Wicked & Irresponsible

newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wicked & Irresponsible

Hello. I am newmodeltheist. I want to say a few words about your 'blasphemy challenge'

Your campaign is wicked and irresponsible. Young people find it relatively easy to rebel against the limits imposed on them by their parents or church, if they are of the mind to do so. Especially if they have mutual support from their own peers. What young people do not find so easy is to rebel against the limits imposed on them by jaded, predatory manufacturers of youth sub-cultures such as your own.

Go about your own beliefs and leave young people to find their own path in their own time as you had the privilage of doing (I get the impression that most of you had religion rammed down your throat). To target youngsters (proberbly much younger than yourselves) with mind-control of your own ("if you dont agree with us you're a stupid sheep" as opposed to "If you don't do as you're told you'll be punished&quotEye-wink is in some ways more abusive than than that dished out by authority figures. Why? Because by portraying yourselves as the plucky, free-thinking, anti-authoritarian hero, you're stealing from your victims the one mythology they need for themselves for their own personal empowerment.

I have no need to debate you on your own views. I went through all this myself and came out safely on the other side. Just please stop targeting young people and using them in your adolescent campaign against Christendom, the traditional faith of the west.

nmt

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh darn, I guess the RRS and

Oh darn, I guess the RRS and Brian Flemming are going to shut down the Blasphemy Challenge now. Not. How is it wicked and irresponsible to get people to think more rationally and give up absurd beliefs? I guess the schools should let kids believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
There is nothing wrong with

There is nothing wrong with that but that is not what this group is doing with this campaign.  It is cynically marketing a pseudo-intellectual, cultish, brand-image to people who are of an impressionable age. 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Since I wasn't raised in a

Since I wasn't raised in a religious household or went to church then wouldn't I be rebelling by believing in Allah and going to church?  I'm sure if parents let their children go and find their answers about religion on their own then there wouldn't be a need for the 'blasphemy challenge'.  However they have religion forced upon them, RRS doesn't force anything upon anyone.  So it would make more sense for you to complain to those parents who force religion upon people.

 I wonder how many of these religious hypocrites have actually contacted churches or other religious establishments to tell them to stop doing what they do.  Probably none.  In the typical theistic doublestand religion is considered a sacred cow that must never be criticized.  But for some reason someone who wants to bring enlightenment to the world is doing something "wicked and irresponsible".  If you truly enjoy a world full of religion then go back to shitting in the streets, burning women at the stake and execute people for heresy.  Apparently opposing that world view is wicked but embracing the Dark Ages is considered a wonderful thing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
nmt wrote  "To target

nmt wrote

 "To target youngsters (proberbly much younger than yourselves) with mind-control of your own ("if you dont agree with us you're a stupid sheep" as opposed to "If you don't do as you're told you'll be punished&quotEye-wink is in some ways more abusive than than that dished out by authority figures. "

 But somehow, telling youngsters "If you don't agree with us, God will burn you in hell for eternity."  doesn't seem like mind control or all that abusive to you.

Why is that? 

"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


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Saying that atheists are

Saying that atheists are targeting children is like saying that you telling someone he is about to be assassinated is targeting the person you're trying to save.

Religions target children. We atheists are simply warning children that they are being targeted.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Nobodys forcing kids to

Nobodys forcing kids to make a video - they actually have to go out of their way to find out what exactly the blasphemy challenge is, and then go make a video on their own. We aren't going into schools and playgrounds telling kids that God is a myth, like Christians do telling them about Jesus (including children in non-Christian families.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
So if I truely believe I

So if I truely believe I have $1,000,000,000 dollars when I dont, no one should bother to tell me?

You also have baught into a stupid stereotype that we are from "Animal House" and we are all a bunch of John Belushis out for a party.

We are merely trying to break the bonds of ancient myth. We think it is important to not be blind and blindly follow. That is not nor does it equate to calling for public orgies or selling crack to kids. MORON!

We are all ages here, we are all economic backgrounds and many of the members here have kids. There is no "rebelion" going on here. It is a challenge, a challenge to think about the claims one makes.

You really are that delluded to think we are out to create a lawless society where anything goes? Stop sniffing glue. We just want people to think about the claims they make.

"The traditional faith of the west"

WTF? Oh thats right, Christians are intitled to the drivers seat because your dad said so right?

SORRY JEWS, HINDUS, JAPANESE AND CHINESE AMERICANS BORN IN AMERICA, REMEMBER YOUR PLACE IS AT THE BACK OF THE BUS, CHRISTIANS OWN THE WEST.....SUBMIT AND OBEY! 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: Go

newmodeltheist wrote:
Go about your own beliefs and leave young people to find their own path in their own time as you had the privilage of doing (I get the impression that most of you had religion rammed down your throat).

So in other words, atheist should just shut up. We'll go about our own beliefs as soon as all the other religions start going about theirs.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This is directed at the

This is directed at the second comment. 

Living in a non-religious household it would be highly improbable that you would express your individuality by embracing a particular religious outlook.  Your children might do so however coming, as they probably will, from an anti-religious household.  So be warned and chill out a bit.

You're right, I would not tell a loving parent how to raise their child.  No need.  Raising your own child in a way that you feel is best is natural and not abusive.  As I said, it is also easy and I would add natural for a young person to subject authority figures to critism when the time comes.  I just do not want this process interfered with.  This is not treating parental faith instruction as a sacred cow, nor is it being hypocritical.  Just acknowledging it as less harmful to someones development than anti-authority cults with an agenda. 

You say that the blasphemy challenge doesn't force anything on any one by targeting teen-mags.  By that reasoning neither to sexual predetors force themselves on the young by trying to seduce them.  Its mental and emotional sabotage thats what it is.  Whether you use the word force or not.


