Oh I think you are right in that there's more popular writings that self identify as atheist or anti-religious, but why is that annoying? If there's books on crystal power and how to properly cook some weird food and everything else that some people would find interesting, why not atheists?
They should get back in their holes and be quiet?
I don't think necessarily they're taking advantage of a world hostile towards hardcore religious ideas, but one less hostile to non-religious ideas.
Keep in mind that even being able to say "I'm atheist" without negative repercussions from family or work or their peers is new to a lot of people (and in fact is still impossible for many).
It's not discrediting the Bible itself though, it's discrediting a certain viewpoint and interpretation of the Bible.
Fair enough, but I don't think either religious people nor non-religious people should get criticized for discussing their ideas and expressing their views.
Belief often doesn't come from reason.
Could be, but the data seems to be independent of field of study.. there's similar correlations when looking at averages across whole countries. But again I don't think it's meaningful in the way some people want it to be.
I'd agree with you if that was the core of the "message", but I don't think that is in fact the core. No doubt there are some that think that way, but I just don't see that return the favour message in any of the material. Some may target religious belief as something negative, but that's not out of a return the favour sentiment, they're trying to make an actual argument about religious belief itself.
At least the stuff I've read anyway (which is why I always ask for specifics).
^^^^ Some good points, but I'll address a couple- One, I do agree that atheism is frowned upon more often than not- not even an option in certain parts of the Islamic and Catholic world. Indoctrination in children is an awful way to increase the religious population... yet studies would suggest it is essentially the sole reason Islam is growing.
Second, if the intention of said graphs is to discredit biblical realists, then fire away. That is not to suggest that I don't think the Bible has an incredible amount of historical value.
Lastly, my background involves extensive post-secondary work in biology (decent amount of pre-masters studies in evolutionary bio). While my education might suggest that I would be inclined to discredit religion any chance I get, I have found it wise to simply separate the two. Literal creationists, while entertaining, do not bother me.
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 11-13-2010 at 12:09 AM.
What doesn't make sense to you? It was a pretty straight forward comment.
I find it actually humorous (mmm humous) that atheists are usually the most radical with their beliefs. Thankfully they don't follow any religion or they'd probably be the ones knocking on your doors and the ones strapping them selves with C4 and yelling "Allahu akbar"
The Following User Says Thank You to puckluck For This Useful Post:
No one has "an opinion." We are always referencing something else, whether we recognize that or not. Also, I routinely state my position than back it up by referencing those so-called greater minds, but then I get in trouble for not presenting my exegesis on why it must be so. Well, I can't do that here. Maybe that's the lesson.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt though to put in a concise/simplified version for everyone. I certainly try hard to read all your posts and understand everything that there is there (read them, think about them for a bit, let it sit in my mind and settle, then come back), but sometimes not all of it makes sense. As photon said, not all of us have the required background to fully understand what you mean. Yes, it might sound like a long process, but from here it looks like you'd save a lot of time in doing so.
In reference to Arlo's post - It's like every religious group telling me that god/gods DOES exist. If he/she/it/they really does/do exist, why do so many groups need to try so hard to tell me so? I think it's simply that both sides have their extremely vocal sides, whereas most people prefer to let the rest of the population make their choice.
On a bit of a tangent (semi-related to Arlo), I think this YouTube video provides a decent overview of what a good number of atheists think (I know it doesn't apply to everyone, but a good number of people I've talked to seem to agree with the standpoint):
^^^^ Some good points, but I'll address a couple- One, I do agree that atheism is frowned upon more often than not- not even an option in certain parts of the Islamic and Catholic world. Indoctrination in children is an awful way to increase the religious population... yet studies would suggest it is essentially the sole reason Islam is growing.
Second, if the intention of said graphs is to discredit biblical realists, then fire away. That is not to suggest that I don't think the Bible has an incredible amount of historical value.
Lastly, my background involves extensive post-secondary work in biology (decent amount of pre-masters studies in evolutionary bio). While my education might suggest that I would be inclined to discredit religion any chance I get, I have found it wise to simply separate the two. Literal creationists, while entertaining, do not bother me.
