UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Gozer

What does that mean?

Are most people who don't believe in Santa Claus not good at it?

Oh, and yeah, most people that don't believe in Santa Claus aren't good at it. He's still poking around, isn't he?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Knalus

They display a seriously large amount of faith.

Plus, they tend to canonize more "saints" than even Catholics in recent years.
They've been getting preachier too, and are getting quite concerned with spreading their good news.

No they don't. An assumption is not akin to faith. Faith is belief that contrasts with evidence, otherwise any knowledge can be said to be taken on faith.

Acknowledging leaders of the community is not something atheists oppose.

Education is not something atheists oppose.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Oh, and yeah, most people that don't believe in Santa Claus aren't good at it. He's still poking around, isn't he?

What would be different if people were good at not-believing in Santa Claus?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No they don't. An assumption is not akin to faith. Faith is belief that contrasts with evidence, otherwise any knowledge can be said to be taken on faith.

Acknowledging leaders of the community is not something atheists oppose.

Education is not something atheists oppose.

No faith is believing something that is said without conformation. I believe God: That is faith.

You believe that everything evolved from lower forms of life without solid evidence. You have a fossil record that is a record of extinction. Others have put it in categories and said it shows creation ascending from simpler forms. You believe them. They have found the equivalent to 10 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle and filled in the rest calling them missing links. You believe them. They have identified the origin of life as beginning as some chemical soup that doesn't exist naturally today and couldn't outside of the lab. This soup does not explain the formation of a genetic code. You believe them.

You believe that nature left alone becomes more complexed. You believe this despite what we can be observed. The difference between you and me is I recognize faith as faith. You call yours science and belittle mine.

It would be interesting to expand that UBC survey and go beyond just the Christian community. I wonder what Hindus or Muslims think about Atheists. Would they hold you in such low regard?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Just don't cry crocodile tears when you get persecuted for your religious beliefs and stand up for what you believe in.

That goes both ways, don't cry crocodile tears when you (not you you, the royal you) get called out for exhibiting behaviours when the selfsame group claims to have a moral superiority (can't be good without God).

No doubt some people like to catch Christians in a gotcha, just like some people like to catch liberals or conservatives or Vancouver fans in a gotcha.

However I do think a gotcha that contrasts a claim to moral superiority and bad behaviour is maybe more fair, though I know that not all Christians claim that they are morally superior.

It sounds like more and more atheists think that success in something is to get "Christians" mad, so that they can then point to them and claim that Christianity is inherently bad. It's a cynical manipulation of human nature. Not so much what the girl did. What the bloggers who picked up on the story have turned it into. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Knalus

This is especially true when it appears to many that Christianity isn't and wasn't the primary motivator in getting her fellow students upset at her.

I read a good chunk of the judgment and the account it gives of the meetings about the issue the religious aspect certainly was the primary motivator; that entered heavily into the decision that was made.

Originally Posted by Knalus

And it's not to say that their point of view has no merit, or that the courts might agree with her from a purely legal point of view. But that person is likely going to receive death threats from idiots. And none of that affects whether or not that point of view is right, or correct, or true.

I agree, but the motivation is going to arise from the person's attachment to the team name in some fashion; if the person doesn't care for sports their reaction is going to be a lot less emotional.

Same in this case, people are perceiving (incorrectly) the removal of the prayer as an attack on their faith and reacting emotionally to that. A disinterested observer wouldn't have the emotional attachment so wouldn't be prone to uttering death threats.

Originally Posted by Knalus

These responses this little girl received are not the result of the teachings of religion. They are the reason that religious teachings are needed. A 15 yr old kid spewing idiot tweets about a brave little girl, thinking that he is defending his school and faith, is in need of more church, not less. Cause if he went to church, he or she would never get a pastor teaching them that this is right. At least none of the many churches I've attended would say that.

I think there are tons of examples of leaders of churches and groups of churches setting examples that these kids (and adults, the meetings about this with the adults weren't that much better) are following. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has no problem saying Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity and love anal sex...

Not all churches are like that of course, but the lack of actions by the adults and leaders (they should be shouting down the attacks on this girl, if they truly did outnumber the idiots) in itself is all the teaching the kids need. And the adults actions are positive examples for the kids to follow.

I think I would disagree that their actions are an indication that more religious teachings are needed. It's an indication that more moral teachings are needed. Those may come in a religious packaging, but I think the prayer in question is actually a good example of teachings that I think work against a good morality.

The prayer talks about all kinds of good things a person should be, but it starts out "Our Heavenly Father, grant us each day the desire to...". The desire should come from within, not from an external source. I think the dependency message that some people glean from the Bible is harmful rather than helpful; I cannot do anything myself, if anything good happens it's God, and if anything bad happens it's myself. Not to mention the whole "we're right, you aren't" message.

