This whole topic rests upon the constant failure of believers to understand what atheism means. Atheism is not a force, it is not a belief, it is not a movement. It is simply a state of not believing someone's claim about a god. That's it. A regime may indeed be led by an atheist but it is simple stupidity that would lead to postulating a causative motive of disbelief for war. Now if we say that Marxist or Fascist or Democratic or Catholic political systems are more likely to tend to war we have something to work with. A disbelief in god is not a motivating factor for war, a lack of resources, a fear of attack, a political ideology, honouring a treaty are motives for war. Belief in god however, can be a motivating factor for war if that flavour of god happens to favour combat ( the biblical god loved it and uses military phraseology all the time) hence one frequent assertion that religion is a threat to peace.
Posts by Qcmbr
-
73The Watchtower Writers need to answer this question "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history!"
by ÁrbolesdeArabia inhow come the watchtower will not side with christendom and address a topic like the following?
what if christendom had allowed islam to spread it's plunder into europe without a fight and great force?
i direct your attention to islam spreading not as a distraction, but to ask the question most atheist have asked me when we talk of this subject.
-
-
-
55
Do beleivers have a problem with GODS silence in this technological/communication age ? and if not why not ? ?
by smiddy inwhy would the creator of the universe ,according to the bible ,converse ,either by angels,prophets,or in one or two occassions personally with humans centuries ago , and lets face it they are nowhere near as educated and enlightened as the present generation , and not communicate with the present generation.?
shoudnt their be more reason for him to communicate with his creation today than ever before ?
and using the excuse that jesus life and experiences does not cover it.jesus never wrote anything down.the scriptures themselves say everything he said could not be recorded because it would fill volumes ???
-
-
Qcmbr
AA sorry was away will respond to:
What's the difference between your beliefs Qcmr and Spontaneous generation when it comes to how life evolved on earth?
I am no authority on the beginning of life studies however, we observe in nature and without intervention from any measurable supernatural medium the following: 1/ complex chemistry in the presence of energy gradients, reactive molecules and mediums such as water or ammonia 2/ in some scenarios the spontaneous chemical generation of amino acids 3/ in some scenarios the spontaneous generation of cell like membrane structures ( basically tiny bubbles separating chemicals within from chemicals without but crucially, in the presence of an energy gradient, allowing chemical reactions to occur by passing material across the membrane - for example clay bubbles in solution with salts) 4/ many natural processes follow regular replication patterns ( crystals as a quick example) Given enough time, energy and chemicals ( say in vast oceans) and the unimaginable speed and number of resulting chemical reactions that occur every second is it really a stretch to conceive of a very, very simple replicative chemical process that happens to reach a stable state. Once you have a replicating mechanism ( all chemical, no 'life' ) and enough material and energy to sustain it and you have an opportunity for RNA to emerge as long as the chemistry that is occurring is generating amino acids and the replicative process is not 100% perfect ( I.e. you must have room to change). One thing that helped me to think about it is Lego. We all know you can build amazing machines in Lego and the idea that if we shook loose Lego together long enough it would somehow fall together as a vast machine is clearly wrong. However, if we add some chemical style rules ( certain bricks will try and fit with other bricks , certain structures are able and likely to always form if we have 5 blue, 2 red and 1 yellow 4 by 2 brick close by and so forth - lets call it. 'bobbleA' structure ) and now we don't have lots of loose single bricks we have clumps of bricks that are sticking together then breaking apart ( sure you won't get a beautiful colour coded millennium falcon - that would be design!) but given enough time and enough Lego structures and enough 'reactions' you will get some behaviour and state machines forming completely by chance. They won't be pretty, they will be complex( at the atomic brick Lego level) and they won't be alive but they will do stuff ( for example one made from a clump of bobbleA's might have a hole that only fits another unattached bobbleA and quite by chance starts to act as a sorting structure and increasing the likelihood of more bobbleA sorters occurring.) The long term result would / could eventually be organised into basic machines that copy themselves - don't get me wrong highly