Expelled Exposed

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Expelled Exposed

Let's get ahead in our knowledge of the movie expelled before it actually comes out...

Keep checking Expelled Exposed for the National Center for Science Education's official response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful. (all info from ExpelledExposed)

Reviews of Expelled from those who have seen it

Other News Coverage of Expelled

Biologist PZ Myers expelled from Expelled screening


For more information on creationism and evolution, see NCSE's main website at

www.ncseweb.org

. Questions? Email

expelled@ncseweb.org

.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:I'll tell you

hanntonn wrote:

I'll tell you that I don't believe such things. The only important thing in life is to love others.

How do you justify this?  The Bible and Koran are pretty clear about the issue, so how do you rationalize contradicting that clear message of damnation for non-believers?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:A "race"

Anonymouse wrote:

A "race" ?

No offense meant, but you're just generally not a very bright fellow, are you ?

Personally, I was converted to atheism by people such as yourself, not by atheists. We don't have to convert people. You do that for us.

What you say here is usually true. There are usually less atheists among ignorant people (I wouldn't say not bright, but ignorant), since you need a basic thinking capacity to understand the difference between atheism and theism. I must also add that atheism is principally fuelled from Universities. So, it is logical that there are less ignorant people among atheists. Less bright people will think according to their feelings and according to this, they will search for love and acceptance from their fellows. Following from this, it is logical that the more there will be atheists in the society, the more there will be ignorant people among their ranks. So, you are right, but this is only caused by the fact that you are still a minority. So, you shouldn't interpret the presence of more ignorant people among religious people as a proof that atheism is more logical than theism. Ignorants will logically tend toward the belief that is hold by the majority.

To come back to what you say that people of faith that reproduce more are not usually the brightest people, I will say that you are right and also wrong. These people are usually more ignorant, that's true, but not necessarily less bright. It's known that many people that live on the streets are sometimes very bright yet they have no education. It's often the case for some people of faith. Anyway, this observation, if people of faith are less bright than atheists, goes against the principle of natural selection. If atheists would be superior to believers, natural selection should cause them to reproduce more than believers. so, if atheists are bright, they should find ways to reproduce more than believers. but this is illogical. No one has superior genes because he has more wives. He just happened to be lucky and be successful in business or to have rich parents.

It's true that atheists are created by believers like I already said, but only because some are incoherent with their beliefs. The only problem is that you should make your own idea about religion, not reject it because there are some stupid people among religious people. If you can accept that Love and forgiveness should be the basis of life, then you agree with everything religion has to say. Everything else is just an addition of complexity over the principle of love. So, if you try to find love in all your actions, then you are exactly like a believer, but more coherent than many. So, why should these people call themselves more religious than you? But if you are not really searching for love in every situation in life, then of course it's impossible to agree on anything.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:hanntonn

mellestad wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

I'll tell you that I don't believe such things. The only important thing in life is to love others.

How do you justify this?  The Bible and Koran are pretty clear about the issue, so how do you rationalize contradicting that clear message of damnation for non-believers?

Let me see. The Gospel in the Bible does not say that non-believers will go to hell. It's true that the old testament emphasized more on the justice of God, and we would all go to hell since everyone have sinned, but Jesus came and showed that he came to redeem the world and not to condemn it. Don't you know the story that Jesus said about the good samaritan?

The samaritans in the Bible were jews that were not following the "true God" of the jews.  They had adopted 7 different Gods through some centuries of their history and so, when Jesus talked about the good samaritan, he was really talking about people that didn't believe in the revelation that the jews possessed. In the example he gives, it would be easy to extend it to any people that is in error.

So, Jesus asked the authorities who was the one that would go to heaven between three men.  There was a man that had been left for dead by thieves and a priest, a levite and a samaritan passed by the man. Priests and levites are people supposedly serving God with all their hearths. The priest and the levite didn't help the man that was dying. But the samaritan stopped and helped the man. Those that Jesus asked the question had to answer that the one that had been good was the samaritan. Jesus said: "Go and do likewise".

Edit: Jesus didn't say that the samaritan had to convert to go to heaven. He pointed out that every sinner can go to heaven as long as they accept to love, to forgive others and forgive themselves.

St-Paul says this about what is really important in life:

" If I speak in human and angelic tongues
but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
    And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
    If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
    it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
    it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
    It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
    For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
    but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
    When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
    At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
    So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

It is clear here that St-Paul says that it is unimportant that you have the greatest faith of the world if you don't love you brother. If you really love others and help them, then you are more religious then any religious man that doesn't help anyone. It doesn't mean that faith is unimportant in itself, but if you find it hard to believe in God, you may still love your human brothers and if there is a heaven, you will find your place there since heaven is the place where there is anyone that contains love in himself.

Of course, if you base your life on the non-belief in God and that you hate everyone that believe in God, you will be condemned, but not because of your lack of belief, but because of your lack of love. If you really love others , you can't be condemned since no love can come from outside God. If you love others, this is because you contain the love of God in you.

The main point that you should understand is that there is no advantage in not believing in God. You won't get anything after your life for not believing in God. So, maybe, you could just love others and wait to see if there is a God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:What you say

hanntonn wrote:

What you say here is usually true....

To come back to what you say....

And then you go on to discuss a whole lot of stuff I never said.

Quite bizarre.

hanntonn wrote:
It's true that atheists are created by believers like I already said, but only because some are incoherent with their beliefs. The only problem is that you should make your own idea about religion, not reject it because there are some stupid people among religious people. If you can accept that Love and forgiveness should be the basis of life, then you agree with everything religion has to say. Everything else is just an addition of complexity over the principle of love. So, if you try to find love in all your actions, then you are exactly like a believer, but more coherent than many.

Now you seem to be suggesting I can be a believer without believing in god.

Look, again, absolutely no offense intended, but do you really think it's a good idea to debate these complex issues, in a language you obviously haven't mastered yet ?

hanntonn wrote:
So, why should these people call themselves more religious than you?

You tell me.

hanntonn wrote:
But if you are not really searching for love in every situation in life, then of course it's impossible to agree on anything

Can I "search for love in every situation in life" , without believing in god ?


 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:mellestad

hanntonn wrote:

mellestad wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

I'll tell you that I don't believe such things. The only important thing in life is to love others.

How do you justify this?  The Bible and Koran are pretty clear about the issue, so how do you rationalize contradicting that clear message of damnation for non-believers?

Let me see. The Gospel in the Bible does not say that non-believers will go to hell. It's true that the old testament emphasized more on the justice of God, and we would all go to hell since everyone have sinned, but Jesus came and showed that he came to redeem the world and not to condemn it. Don't you know the story that Jesus said about the good samaritan?

The samaritans in the Bible were jews that were not following the "true God" of the jews.  They had adopted 7 different Gods through some centuries of their history and so, when Jesus talked about the good samaritan, he was really talking about people that didn't believe in the revelation that the jews possessed. In the example he gives, it would be easy to extend it to any people that is in error.

So, Jesus asked the authorities who was the one that would go to heaven between three men.  There was a man that had been left for dead by thieves and a priest, a levite and a samaritan passed by the man. Priests and levites are people supposedly serving God with all their hearths. The priest and the levite didn't help the man that was dying. But the samaritan stopped and helped the man. Those that Jesus asked the question had to answer that the one that had been good was the samaritan. Jesus said: "Go and do likewise".