Originally Posted by Knalus

My issue isn't the fact that this atheist should shut up and avoid antagonizing people because of what she believes in. Just don't expect others to roll over either.

And that's fine, but I would expect others to respond in an appropriate and measured manner. I know people's reason tends to turn off when their emotion turns on, and there'll always be people who will just lash out, but I still expect the reasonable behaviour.

Originally Posted by Knalus

And when people act like bad people, it's not because they are christian that they are acting like bad people, just like it's not because she's an atheist that makes her want to piss everyone else in her school off. Even though it's clear that she did.

No, but it's because they're Christian that's motivating their responses and the kind of responses ("they can go to hell if they want", one adult at one of the meetings talking about their lack of faith). And as I said if someone makes a specific claim about themselves (source of morality), if they behave in the same way as everyone else, it's fair to criticize based on that IMO.

[photon]

Evolution has been directly observed. Evolution, like gravity, is an observed phenomenon.

The difference with evolution is despite the mis-characterization of it (either intentionally to misguide, or out of poor information), the theory of evolution which attempts to explain the observed phenomenon (like Einstein's theory of gravity attempts to explain the observed phenomenon of gravity) and does so with tremendous success.

Millions of confirmed observations that fit within the theory, millions of predictions that have been confirmed, massive consilience between every field of investigation that touches the subject, and a complete lack of either an opposing theory which has any explanatory power or makes any predictions or evidence which disproves the theory.

That kind of "belief" is different than faith in claims that are either difficult or (by the reasoning of the very people making the claims ) impossible to demonstrate (because demonstrating the claims would violate free will).

[Thor]

I don't have the energy to respond to the apologetic stance right now, but WOW, there is some easy to dismiss arguments to go around for others

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

They display a seriously large amount of faith.

Faith that unicorns don't exist, faith that Thor or Zeus don't exist.

Seriously, guys, large amounts of faith is required for this.

Plus, they tend to canonize more "saints" than even Catholics in recent years.
They've been getting preachier too, and are getting quite concerned with spreading their good news.

lol, yeah, your right, religion is this quiet little bird in the corner, not bothering anyone, just chirping quietly in its little box, not bothering anyone.

OH WAIT, no.

Actually religion of all faiths dominates public issues, militaristic issues, and personal issue world wide.

This DOMINANT issue, has only recently been challenged by non religious and because of that people like you call us "just like them" , "as much faith" , and many many other cliches.

Ironically many of the criticisms you throw on to non believer is us being LIKE believers... Which besides being hilarious, is also sad.

But what you fail to understand is we attack the ideals promoted by religion, the consequences of those beliefs and the pushback by non relgious is simply a reaction to religious groups world wide ruining this world one policy at a time.

LOL atheists are just like religious.

Nope, if you start at this point, you are hilariously ill informed and stupid. Sorry no nice way of saying it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

She was offended by a banner. Her peers are offended by her actions. She is the snotty nosed kid that is always running to an authority to get her way. She took her school to court. She cost her school money. For what? To force the school to cater to her intolerance.

People who act like this shouldn't expect that once they've forced there will on others that they will love them for it. The responses those teens gave might not have been christian but, they were certainly human.

You're right, I probably would have just torn it down my self and avoided all the red tape.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Atheism is a doubt, not a faith. Reading the Bible has created more atheists than the collected works of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett combined. I was an atheist long before I heard of any of those gentlemen.

The tipping point for the so-called "New Atheist" movement was, of course, 9/11.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

No there isn't. You are confusing a constitutional right with laws that have been extablished by a misinterpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately too many in the high court have been appointed because of their ideology rather than their loyalty to the original intent of the constitution.

Once again, you are badly out of your depth. Quite to the contrary, a constitutional right is nothing more than law that has been established by judicial interpretation of the constitution. Indeed, I'm not sure if I could put it more succinctly than that.

[T@T]

Time for a joke.

Hitler walks up to the Pearly Gates and says to St Peter, "I'd like to come in."

St Peter: "Not likely!"

Hitler: I've repented and I've given back all the gold and treasures that I stole from the Jews, and I'm really sorry."

At that point, Jesus walks up and asks what's going on.

St Peter: "It's Hitler here, he wants to come in."

Jesus: "Bugger off!"

Hitler: "No, it's true! To prove it, I've got a six foot solid gold cross I can't find the owner of. I could give that to you."

Now Jesus was partial to crosses, so he went to see God.

Jesus: "Hey Dad, I've got Hitler outside and he wants to come in now he's repented."

God: "Tell him to get lost!"

Jesus: "But Dad, he's given back all the gold that he stole from the Jews - except for a six foot, solid gold cross he can't find the owner for. He says I can have it."

God: "And what do you want with a solid gold cross? You couldn't even carry a #####in' wooden one!"