unlikely in a tiny scenario but given oceans of Lego and billions of years not so hard to imagine since we know that organised right Lego has the ability to act as a machine. Have a look at what proteins look like..chemical Lego. http://www.123rf.com/photo_16083493_chemical-structure-of-a-nerve-growth-factor-ngf-protein-molecule-this-signaling-protein-is-important.htmlLife is , IMO, an emergent property of chemical reactions that is not guaranteed (for example replicative chemical and physical reactions such as crystal formation haven't , as far as we know, spawned crystal life forms ) but the chemical machines that occurred somewhere billions of years ago happened to be right for ongoing replication. We see the end result today as very complex machines ( animal cells) and the relatively simpler viral machines. The organisation of cells with each other is a totally different topic but not too difficult to imagine - note this IS NOT HOW IT HAPPENS - one mud membrane protects our bobbleA sorters such that it fills with them, every now and then the bubble gets too big and splits carrying a few bobbleA sorters in each division, one such bobbleA sorter bubble happens to be near another membrane that has something gathering blue, red and yellow bricks ( a tribbleB sorter) and the two, quite by chance, begin to correspond and now wherever a bobbleA sorter population occurs it does so more generally near tribbleB sorters until the majority of instances of these two sorters are next to each other and the most successful are the accidentally conjoined membranes.
-
55
Do beleivers have a problem with GODS silence in this technological/communication age ? and if not why not ? ?
by smiddy inwhy would the creator of the universe ,according to the bible ,converse ,either by angels,prophets,or in one or two occassions personally with humans centuries ago , and lets face it they are nowhere near as educated and enlightened as the present generation , and not communicate with the present generation.?
shoudnt their be more reason for him to communicate with his creation today than ever before ?
and using the excuse that jesus life and experiences does not cover it.jesus never wrote anything down.the scriptures themselves say everything he said could not be recorded because it would fill volumes ???
-
-
Qcmbr
Gods of all kinds continue to chatter in the brains of certain people. They are so impressed by themselves and their subjective experiences that they cannot step back and see that these internal discourses never exceed their own intellect , never introduce actual novel knowledge ( useable, testable and worth adding to the human canon of information) and oddly enough always agree with the core aspirations and ideals of the believer ( this is why 'divine communication' feels so right, it is the expression of that which is already, deep down , decided upon and is now bubbling up to the conscious level.)
Any believer has a perfect opportunity, every day, on this forum to correct these assertions simply by providing some revealed information that is factually correct, generally useful and exceeds the intellect of the revealer ( for example a novel cure for dementia not involving magic rituals such as prayer or a revealed list of the next 5 scale 7 earthquake epicentres.) What we find instead is snake oil where unctuous believers use as much sophistication as possible to create wiggle room for the simple possibility of them being right. Using rigorous, critical, skeptical standards they decry and attempt to dismiss facts and non-magical explanations for their observed phenomenon and then apply to themselves and their personal god the widest possible latitude and scope for interpretation and meaning.
Then they try and convert you.
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
Qcmbr
The god / designer that ignorant, religious fundamentalists believe in isn't a very good designer apparently. This being or force has had most of his designs binned. To add to this logically absurd premise this designer put these designed machines into scenarios with a high degree of danger ( the habitable zones in the universe are minuscule and this planet is highly hostile to life) and for what purpose ? The vast majority of earth's history has involved non-human life living short, brutish, pain and fear dominated scrambles for simple survival. This so called designer, beloved of the wilfully uneducated ends up a sadistict bumbling idiot who is everything mankind considers evil.
Just a few more generations and this silly fixation with creationism will be spent as a force overwhelmed by our understanding of reality and no more guided by the bronze age superstitions of the middle east.
-
10
Anyone with a Mormon background? Wedding with a non-believer.
by jam inok here's the deal.
i posted previous about my son and his mormon girlfriend.
well they are now planning to get married.. can a mormon elder ( not sure what they are called) perform the marriage or will he.
-
-
Qcmbr
Former mormon here.