Edit: Jesus didn't say that the samaritan had to convert to go to heaven. He pointed out that every sinner can go to heaven as long as they accept to love, to forgive others and forgive themselves.

St-Paul says this about what is really important in life:

" If I speak in human and angelic tongues
but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
    And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
    If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
    it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
    it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
    It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
    For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
    but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
    When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
    At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
    So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

It is clear here that St-Paul says that it is unimportant that you have the greatest faith of the world if you don't love you brother. If you really love others and help them, then you are more religious then any religious man that doesn't help anyone. It doesn't mean that faith is unimportant in itself, but if you find it hard to believe in God, you may still love your human brothers and if there is a heaven, you will find your place there since heaven is the place where there is anyone that contains love in himself.

Of course, if you base your life on the non-belief in God and that you hate everyone that believe in God, you will be condemned, but not because of your lack of belief, but because of your lack of love. If you really love others , you can't be condemned since no love can come from outside God. If you love others, this is because you contain the love of God in you.

The main point that you should understand is that there is no advantage in not believing in God. You won't get anything after your life for not believing in God. So, maybe, you could just love others and wait to see if there is a God.

It is also clear that Paul gave less than a tinker's damn about the teachings of Jesus.

How about we love others and without worrying about a God at all?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Now you

Anonymouse wrote:

Now you seem to be suggesting I can be a believer without believing in god.

It's what it is in other words yes. you can act like a believer without believing in God. God shouldn't be anyone's help stick or only known intellectually. He's supposed to be the fulfilment of who we want to be like: a loving person. But If you love others, it should be a joy for you to learn that there is a God that loves everyone and wants to forgive our sins.

Anonymouse wrote:
Look, again, absolutely no offense intended, but do you really think it's a good idea to debate these complex issues, in a language you obviously haven't mastered yet ?

I don't know. Maybe you are right. I thought I was clear, but it's fine for me to not debate these issues.

Anonymouse wrote:
Can I "search for love in every situation in life" , without believing in god ?

Yes you can. But if you search for love, you'll find God since God is love. One thing is that maybe the God you'll find will have another name, one that you'll find more positive. Until then, may God bless you and your family.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It is also

jcgadfly wrote:

It is also clear that Paul gave less than a tinker's damn about the teachings of Jesus.

How about we love others and without worrying about a God at all?

That's the problem. Without supernatural justice, how do we give a reason for very wrong people to be good. If these people are so stupid that they don't want to love others, how do you convince them to be good? See, there should be two ways to arrive to love. One kind of people start with the fear of being punished and change themselves and become good. Other people are already good and they are taught to love others and they find themselves happy with it. The problem is when you teach to people already somewhat good that they must fear the justice of God (Hell). They become lost in their mind because they don't understand what they did that was really bad. But if the teachings are well adapted to the people concerned, the belief in the justice of God is stabilizing for a society: at least it is useful for putting a morality in criminals. Without that you can't put any morality in their head.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It is also clear that Paul gave less than a tinker's damn about the teachings of Jesus.

How about we love others and without worrying about a God at all?

That's the problem. Without supernatural justice, how do we give a reason for very wrong people to be good. If these people are so stupid that they don't want to love others, how do you convince them to be good? See, there should be two ways to arrive to love. One kind of people start with the fear of being punished and change themselves and become good. Other people are already good and they are taught to love others and they find themselves happy with it. The problem is when you teach to people already somewhat good that they must fear the justice of God (Hell). They become lost in their mind because they don't understand what they did that was really bad. But if the teachings are well adapted to the people concerned, the belief in the justice of God is stabilizing for a society: at least it is useful for putting a morality in criminals. Without that you can't put any morality in their head.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. ” – Nobel Laureate & Physicist Steven Weinberg, 1999.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Until then,

hanntonn wrote:
Until then, may God bless you and your family.

All the best to you too.

See ? I did that without god. Gosh, whatever next ?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:“With

jcgadfly wrote:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. ” – Nobel Laureate & Physicist Steven Weinberg, 1999.

Ok, I'll say that you are right in a certain way, but again not in another way. It's true that some good people become mad if religion becomes something political, but I don't think it's the case when religion stays something spiritual. If I teach that we should love our ennemies because they can become good by being loved and to love because God is love, will I make anyone good bad?

Anyone should be free to teach the belief system he wants to his children, but I don't think it should be forced into anyone's mind unless the beliefs of that person could hurt people.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. ” – Nobel Laureate & Physicist Steven Weinberg, 1999.

Ok, I'll say that you are right in a certain way, but again not in another way. It's true that some good people become mad if religion becomes something political, but I don't think it's the case when religion stays something spiritual. If I teach that we should love our ennemies because they can become good by being loved and to love because God is love, will I make anyone good bad?

Anyone should be free to teach the belief system he wants to his children, but I don't think it should be forced into anyone's mind unless the beliefs of that person could hurt people.

 

It also leaves you open to the possibility of killing doctors who just happen to perform abortions or flying planes into buildings because you fully believe "God told you to do it". They still consider themselves good Christians and Muslims for being willing to do those things.

It's funny how you dwell on "love one another as I have loved you" and forget the same character had "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’" written for him. Or do you believe that Jesus was not talking about himself in that parable?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:All the

Anonymouse wrote:

All the best to you too.

See ? I did that without god. Gosh, whatever next ?

Well, it's not because it should give me a reason to be good that I believe in God. I have seen enough signs and miracles and reasons to know that God exists. So, I know that when I tell you "God bless you", he really can bless you; so, even if you think that adding the word God to my sentence is purposeless, I know that it does make a difference. How do I know for certain without any doubts? Well, for sure, it's by faith and according to St-Paul, faith is knowing things that the reason do not understand. In that sense, there are many other ways to learn things than by the intellect. Aside from reason, we have the ability to have intuitions for example.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Anonymouse

hanntonn wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

All the best to you too.

See ? I did that without god. Gosh, whatever next ?

Well, it's not because it should give me a reason to be good that I believe in God. I have seen enough signs and miracles and reasons to know that God exists. So, I know that when I tell you "God bless you", he really can bless you; so, even if you think that adding the word God to my sentence is purposeless, I know that it does make a difference. How do I know for certain without any doubts? Well, for sure, it's by faith and according to St-Paul, faith is knowing things that the reason do not understand. In that sense, there are many other ways to learn things than by the intellect. Aside from reason, we have the ability to have intuitions for example.

Miracles?

Ones like, "I went to the doctor and they found a cancerous tumor. I had the church pray for me and I prayed to Jesus also. Then I went to the hospital and had the surgery and the post-op treatments they prescribed. Now I'm cancer free! That hospital and those doctors didn't do anything for me! It was all Jesus the Great Physician!"?

Or do you have others? Please don't mention the incorruptibles or Lancano's Jesus jerky. We've shown how those can be faked.

And if you've actually read Hebrews, you'd know that faith is claimed as substance and evidence. It's used as a poor substitute for knowledge (as it stops the thinking process) but it is not knowledge.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:hanntonn

jcgadfly wrote:

Miracles?

