Why can't some people understand that Evolution is not Atheism.

[Looncall]

Manners cost nothing.
One can be VERY critical of religions without being a knob.

Ah, but many religious types think that criticizing religion is being a knob.

 

[Breathe]

Ah, but many religious types think that criticizing religion is being a knob.

Some, but not that many, from experience. The tone matters.

Now, Dawkins' and his ilk, far from coming across as intelligent, critical, and raising good points, just come across as bitter, joyless knobs. Many of the issues they raise will be ignored, simply because he and his ilk don't have any manners. The overwhelming evidence of evolution being dismissed is one of them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some, but not that many, from experience. The tone matters.

Now, Dawkins' and his ilk, far from coming across as intelligent, critical, and raising good points, just come across as bitter, joyless knobs. Many of the issues they raise will be ignored, simply because he and his ilk don't have any manners. The overwhelming evidence of evolution being dismissed is one of them.

Can you give an example of Dawkins (or his "ilk") showing a lack of manners?

 

[Breathe]

Can you give an example of Dawkins (or his "ilk") showing a lack of manners?

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

"I don't believe you until you tell me, do you really believe, for example, if they say they are Catholic, "Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?" Mock them. Ridicule them. In public. Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."

"Religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history."



See? A knob.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some, but not that many, from experience. The tone matters.

Now, Dawkins' and his ilk, far from coming across as intelligent, critical, and raising good points, just come across as bitter, joyless knobs. Many of the issues they raise will be ignored, simply because he and his ilk don't have any manners. The overwhelming evidence of evolution being dismissed is one of them.

Really? That is not at all my understanding of how things happen. I don't blame their posture in the least, because really, what else can be asked of any of them?

Even in the post just above this... well, I can't fault them for saying what must be said. And make no mistake, it does need to be said, aloud and wide, that blind belief is harmful and dangerous.

 

[Breathe]

Really? That is not at all my understanding of how things happen. I don't blame their posture in the least, because really, what else can be asked of any of them?

To try -- at least -- to be as respectful as possible while maintaining their view, instead of saying it for shock factor, and because they're vapid bigots.

Even in the post just above this... well, I can't fault them for saying what must be said. And make no mistake, it does need to be said, aloud and wide, that blind belief is harmful and dangerous.

I can fault them for it: not all belief is harmful, not all belief is dangerous, not all belief is blind.

To be honest, I've yet to be impressed with his knowledge of religion. He's very good at looking at the text, terrible at going beyond the surface.

The anti-theist and the literalist are bed buddies who hold the same views of religion; one just rejects creation myths, the other accepts it.

 

[Ssdssdssd]

I agree with evolution, maybe intelliegent design, They make sense, and I enjoy science, however I don't agree with Natural Selection, I believe that we evolve to the point that the old species becomes extinct

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

That's not lacking manners, that's making a point. And a point I agree with him on. We shouldn't give religion undue respect, we should be permitted to hold it up for criticism and, where applicable, ridicule just as much as anything else is.

"I don't believe you until you tell me, do you really believe, for example, if they say they are Catholic, "Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?" Mock them. Ridicule them. In public. Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."

Again, not lacking manners, just making a point. Why are we permitted to ridicule politicians for their perfectly honest positions, but when we put the label "religion" on a particular set of ideological practices - even ones we find absurd - it suddenly means we cannot?

"Religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history."

A claim, not lacking manners.

See? A knob.

See, to you, is "saying anything negative at all about religion" classed as "lacking manners"? Does it only count as justifiable criticism if he skirts around the issue and tries really desperately hard to not offend anyone or make any kind of empassioned, personal declarations whatsoever? To me, that's just another way of saying "you damn atheists better know your place and shut up!" Your calling him a knob is far more "lacking manners" than any claim Dawkins has ever made, including the things you've quoted here. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with saying that you think people who believe ridiculous things deserve to be ridiculed, and quote-mining him in these instances just makes you look bad; Not him. In all formal debates I've seen him in, he is polite, cordial, he listens and responds well to all parties involved. Hell, if anything, he's probably TOO mild when engaged in an actual debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

To try -- at least -- to be as respectful as possible while maintaining their view, instead of saying it for shock factor, and because they're vapid bigots.


I can fault them for it: not all belief is harmful, not all belief is dangerous, not all belief is blind.

Of course. Then again, his stance does not assume that to be the case, either. I'm still puzzled by your criticism of him.

To be honest, I've yet to be impressed with his knowledge of religion. He's very good at looking at the text, terrible at going beyond the surface.

