be a fantasy. Even with 'normal' levels of the chemicals above,
what is real is based on what the authorities tell you. In the past this was the church, you atheists love to hate :) , now it's pseudo-scientific babble (not refering
to 'evolution' or 'intelligent design' or any other theories here)
which is released by the mainstream media - which itself fails to understand
the science it bases its assertions on. So not to offend you, but maybe a
new hobby? Don't believe in a deity? Fine, we all know. No need to advertise it, we don't really care :). Get a hobby :).

Have a great day! Take care.
:)

[JBFRobisher]

Well it all depends. Depending on what you say you may be sued into eternal debt. Respecting other peoples' beliefs is also what modern civilisation and a free society are based on.

I do not see how you move from what noxibox said to implying that he does not respect beliefs. All he claimed was "no specific privilege", which is about spot on I reckon.




However I find that some people who are obsessed with religion to be lacking other things in their lives. So why don't you find something interesting in your life, like maybe a hobby?

It is noble to fight poppycock.

[Claymore]

Bullcrap.


Everything I've seen of him shows him to be outspoken and straightforward, but polite and well-mannered.

[noxibox]

I do not see how you move from what noxibox said to implying that he does not respect beliefs. All he claimed was "no specific privilege", which is about spot on I reckon.
Respecting beliefs, as in keeping quiet, is nothing more than politically correct multiculturalist nonsense. It is the idea that we shouldn't say anything for fear of offending someone. I absolutely believe in people's right to follow a religion if they wish. But there is no reason we should tiptoe around their religious beliefs or religion anymore than we should tiptoe around other beliefs like crop circles, talking to the dead, etc.

Anyone who wanted to take you to court over calling them on their superstitions would be faced with proving their beliefs true. How often do conmen like John Edwards or Oral Roberts take people to court? John Edwards would get ripped to pieces by even a 10c lawyer. Religion is just another fraud.

My hobbies are clubbing baby seals, making holes in the ozone layer and burning fossil fuels.

[noxibox]

Everything I've seen of him shows him to be outspoken and straightforward, but polite and well-mannered.
Some people obviously interpret not holding your tongue as being rude.

[Alan]

The problem for atheists of the more liberal persuasions at the moment is they are painting the” war on terror” as "Christian right" vs Muslim extremism while they the "peaceful" sane ones watch on from the fence disgusted at what they "see". Unfortunately for them and something they refuse to acknowledge is they are right in the firing lines of the Islamic fanatics. The thought that there is a religious fanatic hell bent on your destruction scares the cr@p out of you lot because the threat it is to your physical comfort and hedonistic urges nevermind your favored tactic of enlightened diplomacy/ dialogue (appeasment)is like taking a small stick to a gun fight.:o.

No you rather believe the two religious nutters fight it out and delude yourself that were you sit "freedom is free". You cower behind intellectual disdain for violence" and demonize anybody who stands up to Islamic extremists as a Christian zealot no different to the violent nutters they are confronting to cover yourself.

Just take a look at the "Christian extremist" state (U.S.A) and compare it to an "Islamic extremist" state and see in which country an Atheist has the most rights.

Sit on the fence where "freedom is free" and claiming chosing either side is
chosing "evil" :rolleyes:

[JBFRobisher]

Respecting beliefs, as in keeping quiet, is nothing more than politically correct multiculturalist nonsense.

OK forget I said anything in your defence!!!!!
:D

[cyghost]

Everything I've seen of him shows him to be outspoken and straightforward, but polite and well-mannered.

I agree 100%. You may not like him or what he has to say, but the man is a gentleman.

[Prometheus]

Everything I've seen of him shows him to be outspoken and straightforward, but polite and well-mannered.
Then please explain to us how saying that religion is a disease that should be eradicated is polite and well-mannered. :rolleyes: He is the disease the bloody *******.

Respecting beliefs, as in keeping quiet, is nothing more than politically correct multiculturalist nonsense. It is the idea that we shouldn't say anything for fear of offending someone. I absolutely believe in people's right to follow a religion if they wish. But there is no reason we should tiptoe around their religious beliefs or religion anymore than we should tiptoe around other beliefs like crop circles, talking to the dead, etc.

Anyone who wanted to take you to court over calling them on their superstitions would be faced with proving their beliefs true. How often do conmen like John Edwards or Oral Roberts take people to court? John Edwards would get ripped to pieces by even a 10c lawyer. Religion is just another fraud.
Don't think your atheist religion fairy tales about apes turning into men should be afforded any special privileges then. :rolleyes: I would like to see someone try to prove John Edward a conman. It would take less than 10 minutes for the judge to no longer be impartial after having his whole past and future laid out for him. The reason these people don't take people to court is because they don't have a need to prove the size of their egos.