The person who performs the wedding will depend on the law (for example in the UK they would need to be an authorised 'Celebrant' - religious - or an authorised 'Registrar' - civil.) The US will have its own set up for who can perform marriages. One important distinction is that in the UK a marriage must be public meaning that the US mormon practise of temple weddings (only 'worthy' church members can attend) as the sole recognition of marriage is not allowed leading to UK members taking the route of an offical legal marriage (normally in an LDS church and done by the Bishop) and then the same day going to the temple for an evening 'Eternal marriage' performed by a temple official.) Members who don't go straight to the temple ar enormally penalised by not then being allowed to eternally marry till 1 year later as determined by the local church leadership.
In the US the practise of recognising the secret temple ceremony as official has led to lots of angst for 'unworthy' or nevermo family members being excluded from this beautiful family moment. Stupid cult.
In your case it looks like they will be having a public marriage (phew) and in this case the positive aspect of mormonism will be on display. In general the members who attend will be lovely and you'll find that they won't have any great hangs ups. They'll integrate easily, shouldn't be too phased by alcohol, won't get rowdy themselves and will generally be lovely (though they may bunch up but that's normal for weddings anyway.) You may get the odd mormon loudly mentioning something but in general mormons find it rude to intrude their beliefs on someone else's public occasion (surprising but true) and so I wouldn't expect you to get any problems from the mixed nature of the event.
If the wedding is at an LDS meetinghouse then there is stricly no smoking in the building or on the grounds, ditto for drinking alcohol and tea and coffee (so if you are having a meal at the church afterwards don't expect to serve booze or coffee). It may be worth pre-warning nevermos so that the day isn't troubled by awkward moments and if they want to they can arrange a quick trip to a local bar. Also depending on the nature of the invites you may get loads of the local members attend (they have no restrictions with intermingling with worldy people at public events - mormon wards also see themselves as a large family so often feel they have an open invite !) If you ar eeating at the church be aware of moochers. After church events some members will feel entitled to walk off with leftovers. Control this heavily. Don't let people take stuff away unless they donated it in the first place (some people want their dishes back quite understandably). If you have cases of food/drinks police them to make sure they don't get acquired ! This will not likely be a problem if you are eating elsewhere.
Warn the speech givers of the churchy nature of a large part of the crowd. Rude jokes etc. will not go down well and will lead to an awkward atmosphere. Light hearted jokes will be taken well but rude ones will not.
It will be unlikley that there will be any overt proselyting.
Congrats.
-
7
Did you see? Mormons to do less door to door, use technology instead
by carla ini wonder if jw's will ever catch on?.
http://news.yahoo.com/mormons-technology-missionary-151916141.html.
-
-
Qcmbr
Missionaries pay their own way.
I am not looking forward to missionaries flooding forums and review sites if this is what they are planning.
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
Qcmbr
ID isn't science so it has no place in the classroom. Time and time again we have to bang the drum that religion and faith are at best diversionary time wasters and at worst downright useless and b*****ks as means of determining how the natural world works. Who supports ID? The religious who wish to explain the natural world by supernatural means. Nothing in the observed world leads to a conclusion that supernatural beings created every species twice after magically flooding the earth and after making people from mud and breath. Breathtaking crapulence.
ID is a sophisticated (read corrupt) approach to preaching creationism that offers NO answers as to the mechanisms or processes by which life changes or came to be. It stands in direct contrast to evolution that is observed, predicted, is testable, is confirmed by ALL observed facts in all disciplines fom paleontology through to genetics. For the first time we have opportunities to cure genetic diseases and we have a bunch of well paid faithful ignoramuses trying to scupper the best and brightest children of the most powerful nation with bull****. The number of people who live with crippling diseases or who die of what will be curable illnesses is directly related to how much wasted effort is spent dealing with stupid believers wishing to slow down science with fairytales so they can enjoy church undiscomforted by facts and information.