True. If he has good knowledge of religion, he is not really displaying it. Again, though, he does not particularly have to.

The anti-theist and the literalist are bed buddies who hold the same views of religion; one just rejects creation myths, the other accepts it.

I don't see that at all, sorry.

Even if I did, the fact would remain that the anti-theist is far less of a harm to society, if for no other reason because he does not attempt to scare people and take advantage of their beliefs.

 

[fantome profane]

I just find it really funny when someone talks about being respectful and calls someone a "knob" in the same thread. :biglaugh:

 

[OurCreed]

I agree.

God is also welly accepted by science and logic as well, just like Evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree.

God is also welly accepted by science and logic as well, just like Evolution.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that God is accepted "by science". By scientists, perhaps, but even then it would never be "just like evolution".

 

[OurCreed]

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that God is accepted "by science". By scientists, perhaps, but even then it would never be "just like evolution".

It is very well accepted by science.

Everything about God is supported by logic, and the understanding of this logic comes from science.

Start small...

Is this universe finite, or infinite?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is very well accepted by science.

It really is not.

Everything about God is supported by logic, and the understanding of this logic comes from science.

Start small...

Is this universe finite, or infinite?

I have no idea. You'd have to talk to a cosmologist.

 

[OurCreed]

It really is not.


I have no idea. You'd have to talk to a cosmologist.

Fine, your opinion.

You don't need a cosmologist, all you need is common sense, and a little bit of knowledge.

The universe possibly cannot be infinite, otherwise, we humans wouldn't exist in this certain time period of existence within this universe in the first place.

If the past went on forever, how did time suddenly reach us? We can keep making the past larger and larger and increasing the distance between the past, and our existence...

So we possibly cannot exist. So because we DO exist, the universe is finite, even Albert Einstein agrees to this.

We exist on a certain time period within this universe, this shows us that the universe had a beginning, a starting point.

SCIENCE tells us that time started the moment the Big Bang started. So it is settled, the universe is finite.

Everything that is FINITE is created, it had a start right?

Well, who started this universe, who created it?

We can ask ourselves 3 questions.

1) The universe was created from nothing.
2) The universe created itself.
3) The universe was created by a Creator.

1 and 2 are both irrational and illogical, and absurd as well. They both contradict SCIENCE.

Science tells us, nothing can create something, and that something cannot come from nothing.

So slash 1 and 2.

Science has no problem with number 3.

This universe was indeed, finite after all, and the universe HAD to have a starting point.

What caused the starting point, the Big Bang? What created the universe?

Everything points towards God.

Science has just proven the existence of God.

Everything else is absurd or illogical.

Einstein himself had also come to this same conclusion.

 

[Aquitaine]

It really is not.


I have no idea. You'd have to talk to a cosmologist.

Why would he need to talk to a Cosmologist when he could just consult his little Koran which is already brimming with scientific explanations, including those related Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics, how Pulsars work, how gravity works, advanced computing, brain surgery, rocket science etc.

 

[Aquitaine]

Fine, your opinion.

You don't need a cosmologist, all you need is common sense, and a little bit of knowledge.

The universe possibly cannot be infinite, otherwise, we humans wouldn't exist in this certain time period of existence within this universe in the first place.

If the past went on forever, how did time suddenly reach us? We can keep making the past larger and larger and increasing the distance between the past, and our existence...

So we possibly cannot exist. So because we DO exist, the universe is finite, even Albert Einstein agrees to this.

We exist on a certain time period within this universe, this shows us that the universe had a beginning, a starting point.

SCIENCE tells us that time started the moment the Big Bang started. So it is settled, the universe is finite.

Everything that is FINITE is created, it had a start right?

Well, who started this universe, who created it?

We can ask ourselves 3 questions.

1) The universe was created from nothing.
2) The universe created itself.
3) The universe was created by a Creator.

1 and 2 are both irrational and illogical, and absurd as well. They both contradict SCIENCE.

Science tells us, nothing can create something, and that something cannot come from nothing.

So slash 1 and 2.

Science has no problem with number 3.

This universe was indeed, finite after all, and the universe HAD to have a starting point.

What caused the starting point, the Big Bang? What created the universe?

Everything points towards God.

Science has just proven the existence of God.

Everything else is absurd or illogical.

Einstein himself had also come to this same conclusion.

If something cannot create itself, or be created by nothing, then where did God come from?

 

[OurCreed]

Why would he need to talk to a Cosmologist when he could just consult his little Koran which is already brimming with scientific explanations, including those related Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics, how Pulsars work, how gravity works, advanced computing, brain surgery, rocket science etc.