My hobbies are clubbing baby seals, making holes in the ozone layer and burning fossil fuels.
Nice example to set for the religious. :rolleyes:

[icyrus]

Then please explain to us how saying that religion is a disease that should be eradicated is polite and well-mannered. :rolleyes: He is the disease the bloody *******.

Don't think your atheist religion fairy tales about apes turning into men should be afforded any special privileges then. :rolleyes: I would like to see someone try to prove John Edward a conman. It would take less than 10 minutes for the judge to no longer be impartial after having his whole past and future laid out for him. The reason these people don't take people to court is because they don't have a need to prove the size of their egos.

Nice example to set for the religious. :rolleyes:

The comedy never stops with this one. You have reached a new level of absurdity. Congratulations, you sure brightened my otherwise dull and dreary day.

[Prometheus]

The comedy never stops with this one. You have reached a new level of absurdity. Congratulations, you sure brightened my otherwise dull and dreary day.
LMFAO, oh the irony. :D

[Claymore]

Then please explain to us how saying that religion is a disease that should be eradicated is polite and well-mannered. :rolleyes: He is the disease the bloody *******.

Because you don't like what he is saying doesn't make him impolite or unpleasant.


I would like to see someone try to prove John Edward a conman. It would take less than 10 minutes for the judge to no longer be impartial after having his whole past and future laid out for him. The reason these people don't take people to court is because they don't have a need to prove the size of their egos.

Mwahaha! Any competent magician can do what John Edwards does! James Randi is still waiting for John Edwards....there's a million bucks ready.

[Prometheus]

Because you don't like what he is saying doesn't make him impolite or unpleasant.
It's about respect for people with different opinions than you, something which he and lizardman certainly don't have.

Mwahaha! Any competent magician can do what John Edwards does! James Randi is still waiting for John Edwards....there's a million bucks ready.
Please bring the magician you mention then if you are so sure. :rolleyes:

[Claymore]

It's about respect for people with different opinions than you, something which he and lizardman certainly don't have.

If everyone said nothing out of respect for *someone* who might be offended, the world would be a quiet place.

Who on earth is lizardman?


Please bring the magician you mention then if you are so sure. :rolleyes:

James Randi - and any other magician practiced in cold-reading. The techniques are rather well known; people remember the "hits" and not all the "misses".

Do you think all the guys doing the same "clairvoyant medium" thing are genuine, or only the ones who say they are?

[Nanfeishen]

Respecting beliefs, as in keeping quiet, is nothing more than politically correct multiculturalist nonsense. It is the idea that we shouldn't say anything for fear of offending someone. I absolutely believe in people's right to follow a religion if they wish. But there is no reason we should tiptoe around their religious beliefs or religion anymore than we should tiptoe around other beliefs like crop circles, talking to the dead, etc.

So true:
Respect is earned , not given by default.
I respect peoples right to believe what they want , but if i disagree, i have the right to do so, and they have the right to counter my disagreement, it is called a discussion.
This whole orwellian nightmare called Political correctness, is nothing more than intolerance and stupidity, disguised as compassionate liberalism.
Dont say this, Dont say that, You may offend someone, argh shame.
How the hell are we supposed to oppose peoples thought and views in life if we are going to tiptoe around sensitivities constantly?
Are we just meant to shut up because someone may be "sensistive", or "have their feelings hurt"?
Bulldust!
It is the total erosion of free speach, when one cannot state an opinion or thought on an issue or person without being labelled politically incorrect.

Political Correctness:

An essentially meaningless but politically coded term used to reflexively discredit meaningful discussion of race, gender, sexuality, religion and class, without substantively engaging in the debate.

If that is the case, it puts a stop to any discusion of philosophy, as that would be politically incorrect.
Respect peoples beliefs, no matter how different or opposing, but speak up if you disagree, its your right.
Otherwise we spiral into oppression of thought and speech, the first step to tyranny.

[cyghost]

Religionists very clearly state that if you don't believe as they do, you are doomed. (well, at least the two biggest ones does)

If they are able to say that without being disrespectful to others then saying religion should be dealt away with should have the same connotation.

[sparklehorse]

I respect peoples right to believe what they want , but if i disagree, i have the right to do so, and they have the right to counter my disagreement, it is called a discussion.
Yeah, people have the right to believe what they want - even if it's stupid ;)

I think people are offended by other's ideas and questions because they feel insecure about it. They suspect it does not add up, and may even have asked the same questions of their beliefs, but swept it under the rug. It's easier if you're not reminded of that by people that don't share your beliefs - and so by asking people to 'respect their beliefs', they are really just asking to be left alone and not be reminded of their own doubt.

