you know, to fit in....to be a part of our own family or group and not be a total nerd or contrarian.. we hold our tongue.
we smile and nod.. but, then....there is at least one thing we just can't go along with because it is too important.. why?
because we are a total snob.
Ray Bradbury, John Steinbeck
farenheit 451 (i probably spelled that wrong which is ironic because it...) is my favorite book of all time.
you know what's funny about that book? my mother tried to burn it a couple times. well, threatened to at least
never read cormac mccarthy, though i drank up no country for old men, still want to see the road.
you know, to fit in....to be a part of our own family or group and not be a total nerd or contrarian.. we hold our tongue.
we smile and nod.. but, then....there is at least one thing we just can't go along with because it is too important.. why?
because we are a total snob.
comic books. i hate them with the exception of calvin and hobbes, and the boondocks.
i prefer books. always have, always will.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
great. is it real? or is it a false superstition? is it simply clinging to culture? or do they still hold those beliefs to the letter?
there's plenty of people who are "jewish" or "christian" or "catholic" but don't give a damn about the beliefs, it's cultural.
i don't believe in bloody mary, but i'm not about to turn off the lights and do that.
does that make me a believer? no, just makes me a goofball.
i can respect believers beliefs, i can't respect the intellectual dishonesty in the debates, especially when it has some very real world consequences.
i'd bet michael j fox and christopher reeve really wishes(d) stem cell research wasn't stymied by religious beliefs.
there's a woman in the dominican i believe who really wishes she didn't just lose her daughter to cancer because the doctors waited to long to do chemo because it would effectively abort the daughter's baby.
i suspect bristol palin would have really wanted an abortion if it weren't for her mother...
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
dude you'd be slapped with overwhelming evidence about the god myth if you took the time to study anthropology and science in depth.
humans created god, god did NOT create humans. and even though there's a part of me that clings to that hope, i know better and am honest with myself about it.
you guys keep asking for "proof"...what do you want? someone to type out entire textbooks from elementary school science and math all the way up to grad school? do some of your own research. take some classes. if you want to prove your faith despite overwhelming evidence, you should attempt to learn that overwhelming evidence first so that you can debunk it.
academia goes through great lengths to provide evidence. it's a shame it constantly gets ignored.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
We weren't talking about scientific advancement in that book. It was speaking about logical fallacies. That doesn't get outdated. Attack the year and not the facts? Sounds like another fallacy!
the source needs to be considered. that's not a fallacy i'm afraid bt whatever, i'll humor you for now. i'm bored and there's no way i'm going outside.
The argument was philosophical and logical in nature. Not something that "science" has proven wrong! What's going on here?!? Nothing discussed about the fallacies that it says both atheists and theists make?!? Just talk about how science has advanced? Come on, dude...
the problem with you guys is intellectual dishonesty. point blank.
1. you won't attempt to address the overwhelming data from various fields of science and archaeology, anthropology, etc. or even learn it.
2. all this time, believers have had their entire system dismantled time and again, and instead of using actual logic and starting from scratch when it's clear you need to, you guys simply twist your beliefs to the breaking point.
that right there should tell you that you have a problem. any half baked scientist, mathematician, academic quite frankly, ought to recognize the problems with starting with a belief and trying to prove it, rather than observing the world around them and hypothesizing based on that.
and let's be honest about this. we ALL know where belief in "god" comes from. it has been passed down through the ages. humans have historically thrown up their hands and said, "it must be a magical god" when they had no explanation for natural phenomenon.
sun gods, rain gods, unknown gods. dragon gods, gods with animal heads and human bodies.
so now, if there was "god" or "christ", why is it they allowed all of this false worship from the get go? why did it take soooooo long for humans to come up with the "made in our image bit"? why is it humans started off worshipping the sun? is the sun god or a giant ball of gas going nuclear?
that was the old and illogical way of thinking and it's a terrible way to "prove" or a"affirm" anything.
science has systematically stepped back, started fresh and moved forward. maybe it's time you guys do that too.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
and that still wouldn't address how qm has moved us further and further and further away from "god"
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
New light, hades? With that line of thinking, you could justify the WT only including publications back to 2000 on their site...
perhaps the reason it's simply out of date...as far as i can tell, no schools use it. last mention i see is in 2000.
now since you want to mention the wt bs, why is it that they no longer use, stopped printing, and frankly hide their old books?
1996 was not that long ago. Darwin's book is over a hundred years old and it's still used...
in terms of scientific advancement? 1996 was quite a VERY long time ago. i'm stunned anyone would say that. just the leaps and bounds in computing power alone has helped science make leaps. fluid dynamics alone, do you have any idea how much computing power has changed that field? there's a reason why formula 1 teams like sauber have spent vast sums of money to have one of the greatest supercomputers in the world.
especially in quantum mechanics. that's just...shocking
darwin's principles are still very much true. that's why his book is still highly regarded.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
Now, atheists are not the only ones that use these fallacies, obviously. Stephen Naylor Thomas, a philosopher and author of Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, ties in how atheism (as well as theism) commits the ignorantiam fallacy when it claims existential affirmation via denying evidence to the contrary when he says:
i see that the last publication date for that book was in 1996. it is now 2012 and there's been no updated copies from a book originally published in 1996.
i find THAT very interesting...
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
that's not to say all believers are like that, it's very possible to believe and still like science, but come on...some of the arguments on here follow pretty much the same line of reasoning as the woman in that video.
until recently, i had never encountered this word "believers" used as it is being used on this board, to describe pejoratively a group of people.
it's not clear to me whether they scorn all who have a faith of some sort.
do they include buddhists, hindus, followers of the baha'i faith, followers of the cargo cult, native americans along with christians, or is it just christians who are honoured with this epithet?.
some are simply being reactionary to the false and/or insulting things "believers" say.
or it could be reactionary to constantly seeing the very same arguments over and over and over and over and over for legislation that strips people of their civil rights based on things that are obviously and factually incorrect and could easily be corrected with a little investigation into science and math.
which then leads to the same arguments over and over andover and over and over again having to explain why they are wrong about science
but of course, it's impossible to debate someone who isn't willing to take the time to at least try to understand the overwhelming mountain of evidence in front of them as to why they are wrong. evidence which they can touch, see, smell, etc..which is very different from the "proof" that believers hold up which essentially consists of, "well it feels right to me"
so to sum it up:
that is frustrating. it's not the "belief" (not most of them anyway, many tend to be benign, it's the harmful stuff based on bronze age myths that's easily proven false that we can't get to an understanding over because of the intellectual dishonesty.
every single one of the nonbelievers here who are "scorning" believers here have been in your very spot. you don't think they didn't believe at once? some spent a lot of time and in some cases, quite a bit of money to LEARN scientific principles that then shaped their view of the universe based on very REAL things.
i know of chemical equilibrium and how very REAL it is because of those god awful titration experiments i had to do in gen chem 1
you guys want to throw out that science changes all the time as some sort of evidence, but we can't seem to get past the difference between a theory and a law.
you don't think an atheist doctor is going to "scorn" a jehovah's witness mother over forcing her child to lose it's life because of some moronic belief that GOD doesn't want anyone to take even lifesaving blood?
that was ALL of us and eventually, we all reasoned our way out of that cult based on mountains of very real and factual evidence, some of which is based on the very same evidence for why atheists no longer believe in god.
whether you take that next step in learning and applying those principles is up to the individual. so long as that individual isn't harming others by legislating/forcing others to abide by those beliefs, especially the HARMFUL ONES, then this whole thing is moot and i'd wager quite a few atheists wouldn't give a damn one way or the other if a believer believed in the flying spaghetti monster if we could at least agree on facts.
