UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[peakoil]

Anyways, I have a table, and can't be bothered with this nonsense right now. I'll see you guys later.

[TopChed]

Thanks to this thread, I now know that there is such thing as conservapedia.com. Also, that there is a site made solely to refute it, rationalwiki.org.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by peakoil

MagGr3gor, why then don't you prove evolution once and for all, and succeed where so many others have failed?

Why should be have to prove evolution exists? I think you should have to prove that it DOESN'T exist...

The point of science is NOT to prove something is a certain way, but to prove it is not that way.

Here's something I wonder:

Example 1: I can't see Jesus, I don't feel him touching my soul, and there is no way to prove he exists. There is no way to prove he exists other than thinking about it and believing in it.

Example 2: I don't notice evolution over a small time frame, I can't observe it personally, and therefore I have no way to prove it exists other than logic/scientific theory.

Example 3: I don't have a way to prove X, other than I just know it is true.

These 3 examples are basically the same thing. It's just different beliefs.

My main issue, as an agnostic, is people who treat you as being dumb/ignorant/wrong just because you don't believe what they want you to believe. I couldn't care less if people believe, or actively don't believe, in god. Just don't say I am wrong, when I am abstaining from decision.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So you as an Atheist don't want any acknowledgement of Christmas or other christian practices by the State because it offends you. Yet you judge others who don't want to see the State support same sex marriage because it offends them. Does that make you a religiousphobe?

I judge others who don't want to see the State "support" same sex marriage the same way I judge people who don't want to see the State "support" interracial marriage - whether such bigots are religious or not. And I only want equality for homosexuals, not any kind of special endorsement.

State celeberation of Christmas, on the otherhand, would be a special endorsement. Unless you're going to give the likes of "talk like a pirate day" the same status.

And by the way, it's 'atheist', not 'Atheist'. Common noun. I'm pointing this out not to pick on you, but because it's an important distinction.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So you as an Atheist don't want any acknowledgement of Christmas or other christian practices by the State because it offends you.

This is getting rather frustrating but lets go again. HE and the vast majority of atheists, agnostics, non Christians, etc.. don't want this stuff gone because it offends us, we want the STATE to be secular and not pick one religion over another. Religious freedom is also freedom from religion, and we are more than happy to let Churches and private land display all they want when it comes to Christmas.

I personally think its all very pretty, nativity scenes and such, I have zero problems with all of Christmas, my only beef is when the State takes a stance on religion, its a simple concept and the problem is you want the state to to a stance FOR your particular religion because you follow it.

I'm sure you'd want Christian nativity scenes all over government buildings if you were say.. a Muslim? Hindu? ....

Yet you judge others who don't want to see the State support same sex marriage because it offends them. Does that make you a religiousphobe?

Comparing pushing ones religious ideology onto state property to giving a significant minority equal rights is hilariously bad.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is getting rather frustrating but lets go again. HE and the vast majority of atheists, agnostics, non Christians, etc.. don't want this stuff gone because it offends us, we want the STATE to be secular and not pick one religion over another. Religious freedom is also freedom from religion, and we are more than happy to let Churches and private land display all they want when it comes to Christmas.

I personally think its all very pretty, nativity scenes and such, I have zero problems with all of Christmas, my only beef is when the State takes a stance on religion, its a simple concept and the problem is you want the state to to a stance FOR your particular religion because you follow it.

I'm sure you'd want Christian nativity scenes all over government buildings if you were say.. a Muslim? Hindu? ....

I've never seen a nativity scene in a government building. I have never seen any christian symbols all over government buildings. I've seen the local Indian tribe say a pray in a School assembly. I've seen crosses along public highways in both Canada and the United States. I remember singing "God save the Queen" and quoting the Lord's Prayer in school as a child. There were kids who didn't participate because of their beliefs. No big deal.

The only ones that seem to make a stink about these things is atheists. The study just reflects christian's acknowledgement of who are the trouble makers.