This is why most atheist/freethinkers aren't offended easily. They have given great thought to their beliefs and are more secure in the knowledge that they are true.

So bring it on. Write jokes about my beliefs. Ridicule my ideas. Point out the errors in my arguments. Chances are, you won't have much to say that I haven't heard before - and if you do, I will only be offended by your stupidity.
In short, I am not afraid of people questioning my beliefs, because if they can stand up to those questions, I'm more certain they are true.

[Nanfeishen]

Religionists very clearly state that if you don't believe as they do, you are doomed. (well, at least the two biggest ones does)
If they are able to say that without being disrespectful to others then saying religion should be dealt away with should have the same connotation.

By stating that others are doomed , they are being disrespectful of others beliefs, it lends itself to vanity and supposed superiority.
Therefore those who say that, dont deserve respect, respect is earned by respect for others.

[Nanfeishen]

Yeah, people have the right to believe what they want - even if it's stupid ;)

Who are we to judge something that provides a person with spiritual ease to be stupid?
"Judge not, lest ye be willing to be judged"

[BeVonk!]

The Christain FAITH perspective ...

2 Cor 5:7 (Amplified): "For we walk by faith [we regulate our lives and conduct ourselves by our conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, with trust and holy fervor; thus we walk] not by sight {or} appearance."

The important word is "faith" ... which means we believe things that will look foolish to outsiders ... and that cannot be scientifically proven. I have made peace with this. My faith has taken me byond the analytical mindset into the spiritual realm. Call me crazy, call me stupid, call me what you like ... I'm a Jesus Freak.

[Tux]

The Christain FAITH perspective ...

2 Cor 5:7 (Amplified): "For we walk by faith [we regulate our lives and conduct ourselves by our conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, with trust and holy fervor; thus we walk] not by sight {or} appearance."

The important word is "faith" ... which means we believe things that will look foolish to outsiders ... and that cannot be scientifically proven. I have made peace with this. My faith has taken me byond the analytical mindset into the spiritual realm. Call me crazy, call me stupid, call me what you like ... I'm a Jesus Freak.

I can respect somebody that's willing to stand up for his faith AND debate about it sensibly. Just because I do not respect some of the adherents does not mean I do not respect your faith, even if it's misguided from my viewpoint

[sparklehorse]

Who are we to judge something that provides a person with spiritual ease to be stupid?
"Judge not, lest ye be willing to be judged"And as I said, I'm not afraid of being judged ;)

But I agree, something that 'provides a person with spiritual ease' is mostly harmless and not necessarily stupid. But that's not always the case.

I think this is stupid:


2 Cor 5:7 (Amplified): "For we walk by faith [we regulate our lives and conduct ourselves by our conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, with trust and holy fervor; thus we walk] not by sight {or} appearance."

The important word is "faith" ... which means we believe things that will look foolish to outsiders ... and that cannot be scientifically proven. I have made peace with this. My faith has taken me byond the analytical mindset into the spiritual realm. Call me crazy, call me stupid, call me what you like ... I'm a Jesus Freak.
...using a bible verse to explain why you believe in that bible verse. Trust me, because I said so, and you trust me right?

I can't respect that logic.

[sparklehorse]

I can respect somebody that's willing to stand up for his faith AND debate about it sensibly. Just because I do not respect some of the adherents does not mean I do not respect your faith, even if it's misguided from my viewpointI agree. And if you have a good reason for that faith (preferably with some evidence) you will have even more respect from me.

[Tux]

If they had evidence then it wouldnt be faith, then it would be History or Science
What they believe in is their right, what grates my carrot is these fsckers who profess to believe, try to ram their viewpoint down your throat, without having the decency to listen to your viewpoint as well

[BeVonk!]

If they had evidence then it wouldnt be faith, then it would be History or Science
What they believe in is their right, what grates my carrot is these fsckers who profess to believe, try to ram their viewpoint down your throat, without having the decency to listen to your viewpoint as well

I agree Gru, no-one should force his/her beliefs onto anyone (including Atheism) - and one must be willing to listen to another's perspective to be eligible to make a statement.

[BeVonk!]

...using a bible verse to explain why you believe in that bible verse. Trust me, because I said so, and you trust me right?

I can't respect that logic.

You may not respect my beliefs but I expect you to respect me and my right to believe what I want.

Surely if my FAITH is based on the Bible I have the right to use a verse from it to state my beliefs/perspective/worldview. Your reaction is based on me providing my perspective from that which I build my perspective on. You are so fast to attack that you lost the plot altogether.

[Tux]

You may not respect my beliefs but I expect you to respect me and my right to believe what I want.