Ones like, "I went to the doctor and they found a cancerous tumor. I had the church pray for me and I prayed to Jesus also. Then I went to the hospital and had the surgery and the post-op treatments they prescribed. Now I'm cancer free! That hospital and those doctors didn't do anything for me! It was all Jesus the Great Physician!"?

Or do you have others? Please don't mention the incorruptibles or Lancano's Jesus jerky. We've shown how those can be faked.

And if you've actually read Hebrews, you'd know that faith is claimed as substance and evidence. It's used as a poor substitute for knowledge (as it stops the thinking process) but it is not knowledge.

 Well, I'm not so superstitious as to think everything is a miracle. Of course, I think life is a miracle, but since we are used to it, we don't call it a miracle. Even if I believe in miracles, I don't want to believe in miracles without passing them through the thinking process. In this century, we see a great deal of new supposed apparitions that are false and they don't go through the thinking process. But this doesn't mean that every miracles are false. But I was really going to cite the miracle of Lanciano. The substances there have been tested by the ONU and they said that it was a living thing. Even after months!!! So, you tell me there is a conspiracy at the ONU. On the other hand, if it's fake, christians must have killed people each day since the 7th century in order get a piece of a hearth and to prove that the eucharist is true, but the mystery of the eucharist teach the contrary of killing.

What about the virgin of guadaloupe where a painting has constant hearthbeats and has no colors if you get closer to it than 10 centimeters just as if the painting was in the air.

What about the saints that do not decompose without conservative agents. There may be some false miracles even if we can't explain them, but there is an overwhelming number of miracles. They can't all be false and happen to be always in religious circonstances. It's not like if I had no reasons to believe. We are allowed to doubt, but there should be limits to our doubts when the evidence are overwhelming.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And if you've

jcgadfly wrote:

And if you've actually read Hebrews, you'd know that faith is claimed as substance and evidence. It's used as a poor substitute for knowledge (as it stops the thinking process) but it is not knowledge.

Faith doesn't close the thinking process, it starts it. you must have faith that the world is real is order to study the reality. If you don't believe that what we see tells us something of what is real, we can't learn anything because everything we see will be an illusion for us. But it's impossible to prove that the world can tell us something real through our senses. So, as I said, faith starts the reasoning process. So, of course, in that sense, if you don't have faith, you can't learn anything. In that sense, I can also add that faith is knowledge. But you must have faith only when the consequences of the contrary of what you believe would be illogical.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Anonymouse

hanntonn wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

All the best to you too.

See ? I did that without god. Gosh, whatever next ?

Well, it's not because it should give me a reason to be good that I believe in God. I have seen enough signs and miracles and reasons to know that God exists. So, I know that when I tell you "God bless you", he really can bless you; so, even if you think that adding the word God to my sentence is purposeless, I know that it does make a difference. How do I know for certain without any doubts? Well, for sure, it's by faith and according to St-Paul, faith is knowing things that the reason do not understand. In that sense, there are many other ways to learn things than by the intellect. Aside from reason, we have the ability to have intuitions for example.

You already acknowledged it makes no difference, so we're in the process of talking about nothing at all.

I think we can both find something better to do.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And if you've actually read Hebrews, you'd know that faith is claimed as substance and evidence. It's used as a poor substitute for knowledge (as it stops the thinking process) but it is not knowledge.

Faith doesn't close the thinking process, it starts it. you must have faith that the world is real is order to study the reality. If you don't believe that what we see tells us something of what is real, we can't learn anything because everything we see will be an illusion for us. But it's impossible to prove that the world can tell us something real through our senses. So, as I said, faith starts the reasoning process. So, of course, in that sense, if you don't have faith, you can't learn anything. In that sense, I can also add that faith is knowledge. But you must have faith only when the consequences of the contrary of what you believe would be illogical.

I have evidence the world is real. Empirical, testable evidence. That which you are sorely lacking for your god.

You have also justified my position on God (though I doubt you meant to). The consequences of believing in a God are illogical, so I don't.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I have

jcgadfly wrote:

I have evidence the world is real. Empirical, testable evidence. That which you are sorely lacking for your god.

You have also justified my position on God (though I doubt you meant to). The consequences of believing in a God are illogical, so I don't.

That is precisely the problem. If you have empirical evidence that the world is the world, it doesn't mean it's real. How do you know it's not illusory? how do you know it's not a bad genius that wants to trick us in making us think that the world is real, but that we are really in something like the matrix? You don't know because the only things you can know come to you through your senses. If your senses are tricked, you don't know anything. If you think it's illogical to believe in a God, Am I justified in asking you why?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: You

Anonymouse wrote:
You already acknowledged it makes no difference, so we're in the process of talking about nothing at all.

I think we can both find something better to do.

It does make a difference. The difference is that a believer has good inner reasons to love others. The atheists doesn't have any reason to be always good, to never do anything wrong even if he wouldn't get caught. I said that someone could be good even if he is not a believer, but he has no good reason to be good except that he will get some affection in return from others in this life. It does make a difference that someone believe in his hearth. If someone is afraid of the justice of God, he won't kill anyone for no reason. A problem appear when you get someone that would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else and doesn't fear neither men nor God - A man like hitler for example. If he would have believed, he would not have done what he did. I'm not talking here about external beliefs like people that use religious beliefs for political ambitions.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: You

Anonymouse wrote:
You already acknowledged it makes no difference, so we're in the process of talking about nothing at all.

I think we can both find something better to do.

It does make a difference. The difference is that a believer has good inner reasons to love others. The atheists doesn't have any reason to be always good, to never do anything wrong even if he wouldn't get caught. I said that someone could be good even if he is not a believer, but he has no good reason to be good except that he will get some affection in return from others in this life. It does make a difference that someone believe in his hearth. If someone is afraid of the justice of God, he won't kill anyone for no reason. A problem appear when you get someone that would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else and doesn't fear neither men nor God - A man like hitler for example. If he would have believed, he would not have done what he did. I'm not talking here about external beliefs like people that use religious beliefs for political ambitions.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I have evidence the world is real. Empirical, testable evidence. That which you are sorely lacking for your god.

You have also justified my position on God (though I doubt you meant to). The consequences of believing in a God are illogical, so I don't.

That is precisely the problem. If you have empirical evidence that the world is the world, it doesn't mean it's real. How do you know it's not illusory? how do you know it's not a bad genius that wants to trick us in making us think that the world is real, but that we are really in something like the matrix? You don't know because the only things you can know come to you through your senses. If your senses are tricked, you don't know anything. If you think it's illogical to believe in a God, Am I justified in asking you why?

1. That's where the tests come in.

2. I'm not sure you realize the ramifications of your claim. If you believe that a real God created an illusory world filled with illusory beings for his own amusement (which is where I think you're heading) then the God you love and worship is a prick with too much time on his hands. Why worship a prick? If, instead, you believe God to be illusory also why worship god at all?

3. The consequence of belief are illogical. Going to an incredibly boring place where I'm forced to spend forever sucking up to a self contradictory being is itself a self contradiction. Believing in said being with the hope to go to that place is self-contradictory.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:It does make

hanntonn wrote:
It does make a difference. The difference is that a believer has good inner reasons to love others. The atheists doesn't have any reason to be always good, to never do anything wrong even if he wouldn't get caught. I said that someone could be good even if he is not a believer, but he has no good reason to be good except that he will get some affection in return from others in this life. It does make a difference that someone believe in his hearth.