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
Qcmbr
Hi Julia - here is a good explanation of losing our sense of smell. I like the suggested idea that since we walk upright we have less need of a close ground smelling sensory organ.
http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/our-sense-of-smell-is-devolving/
-
261
Evolution is Crap, there I said it!
by Crazyguy inok i started another thread and every one jumped on me because i was trying to take the theory of evolution out of the mix and most here seem to believe in it so i will just say it.
the theory of major evolution is crap!
the theory is falling apart.
-
-
Qcmbr
Julia - if humans were designed we would not function as we do. We would not have lost our vitamin creating ability, our sense of smell would not have been reduced, our dna would not contain copy errors, genes would be more neatly arranged,our chomosone 2 would not be a fusion between two chromosones with the the telomeres fusion point recorded for all to see midway through the chromosone etc. Design shows economy of effort to achieve specified purpose. All life shows the hallmarks of evolutionary adaptation to changing pressures rather than design to meet unchanging requirements.
-
544
FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!
by punkofnice ini have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.
he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.
finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?
-
-
Qcmbr
Each of us carries a representation of our reality in our heads and it is a totally constructed reality (sound , pictures, memories etc. are all electrical impules, nothing in our brain is playing a little media centre with real speakers and an lcd screen) and that includes our constructed relationships and perceptions of each other. When my wife sees me she does not have an actual me living inside her noggin but a set of neural pathways and electro-chemical reactions describing her view of me. Just as a painting is not the original, neither is our concept of reality.
A conceptual God absolutely exists in the mind of each believer. Most of us here at one stage had a mentally 'real' god in our heads. This god talked to us (via feelings, intuitions or for the select few via actual voices or visions) and we conversed back in various types of prayer and devotion. This inner god absolutely exists but it is a lone god with a beliver of one. The outer god (i.e. a real god existing independently of the imagination who exists independent of human thought) can never be this god of the imagination any more than a painting is a real vase of sunflowers. The proof of my existence is my material presence and its material relationship with the physical world. There are many conceptual versions of me (my mother has one, each of my kids and so on) but only I am real. Each conceptual version of me is different (my wife sees me as a hot , to-die-for, lover with buns of steel while my kids see me as fat, goofy guy who dresses like a scarecrow.) The god in each believer's head is different. No two believers have the same concept of God and the subjective descriptions of their god is next to useless in ascertaining whether a real person called Zeus, with magical powers and some awesome Greek real estate, actually lives.
Proof of me is not found in memories of those who know me. It is found in my material impact on the world. To prove that little green aliens exist we would need to have physical contact. Physical contact is recordable (cameras, audio recordings etc.) Even telepathy would be recordable (we might need to get some new tools to do it) - if it was actually happenning. Thus we must not pretend that god is found in subjective , anecdotal- my prayers were answered, I know love, my god shows me visions type scenarios - but if there is any god(s) they will be found in material ways. The god of the old testament did tangible real things that can be checked (global flood, no death before Adam, creation rather than evolution etc) and since these physical interactions have been proven not to have happened we can safely reject the OT god. The NT god did some recordable things and we can see if they happened (foundational stories such as the census in the nativity and the supposed rulers alive during that story can be checked - guess what didn't happen.) If we limit ourselves to physical interaction stories we can see time and time again that certain biblical events simply did not/do not happen (no mass opening of the graves with lots of resurrections - no return of a flying messiah within a 70 year generation - no miraculous healings shown as signs of those who follow 'him' and so on)
We are left with imagined gods who absolutely do not interact with reality and therefore are simply personal (powerful and life changing!) mental constructs. Mine radically chanaged my behaviour and lifestyle - this response of mine to a mental image does not prove my God and for any believer who is saying 'There is the proof of God' you must realise that my mental god caused me to preach mormonism door to door and perform masonic style rituals in a temple. JWs mental gods cause them to endanger life due to blood transfusions . Muslim gods encourage a small minority to die for the cause.
The whole debate rests upon each person's willingness to question themselves. This is not a momentary epiphany but an ongoing , learnt, habit. To provide proof of your God you must have evidence of physical interaction otherwise you MUST concede your image of god is constructed entirely by your imagination since nothing external to you has occurred.