Surely if my FAITH is based on the Bible I have the right to use a verse from it to state my beliefs/perspective/worldview. Your reaction is based on me providing my perspective from that which I build my perspective on. You are so fast to attack that you lost the plot altogether.

Are you willing to respect my faith, or lack of it?
Are you willing to accept the fact that I do not believe in your bible as a gateway to heaven? I do agree with some of the morality stuff in it, but that's common to most religions and that I can respect because I live according to a similar set of values

[BeVonk!]

Are you willing to respect my faith, or lack of it?
Are you willing to accept the fact that I do not believe in your bible as a gateway to heaven? I do agree with some of the morality stuff in it, but that's common to most religions and that I can respect because I live according to a similar set of values

I do respect you and your beliefs yes (believing that there is no God is also a belief).

A comment ... Atheists may lack faith in my Faith, but I contend that faith is also required to believe in makro evolution (for example) as there are missing links there that requires a leap of faith also - just like in my Faith. People may claim they have no beliefs and no faith - and follow "science" and "logic" only - but I disagree - believing that we are all believers making a leap of faith somewhere somehow.

[Tux]

I do respect you and your beliefs yes (believing that there is no God is also a belief).

A comment ... Atheists may lack faith in my Faith, but I contend that faith is also required to believe in makro evolution (for example) as there are missing links there that requires a leap of faith also - just like in my Faith. People may claim they have no beliefs and no faith - and follow "science" and "logic" only - but I disagree - believing that we are all believers making a leap of faith somewhere somehow.

I can live with that

[Prometheus]

If everyone said nothing out of respect for *someone* who might be offended, the world would be a quiet place.
No one said anything about keeping quiet but there are clearly limits which you yourself would invoke. You don't see us saying that muslims are a bunch of fanatics hell bent on destroying the world because we know better.

Who on earth is lizardman?
The man who received a standing ovation for suggesting that 90% of the human race be exterminated in the most horrible manner known to mankind. These are the people who claim that science should be self regulating and not interfered with from the outside.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555

James Randi - and any other magician practiced in cold-reading. The techniques are rather well known; people remember the "hits" and not all the "misses".
Nobody mentioned cold reading.

Do you think all the guys doing the same "clairvoyant medium" thing are genuine, or only the ones who say they are?
I think their records speaks for itself.

[sparklehorse]

You may not respect my beliefs but I expect you to respect me and my right to believe what I want.

Surely if my FAITH is based on the Bible I have the right to use a verse from it to state my beliefs/perspective/worldview. Your reaction is based on me providing my perspective from that which I build my perspective on. You are so fast to attack that you lost the plot altogether.Where did I not respect your beliefs? Or by respecting your beliefs, do you mean that I can't say anything negative about it? And of course you have every right to quote the bible or believe what you want. I wont stop you. Just like I have every right to think it's stupid and every right to say so. It's not your belief or faith I have a problem with, it's the reasons and the arguments you use to validate them that is, well, unconvincing.


I do respect you and your beliefs yes (believing that there is no God is also a belief).

A comment ... Atheists may lack faith in my Faith, but I contend that faith is also required to believe in makro evolution (for example) as there are missing links there that requires a leap of faith also - just like in my Faith. People may claim they have no beliefs and no faith - and follow "science" and "logic" only - but I disagree - believing that we are all believers making a leap of faith somewhere somehow.Please go read this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
Atheism is not believing that there is no God. You are right. That would also be a faith based belief not a belief based on evidence. Whereas macroevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#Criticisms_of_macroevolution) would be a belief based on evidence and not faith.

There simply is no evidence for or against God. So I can't believe that she does exist. And I can't believe that she does not exist. (unless I have faith :D )

[sparklehorse]

The man who received a standing ovation for suggesting that 90% of the human race be exterminated in the most horrible manner known to mankind. These are the people who claim that science should be self regulating and not interfered with from the outside.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555
A slightly less biased account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy

[Prometheus]

If they are able to say that without being disrespectful to others then saying religion should be dealt away with should have the same connotation.
Then why not say that atheism should be dealt away with?

Yeah, people have the right to believe what they want - even if it's stupid ;)

I think this is stupid:

...using a bible verse to explain why you believe in that bible verse. Trust me, because I said so, and you trust me right?

I can't respect that logic.
And who says what you believe isn't stupis? Just because some scientists have explained things to you doesn't make them right and everyone else wrong. You assume there is something as an objective reality but use subjectives to prove it. Your criteria are not the only through which the world works.

Where did I not respect your beliefs? Or by respecting your beliefs, do you mean that I can't say anything negative about it? And of course you have every right to quote the bible or believe what you want. I wont stop you. Just like I have every right to think it's stupid and every right to say so. It's not your belief or faith I have a problem with, it's the reasons and the arguments you use to validate them that is, well, unconvincing.
What makes you think that your reasons and arguments are convincing to someone else?