"No good reason" ?? Who the heck are you to criticize people's "inner reasons to love others" ?

Please explain, what's the difference between something good done by a person who's "inner reasons" you personally approve of, and something good done by someone who's "inner reason" (which you have no way of even guessing at, btw) you don't much care for ?

I'll help you out : Unless "doing good" isn't your primary concern here, there's no difference at all, and you already admitted it. The "inner reason", whatever it may be, doesn't change the fact that good was done.

hanntonn wrote:
If someone is afraid of the justice of God, he won't kill anyone for no reason. A problem appear when you get someone that would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else and doesn't fear neither men nor God - A man like hitler for example. If he would have believed, he would not have done what he did.

Sez you. Hitler himself (a catholic, btw) apparently disagrees. (Just read one of the many hitler threads already on the forum)

You need to think these things through before you post them : "Someone that would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else" ? Godfearing men don't do that sort of thing ? Yeah, right. Unless they believe god wants them to do that.

But hey, we all know that never ever happens, right ?

hanntonn wrote:
I'm not talking here about external beliefs like people that use religious beliefs for political ambitions.

??

Neither am I, so why even bring it up ?

 


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:2. I'm not

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I'm not sure you realize the ramifications of your claim. If you believe that a real God created an illusory world filled with illusory beings for his own amusement (which is where I think you're heading) then the God you love and worship is a prick with too much time on his hands. Why worship a prick? If, instead, you believe God to be illusory also why worship god at all?



I'm not talking about my world view here, but yours. If there is no good guy out there, how would we know that there is not a bad one that plays with our senses by creating an illusion of reality which is in fact a lie. So, of course, in that kind of world, we wouldn't know anything. But we choose deliberately to trust our senses which is in itself a statement of faith because we know we have no choice but to be in that illusion if it is one. Not believing that the world is real would give us no choice but to die since we couldn't even trust our thoughts.

jcgadfly wrote:


3. The consequence of belief are illogical. Going to an incredibly boring place where I'm forced to spend forever sucking up to a self contradictory being is itself a self contradiction. Believing in said being with the hope to go to that place is self-contradictory.



If you love science and that this guy is the one that made it, how could it be boring?

How is that being self contradictory?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:"No good

Anonymouse wrote:

"No good reason" ?? Who the heck are you to criticize people's "inner reasons to love others" ?

I'm not criticizing your own reasons for yourself. I'm saying that you can't convince someone that is debating in himself whether he should be good or bad when he don't care about what happen to him before he dies because he don't care about death and find murder attractive.

Anonymouse wrote:
Please explain, what's the difference between something good done by a person who's "inner reasons" you personally approve of, and something good done by someone who's "inner reason" (which you have no way of even guessing at, btw) you don't much care for ?

The difference is that someone that has a "good" reason to be good will be able to go toward people that are not good and convince them to become good because there will be a reward after their death. Someone that don't believe in the life after death can't convince a Mafia man that he shouldn't sell drugs because there is no reward for him to stop. This is how christianity has grown, not by the wars that happened in the christian world. Of course, you may be good by being an atheist, but you certainly can't change the world.

Anonymouse wrote:

Sez you. Hitler himself (a catholic, btw) apparently disagrees. (Just read one of the many hitler threads already on the forum)

That's funny that atheists say Hitler was a catholic to justify their beliefs. So, Hitler was someone that practiced Charity? was he someone that went to mass? (not really, he sent priests into concentration camps). Even if Hitler said he was a catholic, a title doesn't mean he believed in the principles of christianity. In fact, it is self evident that he didn't believe in the christian principles. So, this is illogical to say he was a catholic. Even if he believed in some sort of God, he certainly didn't believe that murdering people would send him to Hell. If he had believed that, he wouldn't have killed all the people he killed. So, of course, you are wrong.

Anonymouse wrote:
You need to think these things through before you post them : "Someone that would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else" ? Godfearing men don't do that sort of thing ? Yeah, right. Unless they believe god wants them to do that.

God would never ask to kill someone just to see what it looks like since he already knows what it looks like. Killing someone in justice is something God could ask. For example, if someone came into my house and would try to kill my children, I would clearly see the will of God to stop him and possibly to kill him if he was too violent. But it would never be God that would ask me to go in someone else's house to kill his children. That's my point. If someone would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else without any reason to do it, we would have to convince him with strong arguments not to do that (in the situation he would be too strong to be stopped). An atheist can't convince that man because that man doesn't fear other men. A believer could try to convince him that there is someone stronger than him that will punish him.

Anonymouse wrote:
But hey, we all know that never ever happens, right ?

That is right. Godfearing men never do such things. If they do, it's because they have stopped fearing God. But usually, when someone really learn about God, he change his fear into love. And as the love grow, the fear disappear, but the goodness stays. But fear is necessary for people that do not grow in love.

Anonymouse wrote:
I'm not talking here about external beliefs like people that use religious beliefs for political ambitions.

Neither am I, so why even bring it up ?

If you had understood what I meant, you wouldn't have talked about Hitler. He's the best example of someone that says he believes in something, but don't in reality. There are people that give themselves titles to look good, but they have nothing to do with that title. Religion has nothing to do with external postures and politics. Religion is something of inner beliefs. So, if I say I don't believe in the Eucharist, I can't be a catholic even if I say I am one. Hitler wasn't a catholic since he didn't believe in charity and priests. So, if you understood what is to be a real catholic, you'd agree with me that no one is bad.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I'm not sure you realize the ramifications of your claim. If you believe that a real God created an illusory world filled with illusory beings for his own amusement (which is where I think you're heading) then the God you love and worship is a prick with too much time on his hands. Why worship a prick? If, instead, you believe God to be illusory also why worship god at all?



I'm not talking about my world view here, but yours. If there is no good guy out there, how would we know that there is not a bad one that plays with our senses by creating an illusion of reality which is in fact a lie. So, of course, in that kind of world, we wouldn't know anything. But we choose deliberately to trust our senses which is in itself a statement of faith because we know we have no choice but to be in that illusion if it is one. Not believing that the world is real would give us no choice but to die since we couldn't even trust our thoughts.

jcgadfly wrote:


3. The consequence of belief are illogical. Going to an incredibly boring place where I'm forced to spend forever sucking up to a self contradictory being is itself a self contradiction. Believing in said being with the hope to go to that place is self-contradictory.



If you love science and that this guy is the one that made it, how could it be boring?

How is that being self contradictory?

First off, why do you assume that your God is automatically "the good one"? You have nothing to support this claim.

If God made science why does religion fight so hard against it?

As for God's self contradictory nature - don't you read the Bible?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:I'm not

hanntonn wrote:
I'm not criticizing your own reasons for yourself. I'm saying that you can't convince someone that is debating in himself whether he should be good or bad when he don't care about what happen to him before he dies because he don't care about death and find murder attractive.

I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense.

hanntonn wrote:
The difference is that someone that has a "good" reason to be good will be able to go toward people that are not good and convince them to become good because there will be a reward after their death. Someone that don't believe in the life after death can't convince a Mafia man that he shouldn't sell drugs because there is no reward for him to stop.