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CalgaryBorn

People who act like this shouldn't expect that once they've forced there will on others that they will love them for it. The responses those teens gave might not have been christian but, they were certainly human.

Ah, CalgaryBorn, you always provide good laughs. Do you realize that this statement applies to how most folks feel about Christians these days? We're sick of (the royal) you forcing your beliefs into other's lives...

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You believe that everything evolved from lower forms of life without solid evidence. You have a fossil record that is a record of extinction. Others have put it in categories and said it shows creation ascending from simpler forms. You believe them. They have found the equivalent to 10 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle and filled in the rest calling them missing links. You believe them. They have identified the origin of life as beginning as some chemical soup that doesn't exist naturally today and couldn't outside of the lab. This soup does not explain the formation of a genetic code. You believe them.

Being an anti-theist does not require me to believe any of your condescending generalizations, but if all of these critiques were fair then you would still have all your work ahead of you to prove any of your beliefs are true.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You believe that everything evolved from lower forms of life without solid evidence.

I understand the theory and believe the evidence is sufficient to assume this is the most likely explanation.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You have a fossil record that is a record of extinction.

How do you harmonize this with an omnipotent creator?
Is he malevolent, capricious, or inept?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Others have put it in categories and said it shows creation ascending from simpler forms. You believe them.

I understand their conclusion, a conclusion has made many predictions that new evidence overwhelmingly supports, and intend to continue to consider it the most likely explanation until a better theory is presented to me.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They have found the equivalent to 10 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle and filled in the rest calling them missing links. You believe them.

Please support your ratio of evidence-based conclusion to guesses.
(Spoiler alert! He can't because that claim is garbage, like most of this post).

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They have identified the origin of life as beginning as some chemical soup that doesn't exist naturally today and couldn't outside of the lab. This soup does not explain the formation of a genetic code. You believe them.

I understand their claims, and find that conclusion to be the most likely explanation.

The same circumstances do not exist today; the atmosphere didn't include flora and fauna exhausting gasses before they existed - if the exact same circumstances were present today then the theory would be contradicted.

You aren't the first person to think of these problems.
Nor are you the first to dismiss supporting evidence that disputes your chosen book of reverence.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You believe that nature left alone becomes more complexed. You believe this despite what we can be observed. The difference between you and me is I recognize faith as faith. You call yours science and belittle mine.

We can observe this complexity when we look at the same strain virus that our bodies must re-learn how to fight every year. We can observe this complexity when 99% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. The evidence is all around you if you'd open your eyes.

What "we can be observed" do you consider to refute the theory that "nature left alone becomes more complexed" ?


It is very silly to assert that your willful ignorance of a rudimentary scientific concept is somehow noble because your feelings get hurt defending it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It would be interesting to expand that UBC survey and go beyond just the Christian community. I wonder what Hindus or Muslims think about Atheists. Would they hold you in such low regard?

The Qur'an claims that the holy text takes precedence over observable evidence - you're welcome to take their zealots under your umbrella if willful ignorance is your criteria - we don't want them.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The Qur'an claims that the holy text takes precedence over observable evidence - you're welcome to take their zealots under your umbrella if willful ignorance is your criteria - we don't want them.

I think you're on to something Gozer.

<removed>

[Thor]

Police investigating threats aimed at Jessica and her family.

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2012/j...ner-ar-894870/

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You believe that everything evolved from lower forms of life without solid evidence. You have a fossil record that is a record of extinction. Others have put it in categories and said it shows creation ascending from simpler forms. You believe them. They have found the equivalent to 10 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle and filled in the rest calling them missing links. You believe them.

While science is trying to put this puzzle together with compounds like amino acids and proteins people like you sit back and believe in a snap of finger and "poof" Adam & Eve and a 6000 year old earth. How would you and religion spin it if the new mars lander finds former life on Mars? Gods experiment gone wrong?

The fossil record that shows a record of extinction proves your bible and your religion is full of crap but yet you continue to believe in fairy tales. I wish even 10% of the money you and people like you give to your church was given to science because if astronomers find a 10 mile rock racing towards earth I would trust science to stop our extinction it before any God.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They have identified the origin of life as beginning as some chemical soup that doesn't exist naturally today and couldn't outside of the lab. This soup does not explain the formation of a genetic code. You believe them.

Their getting close!
A self-referential model for the formation of the genetic code

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3277g2027u8x435/

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by T@T

if astronomers find a 10 mile rock racing towards earth I would trust science to stop our extinction it before any God.

If they couldn't I am sure you would be praying for one.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HOZ

If they couldn't I am sure you would be praying for one.

I guess we are even, cause if science took it out "I am sure" you would be thanking God.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

If they couldn't I am sure you would be praying for one.

Nah, I'd be too busy running around naked yelling "The end is nigh!!"