A slightly less biased account:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy
Then you wouldn't mind explaining his statements. That war and famine would not solve the population crisis but that disease would be the most efficient and fastest way and that because fossil fuels are running out we would have to cut back to 2 billion.

Then there is the nail in the coffin about "speaking to the converted" and turning off the cameras. Hundreds of people have spoken about doomsday scenarios, why would this require any special treatment because "the general public isn't ready to hear it". Three professors dismissed him as a crank and a dozen more students expressed outrage over his speech.

And "IQs are falling for the same reason too."? Where is the data to back this assertion up?

[Prometheus]

I can live with that
Then why don't your actions on the forum support that?

[BeVonk!]

Atheism is not believing that there is no God. You are right. That would also be a faith based belief not a belief based on evidence. Whereas macroevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution#Criticisms_of_macroevolution) would be a belief based on evidence and not faith.

1) Are you yourself not confusing agnosticism and atheism? My understanding is that an agnostic claims not to be sure about the existense of God (a god/gods) ... as opposed to an atheist that actually believe that there is no God (gods). You sound more agnostic than atheistic.

2) If macroevolution is a belief purely based on evidence, and that is what you prefer, then you better be 100% sure that the evidence available have no missing parts ... else the consequences could be dire. Last time I checked the evidence for macroevolution also required a bit of faith to cover a few missing links.

Sparklehorse, the bottom line - as I see it - is that I have absolutely nothing to lose if you end up being correct. You, on the other hand will be the one in trouble if I end up being correct. So, between you and me, I see myself as the one in the better position. And on top of that ... my Faith brings me inner-peace and much joy ... so why not?

[BeVonk!]

Then why don't your actions on the forum support that?

I take Gru's comment in a positive spirit - making discourse here far more tolerant.

[ghoti]

Then you wouldn't mind explaining his statements. That war and famine would not solve the population crisis but that disease would be the most efficient and fastest way and that because fossil fuels are running out we would have to cut back to 2 billion.


from the wiki link, direct to you:

In early March 2006 the Texas Academy of Science (TAS) honored University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka as its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist during its 109th Annual Meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. In a March 3, 2006 lecture at this 109th Annual Meeting, Pianka suggested that the human population is likely to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) is a possible culprit[1]. In response to Pianka's speech, Forrest Mims states that Pianka had "endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus.[2] This report was reported in prisonplanet.com. [3] and also widely propagated through blogs including William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" and "Telic Thoughts" (another pro-intelligent design blog which has since recanted its original report[4]), Drudge Report and the Discovery Institute[5]—the hub of the intelligent design movement and at which both Mims and Dembski sit as fellows.[6] Dembski has also said that he has reported Pianka to the United States Department of Homeland Security.[7]

The March 3, 2006 talk given by Pianka is one that he calls his "doomsday talk". A recording was made of Pianka's delivery of his "doomsday talk" at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas, and a transcript of this talk later was made public.[8] Both Mim's original report[9] and the TAS response statement of April 4, 2006[10] were based upon the March 3, 2006 instance of Pianka's "doomsday talk". The TAS statement said that "many of Dr. Pianka's statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized". Although no public record exists of Pianka's full March 3, 2006 lecture, there is nothing to suggest that the St. Edwards talk is different.


And "IQs are falling for the same reason too."? Where is the data to back this assertion up?

They are not falling. They are increasing my 3% every 10 years.

[Claymore]

A comment ... Atheists may lack faith in my Faith, but I contend that faith is also required to believe in makro evolution (for example) as there are missing links there that requires a leap of faith also - just like in my Faith.

A question: what do you do with the "gaps" every time one of the "missing links" is found? What will you do when you run out of gaps?

BTW, there are certainly gaps in the fossil record, massive gaps, due to the extreme rarity of fossils forming. This doesn't apply to molecular genetics though...

[Claymore]

Then why not say that atheism should be dealt away with?

Many people say that already, including then-Vide-President George H W Bush: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

[Claymore]

No one said anything about keeping quiet but there are clearly limits which you yourself would invoke. You don't see us saying that muslims are a bunch of fanatics hell bent on destroying the world because we know better.

Who is "we"? I don't think you're representative; look at many of the statements made in the US press, for example.


Nobody mentioned cold reading.

I did; that is, after all, how it's done (if not warm reading).


I think their records speaks for itself.

Indeed. Self-admitted entertainers are as accurate as those who claim to be genuine.

[Tux]

Then why don't your actions on the forum support that?

This is normally wher i'd give you a snotty answer, but let me try and explain it to you.

