No, I am speaking out for all those believers you have insulted. Saying some beliefs are silly can be insulting to those who believe that belief. Of course you can respect the belief. I respect what (eg.) Buddhism can bring the world or what Islam can teach.
Like you said, "If you personally feel insulted because someone challenges your beliefs then they must be very fragile."
Note, evolution started as a belief and was later proven possible though still with some doubts.
Like you said, "If you personally feel insulted because someone challenges your beliefs then they must be very fragile."
Note, evolution started as a belief and was later proven possible though still with some doubts.
Darwinian said:
I have highlighted your personalization. Here is the amended version:
That includes words which refer to specific people, which are the creationists. Us. If you are tired with arguing with the ignorant creationists, then I find that quite offensive.
Watch Me Sink
Madly Diligent
I would argue with your post, but the complete ignorance of your stereotype of Christians is insulting to me and my beliefs. Thus, this will be my last post on this topic.Darwinian said:
As an analogy:
I refuse to argue with pure-evolutionists because that's like arguing with people that deny the Halocaust.
fantanoice
Madly Diligent
You're kidding, right? The former believes the truth (or as close to the truth as we know in this point in time) while the latter believes a lie. Debating with creationalists is closer to debating with those that deny the holocaust because they're both based on BS.
Kirisute Gomen said:
This reminds me of a quote attributed to Stephen Fry. So you're insulted, so f***ing what?
Religion and the beliefs that it engenders have had far too much of a privileged position in society and it's about time they where challenged just like any other area of life, especially when they seek to control and influence the lives of everyone else. If we had been talking about political parties and I had said the same things about that then no-one in their right mind would have been insulted. But because it's religion somehow we all have to show great respect and walk on egg shells for fear of upsetting those who believe because somehow they're special.
If you personally feel insulted because I imply that your faith is stupid, dangerous and has held back progress and discovery for over 1000 years and has caused and still causes pain, misery, suffering and personal anguish for countless millions then you're the one with the problem.
dotDavid said:
No. There is absolutely no need, nor any evidence to suggest that life on Earth was designed by an all powerful deity.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
dotDavid said:
I don't know. There was certainly a point at which the current universe came into existence along with the laws of physics, space and perhaps time because everything that can be observed clearly demonstrates this.
Whether it was a rapidly expanding singularity some 13.7 billion years ago or colliding membranes I'm not sure.
One thing I believe is if their is a god, he certainly wouldn't recognise himself from reading the Bible.
The Bible is still evidence. You really don't think that 67 or so stories coincidentally talked about the same person and/or story, where each chapter was written by someone different, or written at different times? Its like saying I choose 50 random people of the world and write about an amazing story relating to one man, and then I collate them together to only realize they were talking about the same person. That is evidence.
As for the second one, atheism is based around science, so tell me why you can't come, or anyone scientist can come to a definite answer? Didn't think you could answer that. Therefore what ever happened back then "could" be because of a supernatural being, ie. God, and yet you say they can't coincide. Something in your line of argument just doesn't fit in for every natural cause.
Since you are a pure-atheist, you can't make an honest claim about God that is valid.
As for the second one, atheism is based around science, so tell me why you can't come, or anyone scientist can come to a definite answer? Didn't think you could answer that. Therefore what ever happened back then "could" be because of a supernatural being, ie. God, and yet you say they can't coincide. Something in your line of argument just doesn't fit in for every natural cause.
Since you are a pure-atheist, you can't make an honest claim about God that is valid.
dotDavid said:
Second one first.
Firstly, atheism simply means a lack of belief in god or gods, nothing else.
As for science. I am the first to admit that it doesn't know everything, that's why it's so fascinating and when it does come up against a problem it searches for an answer. Nothing in science is ever truly known as science works on theories that are either supported with the current evidence or not and if new evidence is found that disproves a theory then we must change the theory and not the evidence but we will have learned something in the process.
Religion is quite the opposite. You start with a theory (or revealed truth as you call it) and then if evidence is found to challenge that truth the evidence is twisted or even disregarded to protect your original starting point.
You are quite right when you imply or suggest that science doesn't know how the universe got here or even how the first life form arose from lifeless chemicals but neither do you. And to simply say that 'God Did It' isn't at all helpful, answers nothing and poses more questions that by very definition can never be answered. This is a classic example of 'The God Of The Gaps'
As for your first point. Presumably you're talking about Jesus and if so, it's pretty much accepted that all these stories were written decades after his death by people who had never met him and inspired by a hallucination of Paul. In the intervening years between his death and Pauls letters there is not one single mention of him. It's as if he only became 'real' 30 - 40 years after he is supposed to have died.