Funny cause the Qur'an does mention about Black Holes, Pulsars, and many things relating to astronomy.

It also mentions about embryology and fertilization.

And it also talks about the relationships that exist within the creation of the Earth, and the relationship between land and sea, and the Sun and the Moon.

And also the Big Bang, and ALSO the Big Crunch. And it ALSO talks about how the universe is expanding...

It also talks about how the Earth is an OBLATE spheroid...wow, look how ACCURATE the Qur'an explained it.

Yeah, you really don't know much about us.

 

[Aquitaine]

Funny cause the Qur'an does mention about Black Holes, Pulsars, and many things relating to astronomy.

It also mentions about embryology and fertilization.

And it also talks about the relationships that exist within the creation of the Earth, and the relationship between land and sea, and the Sun and the Moon.

And also the Big Bang, and ALSO the Big Crunch. And it ALSO talks about how the universe is expanding...

It also talks about how the Earth is an OBLATE spheroid...wow, look how ACCURATE the Qur'an explained it.

Yeah, you really don't know much about us.

Yeah because it ripped off other (usually Greek) scientist's work. For example the Koran's explanation of human gestation is nothing but a rip off of Hippocrates writings on Embryology - which later turned out to be incorrect anyways. As for everything else, it's usually just a bunch of vague ambiguous writings which Muslims obsess over: claiming that said passages are explaining modern scientific phenomena.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fine, your opinion.

You don't need a cosmologist, all you need is common sense, and a little bit of knowledge.

The universe possibly cannot be infinite, otherwise, we humans wouldn't exist in this certain time period of existence within this universe in the first place.

If the past went on forever, how did time suddenly reach us? We can keep making the past larger and larger and increasing the distance between the past, and our existence...

That's wrong. An infinite period of time can still have a starting point, and there's no reason why an infinite period of time cannot be sequential. You're operating under a fundamental misconception about what "infinity" actually is.

So we possibly cannot exist. So because we DO exist, the universe is finite, even Albert Einstein agrees to this.

I'm pretty certain Albert Einstein had a better grasp of infinity, and I'm also pretty sure that Albert Einstein was not a theist.

We exist on a certain time period within this universe, this shows us that the universe had a beginning, a starting point.

SCIENCE tells us that time started the moment the Big Bang started. So it is settled, the universe is finite.

Again, this is based on a misunderstanding of what both infinity and the big bang were. The big bang wasn't necessarily the "beginning" of everything, it was just the point at which the matter that comprises our Universe expanded out from a singularity. We treat that as the beginning of our Universe for practical purposes, but there's not really any reason why nothing came before it (or even if "before" the big bang is a valid concept).

Everything that is FINITE is created, it had a start right?

Well, who started this universe, who created it?

Your questions already assume that something (or someone) had to. You cannot assume that, and have no basis for it whatsoever.

We can ask ourselves 3 questions.

1) The universe was created from nothing.
2) The universe created itself.
3) The universe was created by a Creator.

False dichotomy. We know next to nothing about the physical laws which govern the Universe at the point of the planck time, so to assume that the Universe conformed to these assumptions at that time is utterly meaningless.

1 and 2 are both irrational and illogical, and absurd as well. They both contradict SCIENCE.

Again, you're wrong. There is nothing in science which says that the Universe could not have sprung into being without some sort of intelligent agency. That's utterly false.

Science tells us, nothing can create something, and that something cannot come from nothing.

Actually, it tells us neither. We cannot make any assessment of "nothing" since "nothing" isn't a thing we can observe and test. I also suggest you watch the Lawrence Krauss lecture "a Universe from nothing" on YouTube, in which he clearly explains how something can come from nothing, but what scientists mean by "nothing" isn't what most people mean.

So slash 1 and 2.

Science has no problem with number 3.

Except it's completely unfalsifiable, unverified and has no evidence supporting it.

This universe was indeed, finite after all, and the universe HAD to have a starting point.

What caused the starting point, the Big Bang? What created the universe?

I dunno. Instead of making up an answer based on poor logic, go and talk to some cosmologists.

Everything points towards God.

No it doesn't.

Science has just proven the existence of God.

And yet they never published it. How weird.

Everything else is absurd or illogical.

Einstein himself had also come to this same conclusion.

Einstein was not a theist. He publicly denied rumours that he believed in a God, and stated that any God he made reference to was largely metaphorical.

In any case, why should it matter what Einstein believed? Even great minds can be wrong.