Originally Posted by Thor

Comparing pushing ones religious ideology onto state property to giving a significant minority equal rights is hilariously bad.

Marriage isn't a right.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The only ones that seem to make a stink about these things is atheists. The study just reflects christian's acknowledgement of who are the trouble makers.

And if the status quo were godless, do you think the christians would just quietly abide by it? The very survival of the religion necessitates evangelism.

Marriage isn't a right.

Equality is a right. Driving isn't a right, but if you exclude all black people from getting driving licenses you're infringing on their right to equality. Same thing with excluding gays from marriage licenses.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SebC

And if the status quo were godless, do you think the christians would just quietly abide by it? The very survival of the religion necessitates evangelism.

What does evangelism have to do with this conversation? Atheists are free to express their opinions on God everywhere. Yet atheists actively try to limit christian expression in public spaces.

Originally Posted by SebC

Equality is a right. Driving isn't a right, but if you exclude all black people from getting driving licenses you're infringing on their right to equality. Same thing with excluding gays from marriage licenses.

There are no gay people by birth. There are people who commit homosexual acts. We are not talking about a race but, rather specific private actions. You don't need a marriage licence to live with or sleep with someone of the same sex.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What does evangelism have to do with this conversation? Atheists are free to express their opinions on God everywhere. Yet atheists actively try to limit christian expression in public spaces.

Everywhere? Has an Atheist ever knocked on your door trying to spread his "word"? Do we have huge meeting places paid for by dummy's? NO, fact is most Atheists keep to themselfs until provoked.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are no gay people by birth.

Are people straight at birth? Did you come out of the womb and look at that hot little redheaded nurse and think that someday you'll tap that?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There are people who commit homosexual acts. We are not talking about a race but, rather specific private actions. You don't need a marriage licence to live with or sleep with someone of the same sex.

I didn't need marriage licence to sleep with "GOD" knows how many woman either, I have to say now that I'm single again I have developed a somewhat kink in my older days.

I find myself very attracted to married women who's husbands go to church every sunday...nice little 3 hour window.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by peakoil

Anyways, I have a table, and can't be bothered with this nonsense right now. I'll see you guys later.

By table do you mean counter, from behind which you are asking "do you want fries with that?"

Where has this guy been hiding anyways? It's like he's been lurking in the shadows waiting for just the right moment to strike, and expose himself as a nutjob.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by T@T

I find myself very attracted to married women who's husbands go to church every sunday...nice little 3 hour window.

Two hours and 45 minutes for the Viagra to kick in. Fifteen minutes to get down to business.

[J pold]

Wow, I have frequented /r/atheism for some time now and have only ever seen screenshots of some of the lunatics that the members of that community encounter. I think this is the first time – at least over the interwebz – that I’ve actually come across someone this out of touch with reality.

[Itse]

"I saw this and thought of you."



No, I have no real contribution

[Cheese]

or this...

[pylon]

Wait...whoa.

Where did this peakoil guy come from. He just cranks the crazy knob up to 11, and tears it right off. AWESOME!

Even though it seems like blatant trolling, I love these calgarypuck crazy club guys. Question for the mods, do they have their own super secret sub forum to talk about cheese made moons, and dinosaurs that walked the earth 6000 years ago?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peakoil

...nothing in textcritic's rhetorical diatribe did not at anytime approach anything resembling a scholarly consideration regarding homosexual practices and the Bible.

Wow. "Diatribe"? I have to say I am a bit perplexed by that characterization of my presentation. I was merely attempting to contextualize the discussion!