Why are you assuming the "maffia man" doesn't believe in life after death already ? I'd like to see you tell a mafia boss to his face that he's not religious.

hanntonn wrote:
This is how christianity has grown,

Like a pyramid scheme ?

hanntonn wrote:
not by the wars that happened in the christian world.

You're homeschooled, aren't you ?

hanntonn wrote:
Of course, you may be good by being an atheist, but you certainly can't change the world.

Sorry, too late. Already happend. Can you look up the list yourself, or do you need help ?

hanntonn wrote:
That's funny that atheists say Hitler was a catholic to justify their beliefs.

Actually, he said that, and you brought it up, so what's funny ?

hanntonn wrote:
So, Hitler was someone that practiced Charity? was he someone that went to mass?

Yes on both counts. Being a psychopath doesn't stop people from being christian.

hanntonn wrote:
(not really, he sent priests into concentration camps).

And that stopped him from going to mass how exactly ?

hanntonn wrote:
Even if Hitler said he was a catholic, a title doesn't mean he believed in the principles of christianity. In fact, it is self evident that he didn't believe in the christian principles. So, this is illogical to say he was a catholic.

It's selfevident, so it's illogical ?

Do you even know what both of those words mean ?

hanntonn wrote:
Even if he believed in some sort of God, he certainly didn't believe that murdering people would send him to Hell. If he had believed that, he wouldn't have killed all the people he killed.

Read his writings to find out how he solved that little problem. That's the thing about religious faith : It's surprisingly flexible.

hanntonn wrote:
So, of course, you are wrong.

I said Hitler himself disagrees with you. Did you go back in time and change that ?

hanntonn wrote:
God would never ask to kill someone just to see what it looks like since he already knows what it looks like.

No, sorry, god can ask whatever he likes. Who the heck are you to even ask him for a reason ? Christians always tell me they would obey god no matter what he asks them to do, no matter what the reason. You would talk back to god, would you ?

hanntonn wrote:
Killing someone in justice is something God could ask.

Again, excuse me, but who the heck are you to limit god ? If he's all-powerful and all-knowing, he might have a reason for asking you anything at all that you couldn't possibly understand. You either do whatever he says, or you put your own morality above your god.

I'm sorry, but that's the situation you created for yourself. There's no way out, as long as you believe.

hanntonn wrote:
For example, if someone came into my house and would try to kill my children, I would clearly see the will of God

Again, sorry, but you don't get to decide the will of god. For all you know, it might be god's will that you get murdered that day. There's simply no way for you to know.

hanntonn wrote:
to stop him and possibly to kill him if he was too violent. But it would never be God that would ask me to go in someone else's house to kill his children. That's my point.

There's no point here. You just highlighted yet another problem with your religion. Again, you do not get to dictate the actions of an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being.

hanntonn wrote:
If someone would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else without any reason to do it, we would have to convince him with strong arguments not to do that (in the situation he would be too strong to be stopped). An atheist can't convince that man because that man doesn't fear other men.

We most certainly can, and it happens every day. Ever heard of the criminal justice system ? Psychology and psychiatry ?

hanntonn wrote:
A believer could try to convince him that there is someone stronger than him that will punish him.

Lol, the only way you'd ever be able to sit down and talk to someone like that, is when that's already happened !

hanntonn wrote:
That is right. Godfearing men never do such things. If they do, it's because they have stopped fearing God.

No true scotsman fallacy.

hanntonn wrote:
If you had understood what I meant, you wouldn't have talked about Hitler.

????

You brought him up, I didn't.

hanntonn wrote:
He's the best example of someone that says he believes in something, but don't in reality.

Sez you. He disagrees. And be honest now, if it wasn't for the holocaust, you wouldn't even care.

hanntonn wrote:
There are people that give themselves titles to look good, but they have nothing to do with that title. Religion has nothing to do with external postures and politics. Religion is something of inner beliefs. So, if I say I don't believe in the Eucharist, I can't be a catholic even if I say I am one. Hitler wasn't a catholic since he didn't believe in charity and priests.

Where do you get this idea that he didn't believe in "charity and priests" ? If you're really interested in facts about his relationship with the church, then read about it. You'll find out some things you'll probably want to forget in a hurry. I've found religious folk can be quite good at that.

hanntonn wrote:
So, if you understood what is to be a real catholic, you'd agree with me that no one is bad.

Huh ??


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:hanntonn

Anonymouse wrote:

hanntonn wrote:
I'm not criticizing your own reasons for yourself. I'm saying that you can't convince someone that is debating in himself whether he should be good or bad when he don't care about what happen to him before he dies because he don't care about death and find murder attractive.

I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense.

hanntonn wrote:
The difference is that someone that has a "good" reason to be good will be able to go toward people that are not good and convince them to become good because there will be a reward after their death. Someone that don't believe in the life after death can't convince a Mafia man that he shouldn't sell drugs because there is no reward for him to stop.

Why are you assuming the "maffia man" doesn't believe in life after death already ? I'd like to see you tell a mafia boss to his face that he's not religious.

hanntonn wrote:
This is how christianity has grown,

Like a pyramid scheme ?

hanntonn wrote:
not by the wars that happened in the christian world.

You're homeschooled, aren't you ?

hanntonn wrote:
Of course, you may be good by being an atheist, but you certainly can't change the world.

Sorry, too late. Already happend. Can you look up the list yourself, or do you need help ?

hanntonn wrote:
That's funny that atheists say Hitler was a catholic to justify their beliefs.

Actually, he said that, and you brought it up, so what's funny ?

hanntonn wrote:
So, Hitler was someone that practiced Charity? was he someone that went to mass?

Yes on both counts. Being a psychopath doesn't stop people from being christian.

hanntonn wrote:
(not really, he sent priests into concentration camps).

And that stopped him from going to mass how exactly ?

hanntonn wrote:
Even if Hitler said he was a catholic, a title doesn't mean he believed in the principles of christianity. In fact, it is self evident that he didn't believe in the christian principles. So, this is illogical to say he was a catholic.

It's selfevident, so it's illogical ?

Do you even know what both of those words mean ?

hanntonn wrote:
Even if he believed in some sort of God, he certainly didn't believe that murdering people would send him to Hell. If he had believed that, he wouldn't have killed all the people he killed.

Read his writings to find out how he solved that little problem. That's the thing about religious faith : It's surprisingly flexible.

hanntonn wrote:
So, of course, you are wrong.

I said Hitler himself disagrees with you. Did you go back in time and change that ?

hanntonn wrote:
God would never ask to kill someone just to see what it looks like since he already knows what it looks like.

No, sorry, god can ask whatever he likes. Who the heck are you to even ask him for a reason ? Christians always tell me they would obey god no matter what he asks them to do, no matter what the reason. You would talk back to god, would you ?

hanntonn wrote:
Killing someone in justice is something God could ask.

Again, excuse me, but who the heck are you to limit god ? If he's all-powerful and all-knowing, he might have a reason for asking you anything at all that you couldn't possibly understand. You either do whatever he says, or you put your own morality above your god.