I love debating with people. A debate where both parties voice their opinions and state their facts. Yes it gets quite vocal, but both of them have a point to make, not just "impossible!" or "You're lieing" without anything to back up their statements with. Now I'm not pointing fingers at you specifically, but yes, you're prone to doing exactly that. Argue for the sake of argueing without have an actual viewpoint. Now once you can understand that then that statement of mine will become clear to you

[sparklehorse]

1) Are you yourself not confusing agnosticism and atheism? My understanding is that an agnostic claims not to be sure about the existense of God (a god/gods) ... as opposed to an atheist that actually believe that there is no God (gods). You sound more agnostic than atheistic.
Not exactly. I would consider myself a weak atheist. ;)
From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html :

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."

Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God.Please go read more at that link.



2) If macroevolution is a belief purely based on evidence, and that is what you prefer, then you better be 100% sure that the evidence available have no missing parts ... else the consequences could be dire. Last time I checked the evidence for macroevolution also required a bit of faith to cover a few missing links.Maybe, but if I had to put my faith in something, I would rather put it in something that has some evidence behind it as opposed to something that has no evidence at all. And why does it have to be 100% complete? If you build a puzzle and half way through you can see it's a kitten, what will you think of someone that says it's a tree, and that you should wait until it's 100% complete before you can say for certain that it's a kitten. Not to mention that if you discard something because it's not 100%, you still have to explain away the parts that you did find. The sheer amount of evidence for evolution in general is too much to simple discard because it's 'incomplete'.


Sparklehorse, the bottom line - as I see it - is that I have absolutely nothing to lose if you end up being correct. You, on the other hand will be the one in trouble if I end up being correct. So, between you and me, I see myself as the one in the better position. And on top of that ... my Faith brings me inner-peace and much joy ... so why not?Ah, Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Atheist.27s_Wager).
But it's not true that you have nothing to lose. What if you only have this life to live? Would you spend it chasing after something you have no evidence for? I can't do that.
I find infinitely more inner-peace and joy by knowing that all my beliefs are based on solid evidence. I don't have to base my beliefs on something as flimsy and unpredictable as faith.

[BeVonk!]

I would rather put it in something that has some evidence behind it as opposed to something that has no evidence at all.

So there is abosultely no evidence for what is contained in the Bible?


If you build a puzzle and half way through you can see it's a kitten, what will you think of someone that says it's a tree, and that you should wait until it's 100% complete before you can say for certain that it's a kitten.

This argument can be used by both sides. Christians can and do use the same argument about putting pieces of a puzzle together to see God. I can see God by looking at all the pieces, but you will not be happy until the whole picture is complete in front of you and comes to life and shouts "Hey there Sparkles, God here ..." :)


The sheer amount of evidence for evolution in general is too much to simple discard because it's 'incomplete'.

If the evidence provided to date for macroevolution makes you happy then that's fine for you. If the large jumps in evidence works for you then great for you. Lucky me, I live by faith and am not tied down by the demands for materialistic evidence only. I find "evidence" in things byond the materialistic also.


But it's not true that you have nothing to lose. What if you only have this life to live? Would you spend it chasing after something you have no evidence for? I can't do that.

It is true - I really have nothing to lose. I live a full life. I'm not wasting time chasing after useless persuits. The biggest waste of my time may be MyADSL forum activities :). Evidence? As I said before I live by faith, and I'm 100% content to do so. You choose what works for you - and I do the same.


I find infinitely more inner-peace and joy by knowing that all my beliefs are based on solid evidence. I don't have to base my beliefs on something as flimsy and unpredictable as faith.

As I said, if your current position works for you then great for you. I will go easy with that "solid evidence" part however. I have moved byond the materialistic into the spiritual (that to me is far more satisfying). Experienced from the inside my Faith is definitely not flimsy. At times unpredictable yes, but hey, that's life ... and it makes life interesting and fun.

[BeVonk!]

A question: what do you do with the "gaps" every time one of the "missing links" is found? What will you do when you run out of gaps?

Run out of gaps? Never. What is the actual succes rate of filling those missing links in macroevolution (excluding the frauds)? In the absense of a complete line of reliable macroevolution evidence I contend that faith is also here in action. I will happily accept macroevolution if the complete line is presented to me ... but you know what ... that still wouldn't be proof that God doesn't exist.

[Claymore]

Run out of gaps? Never. What is the actual succes rate of filling those missing links in macroevolution (excluding the frauds)? In the absense of a complete line of reliable macroevolution evidence I contend that faith is also here in action. I will happily accept macroevolution if the complete line is presented to me ... but you know what ... that still wouldn't be proof that God doesn't exist.