True enough, I was speaking off the top of my head and not as a scholar in this instance, so my post is not to be considered much more than anecdotal. However, it does represent the opinion of virtually hundreds of "real scholars" who have committed thousands upon thousands of hours to the study of sexuality in the Ancient World (not just "the Bible". You should recognize that the study of biblical literature is not so insular, and actually encompasses an enormous range of inter-cultural, social and religious research). Quite frankly, I don't have the time to enter into the meat of this. If you want a "scholarly consideration" of the evidence, then there are ample resources available for you to consult, and I would strongly urge you to read broadly, and not to be so dependent upon the arguments of Robert Gagnon to the exclusion of all others.

Originally Posted by peakoil

Compared to a real scholar like Dr.Gagnon, "textcritic"'s view holds little or no merit.

Quite frankly, what do you know of my own scholarship? Granted, while speaking anonymously on a public internet forum my own opinion does not and should not hold any weight on its own. I hate to engage in self-promotion, but I would like to think that if you took the time to read through my contributions to this forum you might conclude otherwise.

I have been talking about the Bible for a long time. If you have any actual problems with anything specific that I have had to say about it, then let's talk about it (and preferably without the juvenile name-calling and resorts to arguments from authority).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Spoken like a true unbeliever. The bible is clear in both Testaments that the act of homosexuality is sinful and depraved. That should be the end of the story.

I really don't think it is all that simple. We are unfortunately hampered by layers upon layers of religious and cultural history and thought that detrimentally obscures our perception of the Bible's own "clarity".

...and what do you know of my own "belief", anyways?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The culture surrounding what is God's opinion doesn't change that opinion. Unless of course the bible is uninspired and then you can make the christian God whatever you want to imagine him to be.

You mean just like the Reformers did? Or the Catholics before them? Or the many separate Jewish sects before them? The problem is that we can't help ourselves. There is simply no such thing as merely drawing conclusions about "what God said" from what was written in the Bible. You can't help but read the text as a well educated, healthy, wealthy, post-Enlightenment North American Christian. Do you honestly think that you can see more clearly than any of the rest of us what the Bible means?

How do you understand "inspiration" anyways? What is your basis for this understanding?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It should be noted that God condemns the practice not the persons involved. What I mean is that God never refers to "homosexuals" as a segment of humanity. The act is what is condemned and seen as sin. The modern homosexual political movement attempts to marry certain acts with what a person is. They demand that we embrace the act or else accuse us of rejecting the person.

The first part is nothing more than a cop-out: It strikes as hollow and callous to merely claim that "God hates the sin and not the sinner", when the texts in question require for the brutal slaughter of such sinners by divine mandate. As for your second point, I do not entirely disagree, and I do have my own issues with the gay lobby. However, I will say that they do have a fairly valid point in the primary premise behind their whole agenda: and that is that the old arguments against the "act" are fragile and unconvincing. It will simply not do any longer to conclude by fiat that we are right "because the Bible says so".

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The bible is clear in both Testaments that the act of homosexuality is sinful and depraved. That should be the end of the story.

The culture surrounding what is God's opinion doesn't change that opinion. Unless of course the bible is uninspired and then you can make the christian God whatever you want to imagine him to be.

"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals." – Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, 2007

Nobody should be attempting to justify their position based on an thrice removed translation of an ancient book.

[Makarov]

Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."

Just as an aside, did this quote strike anyone else as ridiculous? Is "Dr." Nils Heribert-Nilsson actually concluding that the theory of evolution is incorrect because he was not able to witness genetic mutation and evolution over a forty year period? Unless the organism he was observing has a life cyle of ~5 seconds, wouldn't this be totally absurd (since the theory of evolution explicitly predicts that evolution requires thousands and thousands of generations to occur?)

[photon]

By that logic, if I setup experiments to detect gravity, but my experiments fail, that means gravity doesn't exist? Great logic from a supposed scientist.

Evolution, like gravity, is something that is OBSERVED. We know it happens.

The Theory of Evolution, like the theory of gravity, makes explanations and predictions and tries to account for all the observations.

(And the genetic evidence for the theory of evolution explaining the observations is so substantial that it stands by itself even if we didn't have all the other lines of evidence we have)