I'm sorry, but that's the situation you created for yourself. There's no way out, as long as you believe.

hanntonn wrote:
For example, if someone came into my house and would try to kill my children, I would clearly see the will of God

Again, sorry, but you don't get to decide the will of god. For all you know, it might be god's will that you get murdered that day. There's simply no way for you to know.

hanntonn wrote:
to stop him and possibly to kill him if he was too violent. But it would never be God that would ask me to go in someone else's house to kill his children. That's my point.

There's no point here. You just highlighted yet another problem with your religion. Again, you do not get to dictate the actions of an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being.

hanntonn wrote:
If someone would like to see what it looks like to kill someone else without any reason to do it, we would have to convince him with strong arguments not to do that (in the situation he would be too strong to be stopped). An atheist can't convince that man because that man doesn't fear other men.

We most certainly can, and it happens every day. Ever heard of the criminal justice system ? Psychology and psychiatry ?

hanntonn wrote:
A believer could try to convince him that there is someone stronger than him that will punish him.

Lol, the only way you'd ever be able to sit down and talk to someone like that, is when that's already happened !

hanntonn wrote:
That is right. Godfearing men never do such things. If they do, it's because they have stopped fearing God.

No true scotsman fallacy.

hanntonn wrote:
If you had understood what I meant, you wouldn't have talked about Hitler.

????

You brought him up, I didn't.

hanntonn wrote:
He's the best example of someone that says he believes in something, but don't in reality.

Sez you. He disagrees. And be honest now, if it wasn't for the holocaust, you wouldn't even care.

hanntonn wrote:
There are people that give themselves titles to look good, but they have nothing to do with that title. Religion has nothing to do with external postures and politics. Religion is something of inner beliefs. So, if I say I don't believe in the Eucharist, I can't be a catholic even if I say I am one. Hitler wasn't a catholic since he didn't believe in charity and priests.

Where do you get this idea that he didn't believe in "charity and priests" ? If you're really interested in facts about his relationship with the church, then read about it. You'll find out some things you'll probably want to forget in a hurry. I've found religious folk can be quite good at that.

hanntonn wrote:
So, if you understood what is to be a real catholic, you'd agree with me that no one is bad.

Huh ??

Ok, there is no need to continue this discussion since you think Hitler practised charity. This is self-refuting if you understand what is charity. So, you won't make me lose my time. And no, Hitler didn't have a good relation with the Church. This is again a little construction of yours to justify your beliefs.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Ok, there is

hanntonn wrote:

Ok, there is no need to continue this discussion since you think Hitler practised charity. This is self-refuting if you understand what is charity. So, you won't make me lose my time. And no, Hitler didn't have a good relation with the Church. This is again a little construction of yours to justify your beliefs.

My "little construction" is called reality. I mean, look at what you just wrote : "this is self-refuting if you understand...". You might as well say : "Just because".

I asked where you got the idea he didn't believe in priests and charity. You didn't answer me.

And our discussion wasn't about hitler. Again, you brought him up.

I guess you were looking for a way out.

Don't start things you can't finish.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5906
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
I see you are still raving

I see you are still raving on and displaying your ignorance, hanntonn.

I stopped responding partly because you clearly did not seem to have remotely sufficient education or understanding to grasp my arguments, partly because I needed to concentrate on personal affairs for a bit.

Just on one of your last points, even in a reality where 'time' did not exist in the way we perceive it, that in no way bypasses the underlying connection between entities and/or states which we think of as cause and effect.

There will still be some things which form the under-pinnings, the necessary foundations for other things. I actually explained this. Our perception of 'causes' being necessarily prior to another set of space-time entities or events ('effects') is just how we perceive a particular form of relationship within a 4-dimensional 'reality' (space-time).

You massively fail to grasp evolution - it selects non-randomly from randomly generated variations.

Organs don't evolve unless they have function, but continuing evolution may find better ways to perform that function, or the particular lineage may gradually adopt a different diet, or move to a different environment, where that organ is no longer needed. Since evolution is step-by-step, such organs cannot disappear in a few generations, they may persist for a long time if they don't actually obstruct the normal functioning of the organism.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I see you

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see you are still raving on and displaying your ignorance, hanntonn.

I stopped responding partly because you clearly did not seem to have remotely sufficient education or understanding to grasp my arguments, partly because I needed to concentrate on personal affairs for a bit.

Thanks for your concern.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Just on one of your last points, even in a reality where 'time' did not exist in the way we perceive it, that in no way bypasses the underlying connection between entities and/or states which we think of as cause and effect.

If there were cause to effect connections, then there would be some sort of time, since the effect can't be simultaneous to the cause. So it wouldn't be the situation I'm talking about. I argued that there must be a beginning in the absolute time, or there must be a beginning in steps of action (an infinite amount of steps of cause to effect would be equal to an infinite time). Since we can't go through an infinite amount of steps, we wouldn't be here if it was the case. There is no effect that exists prior to the existence of time. We could say that time is nothing but a calculation of steps.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
There will still be some things which form the under-pinnings, the necessary foundations for other things. I actually explained this. Our perception of 'causes' being necessarily prior to another set of space-time entities or events ('effects') is just how we perceive a particular form of relationship within a 4-dimensional 'reality' (space-time).

1. That is interesting. So, you tell me how an "effect" could be caused without there being any moment prior in which the effect wasn't already there. If you still need some things to be the foundation of others things in a non time world, You would conclude to an infinite regress of simultaneous causes (which is impossible). Understanding that you can't have an effect that has no moment prior where it wasn't there shows that you can't have an effect prior to time. If you can't have an effect, you can't have a cause to effect relation prior to time.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You massively fail to grasp evolution - it selects non-randomly from randomly generated variations.

I understand this. Do I need to repeat after you? Yes Yes Yes. natural selection selects the best adapted organism to cause evolution. I don't fail to grasp this, but you believe that without looking at the consequences of this which is ridicule. That theory supposes that very complex organs such as the bacterial flagellum will arise by multiple positive mutations that will all be functional (no useless organs, only functional ones will be selected). Well, this is a very broad assumption since no one knows even how a complex system like the bacterial flagellum could arise by random mutations that would all cause a series of functioning organs. Of course, no one knows how less complex organs made of some of the elements of the bacterial flagellum could be functional. Remember that it's impossible to go through steps of mutations of non-functioning organs because, if it was the case, we would need to see plenty of useless organs in mutation everywhere and it's not the case. Also, why don't we see transitional fossils if it all went through very little steps of change? Do you fail to grasp this?

BobSpence1 wrote:
Organs don't evolve unless they have function, but continuing evolution may find better ways to perform that function, or the particular lineage may gradually adopt a different diet, or move to a different environment, where that organ is no longer needed. Since evolution is step-by-step, such organs cannot disappear in a few generations, they may persist for a long time if they don't actually obstruct the normal functioning of the organism.

Look to me that evolution is intelligent after all (find better way to perform that function, adopt a different diet, etc... ) Anyway, no transitional fossils, not enough REALLY useless DNA, no simple step-by-step explanation. Tell me why the smallest living organism has 500 genes and why it has been estimated that life can only be sustained with 250 genes if this can all arise by step-by-step? 250 genes is a lot of coding that couldn't be coded by chance. In fact, it's more complex that a book and a book can't appear by chance. So, if your theory is so obvious and that I'm stupid, why can't you explain this. Anyway, as I see it, there is no hope of changing you opinion even if it obviously lack solidity, so it appears to me that this activity will soon come to a stop.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5906
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see you are still raving on and displaying your ignorance, hanntonn.