No, it wouldn't be proof that God doesn't exist. But a lot of people seem to be pinning their belief in God on supposed gaps in the fossil record. As those gaps get filled (and they do), where does that belief in God go?

BTW, this whole "macroevolution vs microevolution" thing is generally used only by creationists. Scientists have moved on from there. If you want proof, go and read up on molecular biology and genetics; that's where the primary evidence lies. Fossils are handy, but they *corroborate* the molecular evidence.

[Albereth]

I must be so special in that my faith is undaunted by whatever arguements may be thrown up either for or against the existence of God. This isn't to say that I don't have my own turmoils - just that they're mine.

But that's what it's about - your personal relationship or lack thereof.

Go with whatever works for you.

[Claymore]

I must be so special in that my faith is undaunted by whatever arguements may be thrown up either for or against the existence of God. This isn't to say that I don't have my own turmoils - just that they're mine.

But that's what it's about - your personal relationship or lack thereof.

Go with whatever works for you.

That seems like the most reasonable thing to me.

[Prometheus]

from the wiki link, direct to you:

In early March 2006 the Texas Academy of Science (TAS) honored University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka as its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist during its 109th Annual Meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. In a March 3, 2006 lecture at this 109th Annual Meeting, Pianka suggested that the human population is likely to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) is a possible culprit[1]. In response to Pianka's speech, Forrest Mims states that Pianka had "endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus.[2] This report was reported in prisonplanet.com. [3] and also widely propagated through blogs including William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" and "Telic Thoughts" (another pro-intelligent design blog which has since recanted its original report[4]), Drudge Report and the Discovery Institute[5]—the hub of the intelligent design movement and at which both Mims and Dembski sit as fellows.[6] Dembski has also said that he has reported Pianka to the United States Department of Homeland Security.[7]

The March 3, 2006 talk given by Pianka is one that he calls his "doomsday talk". A recording was made of Pianka's delivery of his "doomsday talk" at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas, and a transcript of this talk later was made public.[8] Both Mim's original report[9] and the TAS response statement of April 4, 2006[10] were based upon the March 3, 2006 instance of Pianka's "doomsday talk". The TAS statement said that "many of Dr. Pianka's statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized". Although no public record exists of Pianka's full March 3, 2006 lecture, there is nothing to suggest that the St. Edwards talk is different.



They are not falling. They are increasing my 3% every 10 years.
So you agree that he makes statements without backing them up. And this is a [-]scientist[/-] man that gets a standing ovation from his audience, for making things up.

Who is "we"? I don't think you're representative; look at many of the statements made in the US press, for example.



I did; that is, after all, how it's done (if not warm reading).



Indeed. Self-admitted entertainers are as accurate as those who claim to be genuine.
I would like to see the research to back that up.

This is normally wher i'd give you a snotty answer, but let me try and explain it to you.

I love debating with people. A debate where both parties voice their opinions and state their facts. Yes it gets quite vocal, but both of them have a point to make, not just "impossible!" or "You're lieing" without anything to back up their statements with. Now I'm not pointing fingers at you specifically, but yes, you're prone to doing exactly that. Argue for the sake of argueing without have an actual viewpoint. Now once you can understand that then that statement of mine will become clear to you
Ok, you see that is the part I don't get. You say you like debating with people where both sides state their opinions and facts, but then from personal experience you do exactly the opposite and jump in with the people that do exactly the opposite against the people who can back up their viewpoint even if it is not yours.

Maybe, but if I had to put my faith in something, I would rather put it in something that has some evidence behind it as opposed to something that has no evidence at all. And why does it have to be 100% complete? If you build a puzzle and half way through you can see it's a kitten, what will you think of someone that says it's a tree, and that you should wait until it's 100% complete before you can say for certain that it's a kitten. Not to mention that if you discard something because it's not 100%, you still have to explain away the parts that you did find. The sheer amount of evidence for evolution in general is too much to simple discard because it's 'incomplete'.
Ah, Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Atheist.27s_Wager).
But it's not true that you have nothing to lose. What if you only have this life to live? Would you spend it chasing after something you have no evidence for? I can't do that.
I find infinitely more inner-peace and joy by knowing that all my beliefs are based on solid evidence. I don't have to base my beliefs on something as flimsy and unpredictable as faith.
The sheer amount of evidence you are pointing to is an incomplete fossil record around which a hypothesis was built. You yourself would have to admit that this is largely incomplete. This is very convenient as no one can either prove or disprove it. Just because many believe it does not make it any more "complete" than it really is in reality. When there are many explanations for something you can't consider any one of them more plausable by using that same thing as your evidence.

As for a wasted life, I wouldn't call it that, far from it. If it turns out I am wrong I would not have wasted it and would be remembered by a lot more people than would otherwise be the case. On the other hand all I have gotten since joining this forum from people who believe otherwise are insults and disregard for me and my believes. People who build their lives around what other people think and say rather than around themselves and spend more time trying to discredit others rather than building on their own incomplete theories. That seems like a real wasted life to me. My life is complete, I don't need others to make it complete.

No, it wouldn't be proof that God doesn't exist. But a lot of people seem to be pinning their belief in God on supposed gaps in the fossil record. As those gaps get filled (and they do), where does that belief in God go?

BTW, this whole "macroevolution vs microevolution" thing is generally used only by creationists. Scientists have moved on from there. If you want proof, go and read up on molecular biology and genetics; that's where the primary evidence lies. Fossils are handy, but they *corroborate* the molecular evidence.
That is true. Scientists have moved on from macroevolution vs microevolution. The biggest surprise however is that the question of whether a bunch of minute changes can in reality result in such large required changes has never been answered. It is simply taken as a huge leap of faith that it can without asking further questions.

[cyghost]

hey Prom, long time :D

[Tassidar]

No one said anything about keeping quiet but there are clearly limits which you yourself would invoke. You don't see us saying that muslims are a bunch of fanatics hell bent on destroying the world because we know better.

The man who received a standing ovation for suggesting that 90% of the human race be exterminated in the most horrible manner known to mankind. These are the people who claim that science should be self regulating and not interfered with from the outside.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555

Nobody mentioned cold reading.

I think their records speaks for itself.

I have read the text of Vanishing book of life (http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio373/Vanishing.Book.pdf), and have to say that I strongly agree with what he is saying. No, he is not advocating killing 90% of the population, but he is saying that unless the population is controlled, we will face a major crisis.

To back up this argument:
Arctic Ice sinks to record low (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12724-arctic-ice-shrinks-to-record-low.html)
Superbug Scare in the Community (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526231.500-superbugs-scare-in-the-community.html)
This article is only available to subscribers but details the spread of extreme drug resident (XDRs) bacteria from hospitals into communities.

Other sources which back up this argument:
(1) The coming plague by Laurie Garrett
(2) The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight - Tom Hartmann
(3) When the Rivers Run Dry - Fred Pearce
(4) The Last Generation - Fred Pearce

Slowly but surely the argument for population control is moving into the mainstream, as the only way of ensuring that the earth remains sustainable.

I will be happy to elaborate on these arguments for anybody who wishes.

[Fearisgood]

BTW, this whole "macroevolution vs microevolution" thing is generally used only by creationists. Scientists have moved on from there. If you want proof, go and read up on molecular biology and genetics; that's where the primary evidence lies.
Here read: Morris SC. Evolution: bringing molecules into the fold. Cell. 2000 Jan 7;100(1):1-11.

Macroevolution: What Hope for Neo-Darwinism?
...The dramatic effects of ectopic expression of genes such as Pax-6, combined with the apparent ease of radical reconfigurations of body architecture by misexpression of homeotic genes, especially in the arthropods, would seem to open a rich field of macroevolutionary possibilities. This, in turn, invites renewed interest in earlier speculations on saltatory modes of Hox evolution, sometimes encapsulated in the concept of “hopeful monsters,” championed by such individuals as Richard Goldschmidt and Otto Schindewolf. Among molecular biologists, interest in such a program has been muted. There are, however, some exceptions, such as the overview offered by Schwartz (1999), which proposes that macroevolutionary jumps should be placed in the context of both developmental genetics and the supposed absence of intermediates connecting body plans from the fossil record. Schwartz’s views can be summarized by a brief quotation from his book Sudden Origins (p. 369), in which his thesis “demonstrates how a mutation involving the expression of homeobox genes can produce a morphological, physiological, or behavioral novelty that would emerge in a full blown and viable state.” Continuing along this macroevolutionary theme, he then writes: “There would not have been a string of graded morphological intermediates, . . . [so] we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist.” This seems, however, to be a misreading of the available evidence. Homeotic and other developmental genes do not float in of a kind of limbo ready for macroevolutionary adventures, but are intimately tied to complex gene networks that lead to the ordered end-product, such as the eye...
Count "macroevolutionary"
Have scientists moved on since? Who said so?


Fossils are handy, but they *corroborate* the molecular evidence. Off course with a substantial amount of ad hoc arguments, everything can be "corroborated".

[ghoti]

erm.. macro evolution... yeah... LOL. neo-darwnism.. yeah.. LOL... darn this is funny *****. One day some people will get a clue.. just in this country it comes very very slowly. I sometime wonder if we are a genetic dumping ground for all races.. but then I look at Australia and I feel better.