I think the real issue to whether discrediting the bible is the right approach comes from a growing "creation science" movement, mostly in the US.
While "creation science" is laughable to many the fact remains that this movement is growing and trying to push itself into public schools in the US under the guise that kids should be taught all view points.
Atheists feel that these people are trying to force their beliefs into public schools, (with the next step into government) where religion should have no place.
So it boils down to a movement claiming to be scientifically based. The only response is to take a scientific and rational approach in discrediting their cause.
I think the real issue to whether discrediting the bible is the right approach comes from a growing "creation science" movement, mostly in the US.
While "creation science" is laughable to many the fact remains that this movement is growing and trying to push itself into public schools in the US under the guise that kids should be taught all view points.
Atheists feel that these people are trying to force their beliefs into public schools, (with the next step into government) where religion should have no place.
So it boils down to a movement claiming to be scientifically based. The only response is to take a scientific and rational approach in discrediting their cause.
I am pretty sure that science is winning this war hands down though?? While creationists and their intelligent design cousins stir up much debate in the media, school boards and universities know where they stand on the issue and aren't straying away as much as people think... yes, even in the heavily Christian south. If parents wish to send their children to a private school that presents an alternate science, then so be it- no amount of atheist rhetoric is going to change their minds.
To put it another way, it seems to me that atheists are winning more often than they are losing- while the moral majority still has a voice in the US, the days of Christian values controlling the political and social sphere is over- which is why i think non-believers should just shut up and let them have their religion- I honestly do not see things returning to a place where atheists and pluralists will be legitimately threatened.
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 11-13-2010 at 12:37 AM.
I am pretty sure that science is winning this war hands down though?? While creationists and their intelligent design cousins stir up much debate in the media, school boards and universities know where they stand on the issue and aren't straying away as much as people think... yes, even in the heavily Christian south. If parents wish to send their children to a private school that presents an alternate science, then so be it- no amount of atheist rhetoric is going to change their minds.
To put it another way, it seems to me that atheists are winning more often than they are losing- while the moral majority still has a voice in the US, the days of Christian values controlling the political and social sphere is over- which is why i think non-believers should just shut up and let them have their religion- I honestly do not see it making a resurgence (on a social/political level) in our politically correct society.
But that's the point, to win the debate. Universities I agree with, but school boards and politicians are typically just regular people, most believers. If no one opposes their viewpoint then they just end up gaining more credibility among the average citizen that will believe what all their neighbors believe.
The other question is why does religion get a free pass on important matters like science? If they claim to have proof for their beliefs or want to make their views into public policy why can't they be challenged? Every other part of society is open to debate, why should religion be special? I'm not much of a fan of Bill Maher but he said something to the effect that religion gets a free pass because it does, because we're taught its not appropriate to question peoples religious beliefs. No good reason, no logical argument, just because we're not supposed to.
It's like the old saying.. what came first? the chicken or the egg?
Well, that one is easy. The first genetic mutation of what was pre-chicken that contained what today is defined as a chicken was the egg of a chicken. The it hatched into a chicken. So a pre-chicken laid a chicken egg, making the egg come first, similar to how current scientific theory states that the first human fetus was developed as a mutation from an earlier string of the species (which isn't as easy to explain).
...Or am I missing the point of the question?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
Well, that one is easy. The first genetic mutation of what was pre-chicken that contained what today is defined as a chicken was the egg of a chicken. The it hatched into a chicken. So a pre-chicken laid a chicken egg, making the egg come first, similar to how current scientific theory states that the first human fetus was developed as a mutation from an earlier string of the species (which isn't as easy to explain).
...Or am I missing the point of the question?
Nope you're understanding it perfect, but if something gets created from another specie then how was the very first specie created.
Well, that one is easy. The first genetic mutation of what was pre-chicken that contained what today is defined as a chicken was the egg of a chicken. The it hatched into a chicken. So a pre-chicken laid a chicken egg, making the egg come first, similar to how current scientific theory states that the first human fetus was developed as a mutation from an earlier string of the species (which isn't as easy to explain).
...Or am I missing the point of the question?