I stopped responding partly because you clearly did not seem to have remotely sufficient education or understanding to grasp my arguments, partly because I needed to concentrate on personal affairs for a bit.

Thanks for your concern.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Just on one of your last points, even in a reality where 'time' did not exist in the way we perceive it, that in no way bypasses the underlying connection between entities and/or states which we think of as cause and effect.

If there were cause to effect connections, then there would be some sort of time, since the effect can't be simultaneous to the cause. So it wouldn't be the situation I'm talking about. I argued that there must be a beginning in the absolute time, or there must be a beginning in steps of action (an infinite amount of steps of cause to effect would be equal to an infinite time). Since we can't go through an infinite amount of steps, we wouldn't be here if it was the case. There is no effect that exists prior to the existence of time. We could say that time is nothing but a calculation of steps.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
There will still be some things which form the under-pinnings, the necessary foundations for other things. I actually explained this. Our perception of 'causes' being necessarily prior to another set of space-time entities or events ('effects') is just how we perceive a particular form of relationship within a 4-dimensional 'reality' (space-time).

1. That is interesting. So, you tell me how an "effect" could be caused without there being any moment prior in which the effect wasn't already there. If you still need some things to be the foundation of others things in a non time world, You would conclude to an infinite regress of simultaneous causes (which is impossible). Understanding that you can't have an effect that has no moment prior where it wasn't there shows that you can't have an effect prior to time. If you can't have an effect, you can't have a cause to effect relation prior to time.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You massively fail to grasp evolution - it selects non-randomly from randomly generated variations.

I understand this. Do I need to repeat after you? Yes Yes Yes. natural selection selects the best adapted organism to cause evolution. I don't fail to grasp this, but you believe that without looking at the consequences of this which is ridicule. That theory supposes that very complex organs such as the bacterial flagellum will arise by multiple positive mutations that will all be functional (no useless organs, only functional ones will be selected). Well, this is a very broad assumption since no one knows even how a complex system like the bacterial flagellum could arise by random mutations that would all cause a series of functioning organs. Of course, no one knows how less complex organs made of some of the elements of the bacterial flagellum could be functional. Remember that it's impossible to go through steps of mutations of non-functioning organs because, if it was the case, we would need to see plenty of useless organs in mutation everywhere and it's not the case. Also, why don't we see transitional fossils if it all went through very little steps of change? Do you fail to grasp this?

BobSpence1 wrote:
Organs don't evolve unless they have function, but continuing evolution may find better ways to perform that function, or the particular lineage may gradually adopt a different diet, or move to a different environment, where that organ is no longer needed. Since evolution is step-by-step, such organs cannot disappear in a few generations, they may persist for a long time if they don't actually obstruct the normal functioning of the organism.

Look to me that evolution is intelligent after all (find better way to perform that function, adopt a different diet, etc... ) Anyway, no transitional fossils, not enough REALLY useless DNA, no simple step-by-step explanation. Tell me why the smallest living organism has 500 genes and why it has been estimated that life can only be sustained with 250 genes if this can all arise by step-by-step? 250 genes is a lot of coding that couldn't be coded by chance. In fact, it's more complex that a book and a book can't appear by chance. So, if your theory is so obvious and that I'm stupid, why can't you explain this. Anyway, as I see it, there is no hope of changing you opinion even if it obviously lack solidity, so it appears to me that this activity will soon come to a stop.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:My "little

Anonymouse wrote:

My "little construction" is called reality. I mean, look at what you just wrote : "this is self-refuting if you understand...". You might as well say : "Just because".

I said this because charity mean to love others even your ennemies and to help others etc. Hitler didn't do that. He didn't love his ennemies, he sent them into concentration camps. So, it's obvious that understanding the word charity tells you that Hitler wasn't catholic. I just fail to understand how you appear to live in America and you've never heard of the signification of the word charity. Man, open your dictionary. Psychopath also call their mental construction "reality".

Anonymouse wrote:
I asked where you got the idea he didn't believe in priests and charity. You didn't answer me.

Simple. He sent priests into concentration camps and didn't love his ennemies. Do I need more explanations as to where I got that idea. I got it directly from observation. There was nothing more obvious. Your assertion would be like saying that the soldier that scourged Jesus during his passion was a christian. Why do you fail to understand this?

Anonymouse wrote:
And our discussion wasn't about hitler. Again, you brought him up.

Why should I care about what we're discussing? For me, it's becoming obvious that anything I discuss with atheists becomes as purposeless as their lives.

Anonymouse wrote:
I guess you were looking for a way out.

And you provided one to me.

Anonymouse wrote:
Don't start things you can't finish.

Why not?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Anonymouse

hanntonn wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

My "little construction" is called reality. I mean, look at what you just wrote : "this is self-refuting if you understand...". You might as well say : "Just because".

I said this because charity mean to love others even your ennemies and to help others etc. Hitler didn't do that. He didn't love his ennemies, he sent them into concentration camps. So, it's obvious that understanding the word charity tells you that Hitler wasn't catholic. I just fail to understand how you appear to live in America and you've never heard of the signification of the word charity. Man, open your dictionary. Psychopath also call their mental construction "reality".

Indeed. Hitler had his psychopathic reality supplemented by his view of what he believed God was telling him to do. As for whether he was catholic or not, the beauty of that is that you can do whatever you wish as long as you get absolution.

Anonymouse wrote:
I asked where you got the idea he didn't believe in priests and charity. You didn't answer me.

Quote:
Simple. He sent priests into concentration camps and didn't love his ennemies. Do I need more explanations as to where I got that idea. I got it directly from observation. There was nothing more obvious. Your assertion would be like saying that the soldier that scourged Jesus during his passion was a christian. Why do you fail to understand this?

He also kept priests around. Did you forget that priests were also regularly heiling Hitler? Or that Catholic churches had swastikas on their steeples? 

The soldier that scourged Jesus couldn't have been a Christian. Christianity hadn't been created yet - or are you saying Jesus was a Christian?

Anonymouse wrote:
And our discussion wasn't about hitler. Again, you brought him up.

Quote:
Why should I care about what we're discussing? For me, it's becoming obvious that anything I discuss with atheists becomes as purposeless as their lives.

IOW, Anonymouse made you think and that scared you into being defensive and spouting the bull of "You can't have any foundation in your life because you didn't steal the parts of a 2000 year old myth you liked like I did".

Anonymouse wrote:
I guess you were looking for a way out.

Quote:
And you provided one to me.

Anonymouse wrote:
Don't start things you can't finish.

Quote:
Why not?

Because all you end up doing is embarrassing yourself and your God?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:The

hanntonn wrote:

The difference is that a believer has good inner reasons to love others. The atheists doesn't have any reason to be always good, to never do anything wrong even if he wouldn't get caught.