Shaitian
Shaitian's picture
Posts: 386
Joined: 2006-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Ohh dont forget the original

Ohh dont forget the original religions of the west that the Native Americans practiced since before Christianity and that of the incas and Maya and all other such civilizations like them...

Prejudice is often no more than a lazy person's substitute for thinking - Aunt Tomee The more we sweat for peace the less we bleed for war - Vijaya Lakshmi Pandil|


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Comparing the Challenge to a

Comparing the Challenge to a sexual predator is way beyond ridiculous.

And "Luring" is more like what Christians do - ever hear of Christian groups that advertise activities for kids without mentioning anything religious, and when they get there it's all Jesus bullshit.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Person 1:"We have this

Person 1:"We have this great idea, you can do this if you want. Doesn't matter who you are what your statuses are. Age means little, heck everything means little. You don't have to do it though, the choice is up to you."

Person 2:"OMG! NO! U GO AFTER CHILDREN AND MAKE THEM DO STUFF!"

________________________________________________

Person 2: *To 5 year old child* "You have to believe in Jesus or you will burn in hell! Like the lefties and gays, and all the non-christians (More than 2/3 of the world.)." 

That's somehow okay. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
A few point have been

A few point have been raised.  I will comment on a few that stick in my mind.

The comment about "burning in hell-fire" being abusive.  I would say it is certainly wrong if it is constantly rammed down the throat of children yes.  How representative of religion is this though.  As far as I see.  most of it is understated and simply provides a background to someones world view, easily opposable.  A good point you raise though.

 The aggessive style of the BC is what I am worried about asking folks to reject not simply the exesses of faith (by nutty people at that) but faith itself.  

I compared the methods to sexual predators yes.  To show that just because it is not overtly forceful, it is still insidious and corrupting just the same.

To the chap with a Simpsons cartoon as his logo.  I would certainly not classify atheism as inherently rebellious, nor atheists.  And constructive criticism of religion has done much to improve our civilisation.  But so has a religious foundation on which to build I would argue.  Perhaps if there was no Christianity for instance, atheistic thought might have had a less than helpful impact.  Take the communists for instance.  Conversely, without secularism maybe we would still be in the middle ages. Who knows?

But I do equate the BC with out and out rebellious behaviour.  looking at its style who could blame me.

Finally, Christianity (especially protestant) and Secularism IS the basis of the west.  And is the reason why we can debate so freely etc etc etc.  The Chinese have got nothing to do with it, nor has hinduism, nor frankly many other faiths or peoples whose culture you think should now have equal status to the society you now seem to oppose.   Off you go then if you want.  Go and join the toiling, oppressed masses of the East if you want.  Or you could try being a bit more friendly towards one of the pillars of the society that brought you and your view forth. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually Christianity has

Actually Christianity has nothing to do with Freedom - all the Bible talks about are kings and obeying them - nothing about democracy (even though it had existed - in a limited form - in Greece well before the New testament.) It also condones slavery, definitely is against religious freedom - anyone who changes religions is to be executed! Didn't Richard Dawkins mention how it shouldn't be a surpise that the period of time where Christianity had the most influence was the Dark Ages?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: This

newmodeltheist wrote:

This is directed at the second comment.

Living in a non-religious household it would be highly improbable that you would express your individuality by embracing a particular religious outlook. Your children might do so however coming, as they probably will, from an anti-religious household. So be warned and chill out a bit.

You're right, I would not tell a loving parent how to raise their child. No need. Raising your own child in a way that you feel is best is natural and not abusive. As I said, it is also easy and I would add natural for a young person to subject authority figures to critism when the time comes. I just do not want this process interfered with. This is not treating parental faith instruction as a sacred cow, nor is it being hypocritical. Just acknowledging it as less harmful to someones development than anti-authority cults with an agenda.

You say that the blasphemy challenge doesn't force anything on any one by targeting teen-mags. By that reasoning neither to sexual predetors force themselves on the young by trying to seduce them. Its mental and emotional sabotage thats what it is. Whether you use the word force or not.

 If you care to compare the RRS with a sexual predator then the same applies to the religious who encourage people to accept their beliefs.  So I'll point out again that you have a double standard.  What makes you think that you are above your own criticism?  And how many religious organizations have you contacted to tell them to stop trying to acquire converts especially among the young?


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: The

newmodeltheist wrote:

The aggessive style of the BC is what I am worried about asking folks to reject not simply the exesses of faith (by nutty people at that) but faith itself.

Faith itself is useless and should be rejected. If your brand of theism had any valid arguments, faith wouldn't be needed.


Lee Vegas
Lee Vegas's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-26
User is offlineOffline
nmt typed: "I compared the

nmt typed: "I compared the methods to sexual predators yes.  To show that just because it is not overtly forceful, it is still insidious and corrupting just the same."

 

The same insidious and corrupting methods used in teen magazines to sell soda, makeup, or perfume.  I mean, I have no fondess for advertisements, but insidious and corruptiong may be going a little too far.

 

LV 

"The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known."
- John Stuart Mill

http://theistsanonymous.blogspot.com/


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
I seriously doubt that the

I seriously doubt that the RRS coerced or forced anyone to become atheists by bullying. I mean really, you think some kid (or young adult) watched a video about the Blasphemy Challenge and said to himself "damn, I'd better stop believing in God now, 'cause otherwise the RRS will voice their disagreement of the things I say, and I'm scared of dissent."

The people who participated, in all likelihood, WERE ALREADY ATHEISTS. All they are doing is expressing their atheist point of view on camera. You think it's offensive that young people are exposed to alternative ideas? I think it's offensive you want to suppress the free expression of young people with ideas.

Furthermore, this paragraph contradicts itself:

Quote:
Your campaign is wicked and irresponsible. Young people find it relatively easy to rebel against the limits imposed on them by their parents or church, if they are of the mind to do so. Especially if they have mutual support from their own peers. What young people do not find so easy is to rebel against the limits imposed on them by jaded, predatory manufacturers of youth sub-cultures such as your own.

Young people rebel against authority, but not against other kinds of authority? For crying out loud! Us atheists would regard Jesus Camp as "jaded, predatory manufactur[ing] of youth sub-culture." So how about you give us actual arguments as to why your point of view is correct and ours is wrong rather than asserting it and telling us you're offended when these things tell us nothing about which position is the more tenable?

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
d-cubed you make a good

d-cubed you make a good point.  A distinction needs to be made between what I would describe as traditional faith and the aggressive evangelizing of some modern religious groups, and yes particually christianity.  But still, I see the BC as a direct reflection of aggressive fundamentalism, and as it appears to make no distinction between particular bad aspects of faith and all faith including that which has provided hope, values and social structure since time immemorial, then it must be challenged. 

Yes actually, I have also challenged this agressive form of christianity before, more so than I have atheism.  This is the first time that this aggressive form of 'evangelical' atheism has come to my attention in fact, and so the first time I have challenged it. 

I have challenged the activity of a christian youth organizer in my village for example because he candidly admitted that his main interest in running the youth group was to get non-christians converted.  This I thought was not at all right as his main concern should have been running the group for the youths that went, not using it as a vehicle for the church.  Alas though, this form of faith is becoming more common.  But all the BC has done at the very least is create its own version of it.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
KSMB.... You may be making

KSMB....

You may be making invalid assumptions about me.  My theism is philosophical and based entirely on reason not faith.  Unlike Dawkins and others who seen to base their naturalism on what are essentially theological arguments.  I base my super-naturalism of cold hard analysis of the natural world.  I, in fact, am a better barer of the light of reason than Dawkins and I would proberbly guess, you too.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm always amused when

I'm always amused when "visible" atheism is described as "aggressive fundamentalism."

As far as I can tell, in order to see anything about the BC, you have to first go to the webpage, then click on the video.  Also as far as I know, there are no BC videos being shown at movie theaters, on tv, or in any other media where the audience is even moderately captive.

How, exactly, is this anything like aggressive fundamentalism?  Do you know what fundamentalism is?

1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

 

The only strict adherence to anything in atheism is that nothing is beyond question!  Can you not see that this is the exact opposite of fundamentalism?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

KSMB....

You may be making invalid assumptions about me. My theism is philosophical and based entirely on reason not faith. Unlike Dawkins and others who seen to base their naturalism on what are essentially theological arguments. I base my super-naturalism of cold hard analysis of the natural world. I, in fact, am a better barer of the light of reason than Dawkins and I would proberbly guess, you too.

If your position is based entirely on reason and not faith, then why did you express concern that people will reject faith? And you wonder where KSMB's "invalid" assumption came from.

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, this ought to be

Oh, this ought to be good...

Quote:
Unlike Dawkins and others who seen to base their naturalism on what are essentially theological arguments. I base my super-naturalism of cold hard analysis of the natural world.

Since you're such a whiz at logic, how about giving us the step by step proof of god's existence, and we will see if we can find any fallacies in it.  If not, you'll be up for a nobel prize before you can say "faith is illogical."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Lee Vegas...I like your

Lee Vegas...I like your logo by the way...Perfume soda etc are not good analogies, they do not turn youngsters away from what could well be their family background. 

When I say sexual predators I particually have in mind the sorts of things advertized that sexualize the young, especially girls, before their time.  I see magazines that encourage sexual permissiveness to young girls.  They make it cool.  They will have the effect of making girls feel weird or square if they're not practising allsorts before they are proberbly ready.  Adults produce this garbage to satisfy their misguided social engineering aims.

What effect has all this.  Rather than having the generally benign influence of mother and father and the church telling them to wait and that its wrong to practice out side of sex marriage, and rather than these girls maybe having a bit of sexual experience if they feel ready (maybe only having the mutual encouragement of their peers of the same community at most)   They are herded into damaging early sex and damaging practices possibly, For What?!!!

That is how I see the BC in many ways.  It is turning the young agressively against their traditional social community rather than let them question in their own way.  If atheism is so water-tight, let them turn to it in their own way rather than trying to mould their thoughts to match your own.  Honestly. How would you react to one of your number who began to have doubts about atheism.  By the sounds of things you would denounce as a blind, mad fool.  If half of your slogans are to be believed. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
So you don't want to show

So you don't want to show us your proof?  Why don't you just get that out of the way?  As long as you haven't proven god's existence, we don't really care about your morality sermons, since they're based on your god's system of morality.

 Since you're such a great logician, it should be nothing for you to toss the proof for god to us.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

d-cubed you make a good point. A distinction needs to be made between what I would describe as traditional faith and the aggressive evangelizing of some modern religious groups, and yes particually christianity. But still, I see the BC as a direct reflection of aggressive fundamentalism, and as it appears to make no distinction between particular bad aspects of faith and all faith including that which has provided hope, values and social structure since time immemorial, then it must be challenged.

Yes actually, I have also challenged this agressive form of christianity before, more so than I have atheism. This is the first time that this aggressive form of 'evangelical' atheism has come to my attention in fact, and so the first time I have challenged it.

I have challenged the activity of a christian youth organizer in my village for example because he candidly admitted that his main interest in running the youth group was to get non-christians converted. This I thought was not at all right as his main concern should have been running the group for the youths that went, not using it as a vehicle for the church. Alas though, this form of faith is becoming more common. But all the BC has done at the very least is create its own version of it.

So if the RRS was encouraging Nazis to give up Nazism you would prefer that they make the distinction between good Nazis and bad Nazis.  They both would view Aryans as a superior race but only the bad ones would go and try to exterminate inferior races.

The point with the RRS is they would view the racism as all bad and should be challenged.  The same goes with belief in the unsupported notion of supernatural dieties.  There is no good way or bad way to be wrong in getting a mathematical equation wrong, if it's wrong then it's wrong and the RRS is telling people that they should get the equation right.  In the realm of the belief in the supernatural the right equation is not believing in the supernatural. 


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Cat with gun!!! In response

Cat with gun!!!

In response to your comment that the only strict adherence in atheism is that nothing is beyond question being the opposite of fundamentalism is true, for sure, but I am not entirely convinced that people apply that rule in reality. 

Again, as I've already posted about.  Look at some of the slogans you guys have coined already.  Mad, dangerous etc.  Backward fools presumably.  I sense a fundamentalism already in your movement even if it officially denies it. 

Also, we must be careful of relativism.  Essentially, the only truth is that there is no truth.  This is the opposite, or so it claims, of absolutism.  It is of course in reality nothing of the sort. It is the absolute denial of an absolute.  Worse than pure absolutism.  A bit like saying that the only law is that there is no law.  In other words, not simply disorder, but a condition in which there is active opposition to the creation of order. 

Things are not always what they claim to be.  What do you think of my comment to LV.  how would you react in all honesty to a friend who expressed doubts in atheism, basing, as you do your own world-view on it.  You may well be completely tolerant.  Good on you!  but I ask all the same, what with the general sloganising etc


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cat with gun!!  Posts are

cat with gun!!  Posts are appearing faster than I can respond in time.  give me a minute and I'll catch up.  I will answer your questions.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
d-cubed.  Nazism is a word

d-cubed.  Nazism is a word given to wide range of views, even if it is famous only for one.

Racism likewise.  It would ordinarily be considered racist to say that mixed relationships should not be encouraged.  It would also be considered racist (obviously) to say that for instance, Black people are inferior to white people.  These are two different issues. depending on your view I would say yes, there is such a thing as good and bad racism.  Ok to ban those who want to hurt other races, not so good to want to ban people with a different philosophical oppinion, even if one might disagree with it.

Take for example 'discrimination'  this is considered a bad thing usually.  In England there is a term called 'Positive discrimination' which I believe in America is called 'affirmative action'.  So even in this case there is such a thing recognized as good and bad 'discrimination'.

This is not really the place to discuss these matters though, but faith.  I will argue in another post that super-naturalism is not necessarily irrational.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: This

newmodeltheist wrote:

This is not really the place to discuss these matters though, but faith. I will argue in another post that super-naturalism is not necessarily irrational.

 Heads up!  Before you discuss why supernaturalism is not irrational, you need to first clearly define what supernaturalism means.  If you don't define it, then you aren't really talking about anything substantial.

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You are quite right AL.  I

You are quite right AL.  I use super-naturalism quite intentionally as I will explain.  I'm just making a quick supper and I have something on the cooker.  I will post as soon as possible


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The term 'God' is a

The term 'God' is a theological term.  I do not use it except in discussions that assume a priori that the super-natural is a reality.  It is a worthless term in a disscussion with an atheist.

I use the term supernatural because I think that it is sufficiently neutral.  'Natural' is recognised term, describing behaviour due innate properties, 'supernatural' means simply therefore 'above nature' and supernaturalism then I will define as concerning 'being that is not limited, or bounded, by the natural world'.  Or at least, the natural world that human experience rests. 

I hope that the this is acceptable and that it is understood that 'supernatural' is defined in relation to the word natural and that if natural is recognised, then so can supernatural.  I am describing it therefore as an abstract concept.

My reasoning for the existence of the super-natural is rooted firmly in the living world.  It is the phenomenon of biological systems and human understanding of the nature of genetics that will lead the reasonable person to accept a supernatural reality.  This is essentially an argument from design but not in the mould of the 'watchmaker' argument.

Let me say this.  I accept fully that if living systems can reasonably have been shown to have come about but naturalistic means and by the effects of genetic mutation then I will accept the evolutionists argument.  That is reasonable.  If something can be shown to be naturalistic, then one must reject the super-natural.  Many will say that the history of religion and science has been always to the favour of science.  This is true.  The God of the Gaps is no god at all.  Naturalism has been shown to be the basis for the functioning of the universe. But understand this.  It is in the subject of origins that the supernatural is immovable. 

Therefore, whereas the watchmaker argument says 'things look designed, therfore they must be'.  My argument is 'analysis of living systems leads to the following conclusion, namely, that natural processes, random mutation or any combination of the two, is profoundly unable to explain the origin of not only living systems in general, but also, the major part of the diversity of living systems.  Therefore, in light of the empirical evidence, one must by necessity conclude that living sytems are a product of culture rather than nature. Since the only quality capable of culture is intelligence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the reality of an intelligence not subject to natural law, in other words a supernatural intelligence.'

 Richard Dawkins seems less and less to base his argument on the 'facts' of evolution and more and more on his illogical theological argument that God is x y and z and this is absurd so evolution must be true.  I on the other hand conclude that there is a supernatural (in some form or another, different debate) from observing what can actually be studied.

Whatever you may think of the Christians, they appear to be the only ones that I can see who are challenging this fable called Macroevolution.  I don't care why they do it, or whether they believe in genesis or whatever.  Whatever their motives, they are basically correct in denying macroevolution. 

I love science.  If one practises science then one must assume a naturalistic outlook.  But one must first practise basic reasoning to determine whether or not the phenomena you are dealing with is natural.  Often of cause, the demonstration of a natural process is to prove that the process is natural.  Science is not however, the dogged assumption that everything has a naturalistic explaination.  That is called usually, materialism and is a world view. 

 

This post I will treat as unfinished as I feel sure that I have forgotten something important that I may have to later include.  Obviously the evolution debate is for another thread.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote... "If your

AL wrote...

"If your position is based entirely on reason and not faith, then why did you express concern that people will reject faith? And you wonder where KSMB's "invalid" assumption came from."

My concern is not for myself.  I accept that I am a rare person who embraces a theistic position in a completely non-religious way.  Most of my co-theists, lets be frank, do not do this but are convicted by an irrational belief.  Never the less I would prefer them not to have that faith destroyed, reformed yes, but not destroyed.  Most people as you are no doubt aware, are not inclined towards intellectualism on these matters but there faith is, ironically, more true in general terms than an atheist who admittedly nearly always base their position on rationalism, if it is seriously held of course.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
newmodeltheist wrote:

newmodeltheist wrote:

This is directed at the second comment.

Living in a non-religious household it would be highly improbable that you would express your individuality by embracing a particular religious outlook. Your children might do so however coming, as they probably will, from an anti-religious household. So be warned and chill out a bit.

You are equating America to a household where the "black sheep" shouldnt speak up? Who do you think you are to tell us what we can or can or should or should not do?

No, we will not "chill out" no matter how much you "warn us". We are not the "niggers" sitting at the back of the bus.

We live here and we pay taxes and we have the same rights as you. GET USED TO IT AND GET OVER IT!

You dont own us and neither does your god.

You are such a hypocrite crying about the treatment of Christians in Iran, but you dont want non believers "rocking the boat" here.

We are going to rock the boat untill an individual is considared an individual. The age of sheep is dying. That is not a call to end your religion by force. It is a call to be brave and let questioning and debate and individuality lead.

I think you, unfortunatly like most of humanity, are afraid of being wrong. So when you get used to something that someone else challenges, rather than meet that challenge by debate, you like most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Conservitives and Liberals, Capitalists and Communists demand respect "just because" you dont want your feelings to be hurt. Just because the thought that you might be wrong frightens you.

FEAR, that is what most of humanity buys and sells in all camps. The brave in humanity dont seek dominance, they seek answers, even when the answers are not what they expect.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Whoa slow down Mr

Whoa slow down Mr Burns.

The comment you quoted was just saying that by the sound of some of your angry atheist attitudes, you could well be in danger of ending up in the same position later on as some religious folk now.  Namely that if you push too hard, you kids might just rebel in the completely opposite direction.

I haven't mentioned the christians in Iran.  I don't know why you bring that up.  Anyway your right, Atheists should be able to say what they think without fear.  All I say is please do it responsibly...as should the chrisians etc.

My comments above do show that I am willing to reason and defend my view.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
newmodeltheist wrote: Whoa

newmodeltheist wrote:

Whoa slow down Mr Burns.

The comment you quoted was just saying that by the sound of some of your angry atheist attitudes, you could well be in danger of ending up in the same position later on as some religious folk now. Namely that if you push too hard, you kids might just rebel in the completely opposite direction.

I haven't mentioned the christians in Iran. I don't know why you bring that up. Anyway your right, Atheists should be able to say what they think without fear. All I say is please do it responsibly...as should the chrisians etc.

My comments above do show that I am willing to reason and defend my view.

I am human. I am capable of a "kneejerk" reaction just like anyone else. I guess my "venting" comes from the constant "Why are you doing this" and the "play nice" camps.

I get frustrated when people say, "Dont say that" or, "Dont hurt my feelings"

I agree that we dont want a boomerange in the long term. It seems to be happening with Evangelicals who "ramed it down our throats" just as others have backlashed against the Bin Ladin types.

Yes, I am blunt. I am in your face. I am blasphemous and far from politically correct.

BUT, to any theist the bottem line is simple. Do you have evidence(NOT SELF SERVING CIRCULAR) to validate the claims you make.

I simply want to make it clear to anyone who thinks we atheists should shut up and take a back seat, those days are over.

If anyone of any label merely has a dissagreement about "evidence" of anything, we merely ask that nobody use that to make public law and that the Jew, Muslim, Christian ect ect ect find our public institutions to be OURS. Not as a means to facism or totalitarianism, but the mere recoginition that WE means WE. And that "we" is based on the mind of the indivudual where goverment does not play favorites.

Yes I was harsh. But I want to make it clear to anyone that atheists are tired of being told "shut up". 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Very reasonable. I think

Very reasonable.

I think the days of special privilages for religion in politics are over.  This belongs to a time when opinion was more uniform.  Those days are gone.

If belief is to be unchallenged, then it should not demand a say over the running of the state.  

 BUT!!!  Theists must not be asked to prove the existence of God before being allowed to challenge evolution.  It is through challenging evolution that the rationale of a belief in God is to be found.  If nature cannot expain life, then only the supernatural can. 

Smile


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Theists must not be asked to prove the existence of God before being allowed to challenge evolution.

I disagree. EVERYTHING you theists do is based on your god-belief. If you can't prove he exists, then get out of our faces and shut up. If you can, then pony up. Now.

It is always the claimant's responsibility to prove his or her position. You claim there is a god. You claim you know this through reason. Bullshit. God-belief requires faith. Faith is intellectually bankrupt and no, it isn't an "alternative path to knowledge." Were it an "alternative path to knowledge," we could test it, prove it and everyone would have the same religion.

Take a look around. It just ain't so.

Now, along with Hambydammit and every other rational person on this board, I await with baited breath your proofs of god's existence.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: My

newmodeltheist wrote:

My reasoning for the existence of the super-natural is rooted firmly in the living world. It is the phenomenon of biological systems and human understanding of the nature of genetics that will lead the reasonable person to accept a supernatural reality.

No, it doesn't. I am very reasonable, and I do not believe that biology or genetics lend any credence to the idea of supernatural forces/beings. etc at all.

Quote:
Let me say this. I accept fully that if living systems can reasonably have been shown to have come about but naturalistic means and by the effects of genetic mutation then I will accept the evolutionists argument. That is reasonable. If something can be shown to be naturalistic, then one must reject the super-natural.

When are you getting to the why/how natural entities like genetics and biology provide any reason to believe in he supernatural? Or are you just going to continue saying virtually nothing?

Quote:
Many will say that the history of religion and science has been always to the favour of science. This is true.

You have absolutely no comprehension of history. Seriously, if this were a history class, and you said that, it would warrant an immediate 'F' on its own.

Quote:
The God of the Gaps is no god at all. Naturalism has been shown to be the basis for the functioning of the universe. But understand this. It is in the subject of origins that the supernatural is immovable.

Oh, no, not this argument again.

Quote:
Therefore, whereas the watchmaker argument says 'things look designed, therfore they must be'. My argument is 'analysis of living systems leads to the following conclusion, namely, that natural processes, random mutation or any combination of the two, is profoundly unable to explain the origin of not only living systems in general, but also, the major part of the diversity of living systems.

Are you going to provide any evidence at all to back up this ridiculousness? Or should I just get you a 'Jump to Conclusions' mat?

Quote:
Therefore, in light of the empirical evidence, one must by necessity conclude that living sytems are a product of culture rather than nature.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Quote:
Since the only quality capable of culture is intelligence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the reality of an intelligence not subject to natural law, in other words a supernatural intelligence.'

Again, are you some infallible authority, or are you going to actually present some evidence of your claim? Or just continue to spout incoherent ramblings?

Quote:
Richard Dawkins seems less and less to base his argument on the 'facts' of evolution and more and more on his illogical theological argument that God is x y and z and this is absurd so evolution must be true. I on the other hand conclude that there is a supernatural (in some form or another, different debate) from observing what can actually be studied.

Will you please get to some rationale for these conclusions, so our resident biologists and philosophers can shred them? Or, I'd be happy to do it, it just wont be quite as thorough.

Quote:
Whatever you may think of the Christians, they appear to be the only ones that I can see who are challenging this fable called Macroevolution. I don't care why they do it, or whether they believe in genesis or whatever. Whatever their motives, they are basically correct in denying macroevolution.

I quote from deludedgod's post on the "Axioms of Evolution:"

And, finally, the difference between micro and macroevolution. Theists often say: I believe in microevolution, I can see small changes in an organism, but I refuse to believe in macroevolution, the idea that organisms can completely change. This is an idiotic argument which uses subjective wordplay. At what point do we decide whether the cumulative mutation has been so much that it is macroevolution? If the organism changes color? During a speciation split? If it grows another eye?

In fact, macroevolution as so many successful mutations occurring within a pool that the phenotype of the organism is totally altered. This is essentially the same as microevolution, just over a longer time frame. DNA changes are not a microevolution topic. This is an extremely common misconception. Genes are very powerful, and they can easily massively alter the phenotype of an organism. You seemed to define macroevolution as speciation. That is, that the cumulative genetic change in an individual and their descendants has been large enough that the gametes no longer match with the original species of the prototype, that is the very first organism of a species that carried a mutation with a slight advantage, which over many hundreds of thousands of years and generations, eventually became so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the original species, if it still exists.

 

Quote:
I love science. If one practises science then one must assume a naturalistic outlook. But one must first practise basic reasoning to determine whether or not the phenomena you are dealing with is natural.

And, by what means would you determine that a phenomena is supernatural? What would you use as the basis for comparison? If you cant even define what supernatural is, then it is not testable. This is not a matter of science, this is a bad LSD trip.

Quote:
Often of cause, the demonstration of a natural process is to prove that the process is natural. Science is not however, the dogged assumption that everything has a naturalistic explaination. That is called usually, materialism and is a world view.

I cant make any sense out of this. Can somebody help me out?

Quote:
This post I will treat as unfinished as I feel sure that I have forgotten something important that I may have to later include. Obviously the evolution debate is for another thread.

You forgot something alright, as in including ANYTHING of substance in your argument.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
newmodeltheist wrote: Very

newmodeltheist wrote:

Very reasonable.

I think the days of special privilages for religion in politics are over. This belongs to a time when opinion was more uniform. Those days are gone.

If belief is to be unchallenged, then it should not demand a say over the running of the state.

BUT!!! Theists must not be asked to prove the existence of God before being allowed to challenge evolution. It is through challenging evolution that the rationale of a belief in God is to be found. If nature cannot expain life, then only the supernatural can.

Smile

Jeeze, I thought I was jumping the gun and then you pull this.

It proves to me that you have little to no experiance in debating.

Evolution is not out to prove or disprove the existance of god. It is a scientific process that has yeilded the path that biology has taken. It is not a tool to prop up Allah or Yahwey or Zues or Superman.

Quote:
If nature cannot expain life, then only the supernatural can.

Yep, the stereotypical "God of the gaps".

If science cannot explain it it must be a flying man in a leotard and cap with a giant S on his chest flying around Metropolos.

Evolution has been proven fact. Even scientists who have a diety believe MOST SCIENTISTS  do not dispute it.

What you are trying to do fallaciously is fill in the gap with a super natural sky dady any time you feel science has failed.

We can take that argument and run with it. Lets say on CNN AND FOX AND MSNBC and Al Jazer TV all anounce with "National Accadamy of Sciences" studies (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) and absurd,

Lets say for this arugment evelotion is debunked, how would that equate to the God of Jesus being real as apposed to the god of Vishnu vs the God of Alla or Osirus?

The fact is that none of these religions want to face that there is a natural expliantion that does not require superstitious belief in Santa for adults.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
***crickets***

***crickets***

As the above poster so eloquently put it: enough assertions. Give us proof. And yes, we need proof of god's existence and don't give use the watchmaker argument or the unmoved mover argument. We've heard those a Brazilian® times.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving a god. Even if it were completely disproven tomorrow (extremely unlikely since it is now accepted as fact by the scientific community), it would not logically follow that Godidit.

Seriously, newmodeltheist (same as oldmodeltheist), go do some serious reading and come back when you have something new to posit. 

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Theists must not be

Quote:
Theists must not be asked to prove the existence of God before being allowed to challenge evolution.

What if you're a theist who accepts evolution as fact? 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: Let

newmodeltheist wrote:

Let me say this. I accept fully that if living systems can reasonably have been shown to have come about but naturalistic means and by the effects of genetic mutation then I will accept the evolutionists argument. That is reasonable. If something can be shown to be naturalistic, then one must reject the super-natural. Many will say that the history of religion and science has been always to the favour of science. This is true. The God of the Gaps is no god at all. Naturalism has been shown to be the basis for the functioning of the universe. But understand this. It is in the subject of origins that the supernatural is immovable.

So you've said that "a God of the gaps is no god at all", but then you are saying that the supernatural must be involved in the origin of life. Sounds like he's wedged in a gap there. Your reasoning appears to be "we don't know, therefore God."

(Just as a side note, do not confuse abiogenesis and evolution. They are two different theories. Arguing against one does nothing to attempt to discredit the other.)

newmodeltheist wrote:

Therefore, whereas the watchmaker argument says 'things look designed, therfore they must be'. My argument is 'analysis of living systems leads to the following conclusion, namely, that natural processes, random mutation or any combination of the two, is profoundly unable to explain the origin of not only living systems in general, but also, the major part of the diversity of living systems. Therefore, in light of the empirical evidence, one must by necessity conclude that living sytems are a product of culture rather than nature. Since the only quality capable of culture is intelligence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is the reality of an intelligence not subject to natural law, in other words a supernatural intelligence.'

Here, you seem to repeat the "we don't know, therefore god" argument but with more elaborate wording and an irreducible complexity argument all the while ignoring the issue of where that other intelligence came from.

The more impressive aspect of all of life is not the diversity, but the similarity in DNA. Small differences in DNA can equal big differences in structure.

Please provide an example of complexity that cannot be explained as a result of natural processes.

newmodeltheist wrote:

Richard Dawkins seems less and less to base his argument on the 'facts' of evolution and more and more on his illogical theological argument that God is x y and z and this is absurd so evolution must be true. I on the other hand conclude that there is a supernatural (in some form or another, different debate) from observing what can actually be studied.

You seem to be projecting here. Most creationists don't actually provide any real testable hypothesis, they only attack the theory of evolution.

Dawkins attacks the hypotheses about god that are presented while the theory of evolution continues to be supported by the evidence. If you can actually quote where he makes anargument of the form you mention above,I'd love to see it.

newmodeltheist wrote:

Whatever you may think of the Christians, they appear to be the only ones that I can see who are challenging this fable called Macroevolution. I don't care why they do it, or whether they believe in genesis or whatever. Whatever their motives, they are basically correct in denying macroevolution.

"Macroevolution" is a strawman term made up by creationists. Evolution is evolution is evolution. To say that A's ancestor could not have become A by evolution is like claiming that you can't walk a 1000 miles by taking individual steps.

Please study evolution more before attempting to attack it.

newmodeltheist wrote:

I love science. If one practises science then one must assume a naturalistic outlook. But one must first practise basic reasoning to determine whether or not the phenomena you are dealing with is natural. Often of cause, the demonstration of a natural process is to prove that the process is natural. Science is not however, the dogged assumption that everything has a naturalistic explaination. That is called usually, materialism and is a world view.

You seem to be basing your supernatural arguments on personal incredulity.

newmodeltheist wrote:

This post I will treat as unfinished as I feel sure that I have forgotten something important that I may have to later include. Obviously the evolution debate is for another thread.

No, it obviously isn't. Otherwise, you would not have brought it up. Please continue.

-Triften


Connor
Connor's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-12-01
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Hello.  I am newmodeltheist.  I want to say a few words about your 'blasphemy challenge'  

Your campaign is wicked and irresponsible.  Young people find it relatively easy to rebel against the limits imposed on them by their parents or church, if they are of the mind to do so.  Especially if they have mutual support from their own peers.  What young people do not find so easy is to rebel against the limits imposed on them by jaded, predatory manufacturers of youth sub-cultures such as your own. 

 Go about your own beliefs and leave young people to find their own path in their own time as you had the privilage of doing (I get the impression that most of you had religion rammed down your throat).  To target youngsters (proberbly much younger than yourselves) with mind-control of your own ("if you dont agree with us you're a stupid sheep" as opposed to "If you don't do as you're told you'll be punished&quotEye-wink is in some ways more abusive than than that dished out by authority figures.  Why?  Because by portraying yourselves as the plucky, free-thinking, anti-authoritarian hero, you're stealing from your victims the one mythology they need for themselves for their own personal empowerment. 

 I have no need to debate you on your own views.  I went through all this myself and came out safely on the other side.  Just please stop targeting young people and using them in your adolescent campaign against Christendom, the traditional faith of the west.

nmt

Getting back to the original post for a moment.  Just to introduce myself, I am a 14 years young, I have grown up so far in a mostly secular household (I didn't attend church until I was twelve), but I was never told religion was wrong. It was my own decision to identify myself as an atheist, and this was before I discovered this site.

You seem to assume that all teenage atheists are either rebelling against theistic parents or were enticed by their intensely atheistic parents. I was neither, and I wasn't drawn by an anti-authoritarian seductiveness in atheism, I simply saw the claims made by religion and thought of them as utterly absurd.

The Blasphemy Challenge was designed to draw attention to our minority viewpoint, and give those ignorant to views outside their religious bubble a chance to entertain an idea that's contradictory to what they've been indoctrinated to believe. I see no harm in that. It isn't predatory, and it is not simply getting gullible teenagers like me to "stick it to the man," it is a way to draw attention to ideas that are not always given a fair chance in the public realm.

Sorry if I rambled on for a bit there, the point is: Not all teens are attracted to trendiness, some of us just embrace reason.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Hi there again.  Back

Hi there again.  Back on-line now and have chance to catch up with questions. 

Firstly, since my last post there has been a rambling monologue claiming that my position is false.  I need you to be specific as to how my argument fails.  I have not invoked to God of the Gaps etc etc.  Your assertion that I have indicates to me that you have not properly assimilated my argument and that you are on auto-pilot.

You guys seem to be saying (excuse the generalizing)  that I still need to provide evidence for 'God' before challenging evolution.  This is essentially false IMPORTANT:  PLEASE READ THE NEXT SENTENCE.  This is why I took time to define such a thing as the supernatural as an abstract concept of which the proof is reasoned by deduction.  I made clear that if the analysis of the living systems yields the undeniable conclusion (and it is) that natural processes and random mutation are an insufficient cause, then logically one has reason to suppose the supernatural.  In as much as there is literally no other way that living systems could have come about.  This is not a proof of God of any description, as I say God is a theological term.  The idea of 'god' or 'gods'  is supernatural yes, but supernatural is a general and abstract term. To use an analogy Politics is a general term and does not necessarly imply 'President', although a President is a term within politics (I used the term God in a later post for brevity although God as such is not proven by deduction).

The point is this.  Supernatural is an abstract concept, proof of which IS competent analysis of the living world.  As such evolutionists are wrong to say that their theory cannot be challenged unless some alternative can be proven.  That's like saying that evolution is correct just because it is.  You are no better than those you accuse of trying to stop free enquiry.

Just to note...I do not debate the theory of evolution as a theist.  My theistic position is a philosophical one based on by acceptance of the supernatural.  I do not debate the theory of evolution as a supernaturalist either.  My supernaturalism is based on my reasoning that the natural cannot explain life.

I will post in a moment a response to the question on Macroevolution.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Macroevolution is not

Macroevolution is not microevolution on a bigger or longer scale.  These terms are qualitativly different.

Whereas microevolution simply describes natural selection acting upon a gene pool to produce variation and diversification in an original species (like Darwins Galapogas finches) and is totally reasonable.  Macroevolution is the bogus and totally untenable hypothesis that random mutation coupled with natural selection can yield new genetic information (for instance, can produce a new biological structure where the genes did not before exist).

Take the artificially produced breeds of domestic dog for example.  Although this is artificial selection rather than natural selection it does illustrate the point nicely.  That the genetic elements for a dalmation or a sheep dog already existed within the originall wolf breed. 


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37....you seem to

Brian37....you seem to equate Science and Evolution (bare in mind I'm talking about the General Theory of Evolution here).  This are not the same thing. 

Science is the method for understanding the natural world.  Evolution is a model that attempts to explain the origin of life and different forms of life in a naturalistic way (I do not accept the nonsense of another poster that the General Theory of Evolution does not include abiogenesis.  As if the evolution industry is saying nothing about how life came into being.)

Science is essentially concerned with demonstrating nature in action.  Its proof is the successful outcome of experiment.  I find it funny that evolutionists claim the scientific high ground yet the only 'evidence' they seem to present is from the fossil record.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Conner, (you're very

Conner, (you're very articulate for a fourteen year old), young people like you are the sort that demonstrate that the blasphemy challenge is not needed.  You are intelligent and found your own way in your own time.  Agressive, fighting-talk evangelists of the theistic or atheistic variety not helpful to anyone, they induce conformity. 

 Again, the problem I have with the BC is its agressive 'up-yours' style coupled with its targetting.  It is driven by people who use the slogan "Doing my bit to piss off the religious right" for example.  If they allowed questioning young people to find them. Fine.  But they don't.  Just like the amoral 'non-judgmental' sex-ed evangelists, they seem to take delight in turning teens (most of whom will not be as intelligent as you) against their upbringing. 

This is particually important to me as in fact the atheists are wrong in their world view.   


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
the only evidence we can

the only evidence we can present is from the fossil record? Are you high? Read my article called ATTENTION ALL THEISTS: the fundamental axioms of evolution. Also read the discussion that followed it, in which I added more important points.

If you keep up with these meaningless distinctions,( micro and macro) I and the other biologists on this forum like yellow number five would be happy to rip your arguments apart.

 

I suppose that from your point about the necessity (lack of) of the  BC, I might agree with you. I started studying molecular bio and evolution at 15, by which time I was already reading Kant philosophy to crush theist arguments...but I am not American. You must remember that the BC takes place in a country where religion holds a great deal of unfair political power and there is a lot of prejudice against athiests. We just wanted to spark some controversy.

gotta admit, it worked. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37...By the way, I am

Brian37...By the way, I am not defending any particular conception of the supernatural in my arguments here. 

 I am not advocating Yahweh over Wotan, Ra over Krishna, Baal, Frigg, The Guru Granth, the God of the Deists, The Nirvana of Buddah, the happy hunting ground or may the force be with you. 

All this belongs to another discussion.  One which, as an atheist, you will probably not wish to participate in. 

Just for the record, from a theological point of view, I am not a Christian.