To play devil's advocate, then explain why essentially all genetic mutations observed in the modern world are harmful to an organism, and almost never give an advantage over its competitors??
edit: sorry, some mutations are neutral and do not give an organism an advantage or disadvantage... some mutations are in fact beneficial- extremely rare though
Last edited by Flabbibulin; 11-13-2010 at 12:56 AM.
Who or what created opabinia? you do realize that some religions believe in evolution too right?
Correct, But why start with humans, Opabinia and not bacteria?
If that is the case please ask what created Carbon.
If you want to move beyond that ask what created covalent bonding.
Or General physical properties, laws of physics etc.
Is your question what created thought or what created physical reality?
Anyways nothing you say will make me any less religious (and I'm faaar from actually being some religion nut) and nothing I say will make you guys believe (which btw I'm totally not trying to do)
I couldn't care less if you guys believe or not it just gets tiresome seeing a new religion bashing thread every week on this board and making religious people seem like some sort of second class ######ed "believe in fairytales" citizens.
I've never treated anyone different because of what they do or don't believe in.
wont be replying to any more posts in this thread.
The Following User Says Thank You to puckluck For This Useful Post:
Nope you're understanding it perfect, but if something gets created from another specie then how was the very first specie created.
That's always a matter of debate and something that both science and creationism have a hard time answering. The scientific belief is just that it was just, at its heart, basically random chance IIRC (I only have my basic high school understanding and 1 course in organic chemistry to back this up). High amounts of amino acids attracted a substance to use them and that substance basically became life.
Again, this is an extremely difficult question to answer for either side and I'm not entirely sure where the answer lies myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
To play devil's advocate, then explain why essentially all genetic mutations observed in the modern world are harmful to an organism, and almost never give an advantage over its competitors??
Genetic mutations are crapshoots. Not all mutations are good and that's what you're saying.
Though in a seperate realm from evolution, the theory of natural selection helps explain why the negative traits are removed and why, in hindsight, it may look like a linear pattern and that, for some reason today, there is a disconnect in the amount of positive traits being existent. It's just that all the negative traits are more likely to be removed by being easier to eat/harder to live, so the mutation strain gets removed pretty quickly. However, it's more likely that the better strains survive (though this can be removed sometimes by natural disasters), so these "improvement" pass their genes on more.
EDIT - Revising post to Flabbibulin's edit.
- I think it's all just part of luck and chance. If [x] doesn't provide a better chance of survival, it's just luck that [x] strain instead of [y] strain survived (ie eye colour).
Anyways nothing you say will make me any less religious (and I'm faaar from actually being some religion nut) and nothing I say will make you guys believe (which btw I'm totally not trying to do)
I couldn't care less if you guys believe or not it just gets tiresome seeing a new religion bashing thread every week on this board and making religious people seem like some sort of second class ######ed "believe in fairytales" citizens.
I've never treated anyone different because of what they do or don't believe in.
wont be replying to any more posts in this thread.
It's okay. You weren't nearly half as annoying or irritating as Peter12 who was arguing against you and made me want to go to church this Sunday just to spite him.
Last edited by Circa89; 11-13-2010 at 01:03 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Circa89 For This Useful Post:
To play devil's advocate, then explain why essentially all genetic mutations observed in the modern world are harmful to an organism, and almost never give an advantage over its competitors??
edit: sorry, some mutations are neutral and do not give an organism an advantage or disadvantage... some mutations are in fact beneficial- extremely rare though
A simple answer would be, if a mutation is neutral or beneficial, how can we observe it?
On a genetic level, mutations are nearly undetectable unless they are deleterious, in which case they are usually fatal.
Mutations are not going to take place which cause any substantial and easily observable benefit. For example, say somebody had a mutation within their genes related to the development of alveoli in their lungs, and as a result had a greater capacity for taking oxygen into the blood stream.
The by product of such a mutation would be that the individual has a better ability to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide in their lungs. The only way to become aware of such a mutation, would be to look at their genetic coding. Meaning that realistically, this mutation would remain unknown.
Simply put, most observable mutations are deleterious because they are observable.