This makes me very suspicious and will go so far as to say I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Jesus story was dreamed up by Paul and at the very least, the real Jesus's life has been grossly exaggerated, if he existed at all.
However, my knowledge of biblical history is somewhat limited and so, like any good scientist, I'm quite ready consider other evidence.
Your point about science isn't always true. Sometimes in science, you need theories to make up new theories to explain things. By using theories to talk for other theories isn't any worse than your claims.
Who said religion was a theory? Its a belief and to call it a theory is just like saying your belief in atheism is a theory. Theory is very bad and nontechnical way to put religion.
If science can't explain where the universe came from, at least accept people's belief in a God etc. At least they won't be pointlessly searching for an answer which will most likely never be found.
Your point on "hallucination of Paul" is invalid without evidence. Link please, or religions people who have accepted that?
To say that the Bible was made by one man is ridiculing Christianity. Its again like saying Darwin brainwashed others, and rigged the world so that evidence would point to one conclusion and not the other.
Note: I do believe in evolution, to some extent. I don't ever relate religion and science in the same room. Whatever the evidence is, I analyse and find the truth. I'm guessing you assume I know nothing about science, when for the past 5 years, science has been in my everyday life, full of research.
Who said religion was a theory? Its a belief and to call it a theory is just like saying your belief in atheism is a theory. Theory is very bad and nontechnical way to put religion.
If science can't explain where the universe came from, at least accept people's belief in a God etc. At least they won't be pointlessly searching for an answer which will most likely never be found.
Your point on "hallucination of Paul" is invalid without evidence. Link please, or religions people who have accepted that?
To say that the Bible was made by one man is ridiculing Christianity. Its again like saying Darwin brainwashed others, and rigged the world so that evidence would point to one conclusion and not the other.
Note: I do believe in evolution, to some extent. I don't ever relate religion and science in the same room. Whatever the evidence is, I analyse and find the truth. I'm guessing you assume I know nothing about science, when for the past 5 years, science has been in my everyday life, full of research.
dotDavid said:
And this is the point. An example of religion stopping people from asking questions and searching for the answers. Believe what you're told and don't think!
I didn't say the Bible was the work of one man. I suggested that Christianity all stems from the 'visions' of Paul and may have no basis in reality.
Anyway, I think I'll leave it here as neither of us is going to budge an inch. If you'd like to have a more in depth debate about all this then I invite you to join atheistforums.org which, unlike the name suggests, has a surprisingly large number of intelligent, thoughtful and well respected theist members so you'd be in good company. You might even enjoy yourself 😉
P.S. Thanks for the debate....
No.. What's the alternative? If humans didn't evolve from anything then how is it that there are humans?
Not that it will make any difference to you but for those with an open mind and capable of rational enquiry then here is some further reading..
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Darwinian said:
Thats like asking how is it that a carpet is a carpet, or a fridge is a fridge.
Many times I answer simliar questions with a question of my own...
Why is it, that some individuals believe in a manufactured computer screen, but not a manufactured universe?
So, something as simplistic as a monitor is designed, but something as intristictly complex as the known universe..."evolved?"
Where is the reasoning behind such accusations?
So we're going with "one-line" responses now? 😛
You and I both know there are 3 major types of origination theories.
But for the sake of our readers...
1. Macro Evolution
2. Creationism
3. Intelligent Design
albiet, there are branching off theories for each one.
I sole heartdly believe in evolution...the non-marco kind.
So when ditching one of the 3 theories of origination(Maco Evolution), you are left with the other two alternatives, (Creationism & Intelligent Design).
All three of which are non-observable phenomenon, placing them in the category of religous belief.
They are all theories, and contain sub theories, like previously mentioned.
😉
You and I both know there are 3 major types of origination theories.
But for the sake of our readers...
1. Macro Evolution
2. Creationism
3. Intelligent Design
albiet, there are branching off theories for each one.
I sole heartdly believe in evolution...the non-marco kind.
So when ditching one of the 3 theories of origination(Maco Evolution), you are left with the other two alternatives, (Creationism & Intelligent Design).
All three of which are non-observable phenomenon, placing them in the category of religous belief.
They are all theories, and contain sub theories, like previously mentioned.
😉
Affiliates
