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.

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.

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.

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! 

 

 

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.

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.

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. 

 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?

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 

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.

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?

Oh, this ought to be good...

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."

 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

Oh, no, not this argument again.

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?

"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."

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?

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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

***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. 

 

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.)

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

-Triften

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.

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.

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.