I care about others because I know in a scientifically provable sense that we are all related.  Christians care about others because in a fantasy world that can be proven false they believe we all descended from Adam and Eve.  My reasons are better.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:I understand

hanntonn wrote:

I understand this. Do I need to repeat after you? Yes Yes Yes. natural selection selects the best adapted organism to cause evolution. I don't fail to grasp this, but you believe that without looking at the consequences of this which is ridicule. That theory supposes that very complex organs such as the bacterial flagellum will arise by multiple positive mutations that will all be functional (no useless organs, only functional ones will be selected). Well, this is a very broad assumption since no one knows even how a complex system like the bacterial flagellum could arise by random mutations that would all cause a series of functioning organs. Of course, no one knows how less complex organs made of some of the elements of the bacterial flagellum could be functional. Remember that it's impossible to go through steps of mutations of non-functioning organs because, if it was the case, we would need to see plenty of useless organs in mutation everywhere and it's not the case. Also, why don't we see transitional fossils if it all went through very little steps of change? Do you fail to grasp this?

 

You don't understand.  Natural selection is NOT about an individual surviving or reproducing.  Natural selection is about having children who can have children.  The individual may die immediately after reproducing (mayflies, eg).  This is a perfectly valid evolutionary state that will not change unless mayflies are pressured by their environment to evolve into some thing that is not a mayfly.

Also, evolution is NOT about being more complex.  Bacteria are as complex as they need to be.  They don't change unless they have to - hence drug resistant TB that only existed in tiny numbers 50 years ago that is very prevalent now.  Evolution is not a tree, not a bush, but more like a lawn - with many organisms evolving from each other and not from each other.  It is not about a bacteria becoming a human - as if humans were a pinnacle of some sort.  We aren't at the top of some imaginary ladder.  We don't have to be. 

Transitional fossils - see Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero.  He is a paleontologist who studies the ancient ruminants of North America.  His book has pages and pages of photos of transitional fossils.  Many fossils are in museums in basement store rooms or laboratories where the general public doesn't have access.  So Dr. Prothero has put together this book showing the progression from an early ancestor to modern day species.  Not for one species but for a lot of species.  The book is easy to read for the general public.  I checked it out from my local library, so you don't have to spend money if you don't want or don't have.

And, irreducible complexity:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html

Or, you can take cellular biology and really learn what a flagellum is and how it functions and its evolutionary path.  Movement for a single cell organism is very important - not only must it move to where there is food, it must also move out of its own waste stream.  Otherwise, it would be poisoned by its own waste products.  And, you must remember that moving through liquid is vastly more difficult if you are only a single cell.  More like a human trying to move through a mud slide than moving through water.  Consequently, there are many different motive mechanisms for different environments.  A sponge is sessile (doesn't move around) but it also is multi-cellular.  So when water flows by, it can take advantage of the flow and change in nutrients.  A bacteria is not sessile - it moves - it has to because the relative size of the bacteria to the water flow means it can get stuck in one place within the flow.  Rather like being on a sidewalk so crowded that you can not move faster or slower than the crowd moves and you can not move to one side since your path is blocked by other people.  The single cell organism (bacteria, amoeba, paramecium, etc) must have a way to push or pull through the water.  Amoeba move by contracting internally.  Paramecium have some number of external flagella.  We have many examples of different ways that organisms have evolved to move in a medium that is viscous relative to the organism.

I'd be a lot more impressed with your arguments if they didn't sound like the same old, same old, heard it a hundred times from someone who has obviously never passed a science course at university.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:I said this

hanntonn wrote:
I said this because charity mean to love others even your ennemies and to help others etc. Hitler didn't do that. He didn't love his ennemies, he sent them into concentration camps. So, it's obvious that understanding the word charity tells you that Hitler wasn't catholic. I just fail to understand how you appear to live in America and you've never heard of the signification of the word charity. Man, open your dictionary. Psychopath also call their mental construction "reality".

If you're going to exclude everyone who doesn't love his enemies and helps others, etc..then it's not looking too good for you either, never mind the rest of your religious brethren.

Yes, cracking open a book might be a good idea. Try these for starters, if the subject really interests you : "The German Churches Under Hitler" , "Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confidant". He was a psychopath alright, but as you'll find out, that's not incompatible with being catholic, unfortunatly.

The thing is , you don't even need to bring up hitler to figure that out. Just think of all the godfearing german folk who did the actual killing. 

hanntonn wrote:
Simple.

Was it ? Then why didn't you answer me the first time ?

hanntonn wrote:
He sent priests into concentration camps and didn't love his ennemies. Do I need more explanations as to where I got that idea. I got it directly from observation.

Uhm, no, you didn't get it from "observation". *sigh*

Yes, you need more "explanations". Explain, for example, the monk who assisted with the writing of "Mein Kampf". Explain the "brown priests". Explain how exactly you can know who a psychopath "loves" or not.

And you also need to explain why you even brought him up, when we were talking about something else entirely.

hanntonn wrote:
There was nothing more obvious.

O, goody. I'll look forward to your "explanations" then.

hanntonn wrote:
Your assertion would be like saying that the soldier that scourged Jesus during his passion was a christian. Why do you fail to understand this?

What assertion ? I asked a question. Do I have to explain the difference ?

hanntonn wrote:
Why should I care about what we're discussing?

LOL !!!

You're posting on a discussions forum, and you don't care about what you're discussing ??

Yeah, that explains a lot.

hanntonn wrote:
For me, it's becoming obvious that anything I discuss with atheists becomes as purposeless as their lives.

See, now that's an assertion. Do you get the difference now, or are you going to give me another example ?

Anonymouse wrote:
I guess you were looking for a way out.

hanntonn wrote:
And you provided one to me.

??

You're just admitting you needed a way out ? Gee, I didn't think my questions were that hard. Oh well, at least you're honest.

Anonymouse wrote:
Don't start things you can't finish.

hanntonn wrote:
Why not?

Uhm...it kinda makes you look stupid.


 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:NoDeity

hanntonn wrote:

NoDeity wrote:

I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.

This is all atheism is about. Anger at creationists, bad emotional feelings and irrationality. Exactly what is contrary to science.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Here's

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Here's a great review: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

 

Snippet of Ebert raping Ben Stein:

 

Quote:

 

 

I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.

Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.

Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).

Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A).Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute.

 

 

On the cover of "Expelled", there was a quote from a Ben Stein review where rated his own movie 5 stars. That says all you need to know right there. Also, Stein's posse "expelled" PZ Meyers from an open screening of the movie because they were afraid he'd give it a negative review (meaning the film actually lived up to its name).

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Yes I know,

hanntonn wrote:

Yes I know, atheists are fearful that their protective dady be humiliated. This is why they invent other hypothesis. The truth is that Dawkins really has no clue as to how information arise in the Genome. There is duplication, deletion, moving around of genes, random mutations. None of these processes can add information. Even if Dawkins had not been stuck at this question, even if he had started to talk right away, he wouldn't have answered the question because there is no known process that can add information in the Genome. Random mutations are random, and information is not random. So, in the end, even if Dawkins had answered, he would still have been stumped by that question in his intellect.

Yawn. The typical creationazi response when confronted with the truth. Nothing to see here.

Quote:

You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

By creationist "logic":

-Historians are not 100% sure that Columbus was the 1st foreigner to discover the Americas. Therefore it's logical to assume it was Mr. Spock.

-Historians are not 100% sure that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, therefore it makes more sense to believe that Elmer Fudd did it.

-Scientists aren't sure what causes black holes, therefore they must be caused by Zeus having a large oatmeal fart.

etc etc

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical