Atheist Agenda - Smut 4 Smut

[danielineffigy]

So the Atheist Agenda at my university is running a campaign called "Smut 4 Smut" this week. They have a couple tables set up in the middle of campus, and they encourage students to exchange holy texts for porn. Essentially, you bring them a bible and they give you a few issues of Playboy. They donate all the bibles to libraries and bookstores around the university.

I'm gonna stop by tomorrow (not for porn) to see what it's all about.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Are there any planned student protests?

[The Summer Ends]

At least they're donating the Bibles instead of burning them or something.

[perceptrons]

Haha, I approve.

[Loyaltabk]

weirdest thing I've ever heard

[Loyaltabk]

I've thought it over, good idea

[bard]

that's a really insulting thing to do. for christians and athiests. i mean, there are a TON of stupid/offensive protests on both sides, this is just immature.

[Jamais_vu]

The bible is smut! Rofl. All those people fucking their relatives. Gross.

[muttley]

Kind of interesting.

[Theseventhson]

I don't see this ending well.

[bard]

The bible is smut! Rofl. All those people fucking their relatives. Gross.
if this is what you truly believe Christians to be, you should not post in the politics forum at all. at least until you do some research.

[jwicklun]

yeah this is just stupid. one thing I liked about atheism was religious tolerance, but this is just dumb.

[Smeee]

Dumb.

[bard]

yeah this is just stupid. one thing I liked about atheism was religious tolerance, but this is just dumb.
tolerance, that's the word i was looking for.

i mean, it just makes them look petty. and it's RIPE for any anti-athiests to slam them later on.

[jwicklun]

tolerance, that's the word i was looking for.

i mean, it just makes them look petty. and it's RIPE for any anti-athiests to slam them later on.
I mean, if you're screaming "be an atheist!" then there isn't much seperating you and the religous fanatic. Thats what this stupid protest feels to me. If you don't like the bible, fine, ignore it. But don't do something as pointless as this.

[bNz719]

What a terrible idea. It's just further ruining the image people have of an atheist. Wonderful...

[bard]

What a terrible idea. It's just further ruining the image people have of an atheist. Wonderful...
i feel the same way every time someone brings up Westboro Baptist Church rallies... bleh.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

What a terrible idea. It's just further ruining the image people have of an atheist. Wonderful...

That's why I am an agnostic.

[Numero10]

This is really stupid, I believe in God but I'm not gonna offer you porn for a Richard Dawkins book

[Fringe]

i feel the same way every time someone brings up Westboro Baptist Church rallies... bleh.

Heard they got sued for 11 million for picketing a dead soldiers funerals. Serves those crazy asses right.

They are more like a cult than Christians... considering they tell the rest of the Christian's that they too, are going to hell.

[0s0]

I have no problem with Atheists. But those "in your face" Atheists...they're as bad as evangelical Christians.

[Numero10]

I have no problem with Atheists. But those "in your face" Atheists...they're as bad as evangelical Christians.

This.

[jwicklun]

yeah, this is extremely hypocritical, and if they want to make a point, how about not being in people's faces about their non-theology.

[GeeBee]

That's why I am an agnostic.

Just to put it out there...everyone is. The tag "agnostic" is completely redundant and unnecessary. Being an atheist and being an agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

[Andy Young]

porn > the bible

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Just to put it out there...everyone is. The tag "agnostic" is completely redundant and unnecessary. Being an atheist and being an agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

Please explain. My belief system is that God may or may not exist. I'm not religious in any way, but I don't have the balls to deny the existence of God (paraphrasing Stephen Colbert). Is there a more appropriate label for me?

[npmshah]

porn > the bible

While this may be true, this kind of campaign will only fuel some people's views that atheist are moral-less, sex-obsessed demons out to corrupt their children's minds. I really don't agree with this campaign. At least the Bible offers some fairly valuable morals within its pages.

[jessicalynn-xx]

They are more like a cult than Christians... considering they tell the rest of the Christian's that they too, are going to hell.

All Christianity is a cult.

[jwicklun]

All Christianity is a cult.
not all of it is full of intolerant dumbasses.

[peder458]

Please explain. My belief system is that God may or may not exist. I'm not religious in any way, but I don't have the balls to deny the existence of God (paraphrasing Stephen Colbert). Is there a more appropriate label for me?


According to Dan Barker, the two words serve different concepts and aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. Agnostic = "I don't have a knowledge that (a) god exists"... atheist = "I don't have a belief that (a) god exists". This is the way I try to explain it to people.

I would say if for any reason you are unable to state "i believe in a god" then you are an atheist.

[jessicalynn-xx]

not all of it is full of intolerant dumbasses.

I never said it is.

[Andy Young]

While this may be true, this kind of campaign will only fuel some people's views that atheist are moral-less, sex-obsessed demons out to corrupt their children's minds. I really don't agree with this campaign. At least the Bible offers some fairly valuable morals within its pages.


I don't know... I think I learned more things of value from porn than I did from not reading the bible.

All that being said, I am an atheist. The bad rap people give atheists is completely unwarranted. Far more people are awful, terrible people because of their religion than there are due to their lack of religion.

But this campaign seems more like something to make people more aware of the presence of atheists at the school rather than to convey any sort of a legitimate message.

[CarouselBoy]

What are they achieving by doing this?


Heard they got sued for 11 million for picketing a dead soldiers funerals. Serves those crazy asses right.

They are more like a cult than Christians... considering they tell the rest of the Christian's that they too, are going to hell.

this is true

All Christianity is a cult.

could you elaborate?

[peder458]

Not sure this is a great idea... if it is to get publicity and to raise attention to the group, I am sure it will work. But, I don't necessarily think a group of atheists should go around intentionally offending people to make a point.

[npmshah]

I don't know... I think I learned more things of value from porn than I did from not reading the bible.

All that being said, I am an atheist. The bad rap people give atheists is completely unwarranted. Far more people are awful, terrible people because of their religion than there are due to their lack of religion.

But this campaign seems more like something to make people more aware of the presence of atheists at the school rather than to convey any sort of a legitimate message.

Being an atheist myself, I know that the bad rep atheists have is unwarranted, and that there is a large amount of hypocrisy within organized religion. But the few crazy atheists who condescend to religious people and shove "NO GOD" into everyone's faces give the entire group a bad name, just as the extremely vocal minority of evangelical religious people give many religions a bad name. Be that as it may, it still introduces the atheist group as something of a sex-obsessed group.

[jwicklun]

there this nothing more annoying to me than a pretentious atheist. if you do not like religion, do not act all high and mighty about it.

[jessicalynn-xx]

could you elaborate?

All religions are cults. A cult is a group of people who share a religious belief. Even if your religion is mainstream where you live, there are places where it isn't, and in the eyes of the people living there, your religion is the cult. To say that Westboro Baptist Church is "more of a cult than Christianity" is a redundant statement that has no basis in reality. They are both cults. As are all religions.

[HometownHero]

Although really funny, it's still not a good idea. Doesn't accomplish much. And yeah at least they are donating the bibles.

[HometownHero]

there this nothing more annoying to me than a pretentious Christian. if you do not like religion, do not act all high and mighty about it.

fixed

[jessicalynn-xx]

there this nothing more annoying to me than a pretentious atheist. if you do not like religion, do not act all high and mighty about it.

You don't find pretentious religious people to be equally annoying?

[Andy Young]

Being an atheist myself, I know that the bad rep atheists have is unwarranted, and that there is a large amount of hypocrisy within organized religion. But the few crazy atheists who condescend to religious people and shove "NO GOD" into everyone's faces give the entire group a bad name, just as the extremely vocal minority of evangelical religious people give many religions a bad name. Be that as it may, it still introduces the atheist group as something of a sex-obsessed group.


Well it's up to the individual to not generalize that all atheists are "sex-obsessed" because of the acts of a few people with respective beliefs. The same that all Islamic people aren't terrorists because of the acts of Al-Quaida and not all Christians are bat shit crazy because of the acts of the Westboro Baptist lunatics. Not that I agree these people are sex obsessed because of this campaign.

[jwicklun]

You don't find pretentious religious people to be equally annoying?
just being pretentious is annoying. Don't act like your religion is superior to others. If you do not believe in God, thats fine, but do not rub it people's faces.

[Machu505]

I always find it hilarious when someone disregards a part of their group as "not true ______" just because they give the better folks a bad name. Whether it's Muslims and suicide bombers, Tea Partiers and racists, or Christians and WBCers, it's all the same. Own up, assholes.

[HometownHero]

Both sides are full of bitches. Guess what side I'm on?

[Broclee]

Hm.

[ImTheSheriff]

this isn't a good idea but there are many people in here that have no idea what they are talking about.

[Fringe]

All Christianity is a cult.

Oooooo edgy

Guess it makes sense though. By cult I was just really trying to say they really aren't Christians.

[aoftbsten]

that's a really insulting thing to do. for christians and athiests. i mean, there are a TON of stupid/offensive protests on both sides, this is just immature.

This.

[SlappedActor]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f8PhzrmBgMI/0.jpg

[The Indigo]

I mean, if you're screaming "be an atheist!" then there isn't much seperating you and the religous fanatic.
Say hello to the inherent irony in the neo-atheist movement.

[jwicklun]

Say hello to the inherent irony in the neo-atheist movement.
Case in point: do not grow fantatic about whatever theology you are into.

[The Indigo]

All religions are cults. A cult is a group of people who share a religious belief. Even if your religion is mainstream where you live, there are places where it isn't, and in the eyes of the people living there, your religion is the cult. To say that Westboro Baptist Church is "more of a cult than Christianity" is a redundant statement that has no basis in reality. They are both cults. As are all religions.
To be fair, by the vague, subjective connotations of the word "cult," the claim could be made that just about any group of people are a cult.

I always find it hilarious when someone disregards a part of their group as "not true ______" just because they give the better folks a bad name. Whether it's Muslims and suicide bombers, Tea Partiers and racists, or Christians and WBCers, it's all the same. Own up, assholes.
That would disregard the purpose of sects and categories. It'd be like blaming your house dog if your sheep were stolen by wolves. But I'm pretty sure you were joking, so disregard this post if need be.

[tyramail]

there this nothing more annoying to me than a pretentious atheist. if you do not like religion, do not act all high and mighty about it.
you could apply this to any religion though. anyway, this is quite strange and funny to me, but ultimately is a bad idea.

[showmethefever]

there this nothing more annoying to me than a pretentious atheist. if you do not like religion, do not act all high and mighty about it.
For every one atheist like this, there's probably 10,000 religious people who act all high and mighty about their religion.

[jwicklun]

For every one atheist like this, there's probably 10,000 religious people who act all high and mighty about their religion.
true. now that think about it, pretentious religous people are very annoying. but what these people are doing is pretty stupid.

[caveBEAR]

true. now that think about it, pretentious religous people are very annoying. but what these people are doing is pretty stupid.

I find the protesting of abortion clinics to be pretty stupid, so...to each their own, I guess.

[jwicklun]

I find the protesting of abortion clinics to be pretty stupid, so...to each their own, I guess.
both are very stupid.

[caveBEAR]

both are very stupid.

You think this is stupid, I think it's 'low-brow', but the people they're trying to irritate react much more fervently to shock value than logic, so I understand the tactic.

[jwicklun]

You think this is stupid, I think it's 'low-brow', but the people they're trying to irritate react much more fervently to shock value than logic, so I understand the tactic.
it just seems very unneccessary. I mean if the argument is that you are tired with religion, its probably best to ignore it as a whole. This just seems like a cheap trick just get some shock and awe.

[rawspinner]

I mean it's cool that they are donating the Bibles (versus burning or anything).

[caveBEAR]

it just seems very unneccessary. I mean if the argument is that you are tired with religion, its probably best to ignore it as a whole. This just seems like a cheap trick just get some shock and awe.

I look at this as people who feel that religion causes people to do horrible things (see; gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and feel that this is the best way to get their message across to an audience who doesn't want to hear opposing viewpoints.


Or it's stupid, whatever. :shrug:

[jwicklun]

I look at this as people who feel that religion causes people to do horrible things (see; gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and feel that this is the best way to get their message across to an audience who doesn't want to hear opposing viewpoints.


Or it's stupid, whatever. :shrug:
If it was a protest against christianity for supporting these issues, I would understand. I really do not what their motivation exactly is, but it just seems like they're only goal is to offend. I mean, they can still do it, I just think it's not very effective

[caveBEAR]

If it was a protest against christianity for supporting these issues, I would understand. I really do not what their motivation exactly is, but it just seems like they're only goal is to offend. I mean, they can still do it, I just think it's not very effective

I don't think there's any way for someone to 'go after' religion without the religious getting offended, so might as well go for broke and get mentioned in some papers.

[jwicklun]

I don't think there's any way for someone to 'go after' religion without the religious getting offended, so might as well go for broke and get mentioned in some papers.
well yeah, any publicity is good publicity. what just dissapoints me is just the integrity. sure it's funny for a little bit, but really, to other people, you just look like a couple of dicks.

[caveBEAR]

well yeah, any publicity is good publicity. what just dissapoints me is just the integrity. sure it's funny for a little bit, but really, to other people, you just look like a couple of dicks.

I don't know, 'guys handing out Playboys' is about as low on the 'Dick Scale' as you can be.

[jwicklun]

I don't know, 'guys handing out Playboys' is about as low on the 'Dick Scale' as you can be.
Dunno. I really do not approve of this, but whatever floats their boat.

[.invisible ink.]

that's offensive. and i say this as an atheist (and a fan of porn).

[derekmoyer4]

well at least they are donating the bibles. i think a little more focus should be on that.

[ArtForLovers]

this is really dumb, even for athiest. makes it seem like they hold porn to their highest standards.
Pretty low...

[caveBEAR]

this is really dumb, even for athiest. makes it seem like they hold porn to their highest standards.
Pretty low...

Porn is one of my favorite things in life. Let's not be so quick to judge!

[derekmoyer4]

this is really dumb, even for athiest. makes it seem like they hold porn to their highest standards.
Pretty low...
i do not believe that it makes it seem that they are holding porn to higher standards. what they are doing is having people trade in bibles and donating them. of course they are given pornography too, but that does not mean one can assume they believe that to be their "highest standard" rather, it may in fact mean that certain individuals may find pornography more useful to them than i bible.

but in the end we cannot know why they decided to do this, but they are collecting and donating bibles. seems like a good cause on that front.

[cantnokdahustle]

So the Atheist Agenda at my university is running a campaign called "Smut 4 Smut" this week. They have a couple tables set up in the middle of campus, and they encourage students to exchange holy texts for porn. Essentially, you bring them a bible and they give you a few issues of Playboy. They donate all the bibles to libraries and bookstores around the university.

I'm gonna stop by tomorrow (not for porn) to see what it's all about.

They also did this before Winter Break in '05. It certainly didn't get the attention then that it is now, though Thomas Jackson did appear on Tucker Carlson via video link from the university. They lifted the idea from a group here at UT called the Knights of Buh who had no particular reason behind the stunt other than their own amusement. AA at UTSA is only interested in media attention; they could care less if it's negative and further harms the image of Atheists in this country.

[danielineffigy]

They also did this before Winter Break in '05. It certainly didn't get the attention then that it is now, though Thomas Jackson did appear on Tucker Carlson via video link from the university. They lifted the idea from a group here at UT called the Knights of Buh who had no particular reason behind the stunt other than their own amusement. AA at UTSA is only interested in media attention; they could care less if it's negative and further harms the image of Atheists in this country.
Yeah I have to agree. I stopped by and there were some interesting discussions going on, but for the most part, the AA members were just having a laugh out of it. Trolling in real life.

[caveBEAR]

Trolling in real life.

Which is actually much more fun, productive and difficult than the online version.

[Big_Guy]

I don't really see the point of this.

[peder458]

I think I would be more behind this idea if instead of trading for porn, they handed out copies of books on evolution and cosmology or even other religions - thought that would ruin the catchy slogan... (and yes I realize that religion and evolution/the big bang are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)

[derekmoyer4]

I think I would be more behind this idea if instead of trading for porn, they handed out copies of books on evolution and cosmology or even other religions - thought that would ruin the catchy slogan... (and yes I realize that religion and evolution/the big bang are not necessarily mutually exclusive.)
what if they would have given out high-fives for a bible. i think that would have been awesome. :highfive:

[peder458]

what if they would have given out high-fives for a bible. i think that would have been awesome. :highfive:

high fives on the other hand are strictly forbidden in the old testament.. I am sure it is in there somewhere :)

[derekmoyer4]

high fives on the other hand are strictly forbidden in the old testament.. I am sure it is in there somewhere :)
yeah but i also believe that people have come to the conclusion that they will only pick and choose what to truly follow out of the old testament.

[ArtForLovers]

i do not believe that it makes it seem that they are holding porn to higher standards. what they are doing is having people trade in bibles and donating them. of course they are given pornography too, but that does not mean one can assume they believe that to be their "highest standard" rather, it may in fact mean that certain individuals may find pornography more useful to them than i bible.

but in the end we cannot know why they decided to do this, but they are collecting and donating bibles. seems like a good cause on that front.
it is a good cause...for the most part. Donating bibles to a book store in which most likely already has an abundancy of them. But who really knows. The real issue, to me in the incentive. Porn.. Not the donation. People are doing it for porn, otherwise why even include that incentive?

[ArtForLovers]

what if they would have given out high-fives for a bible. i think that would have been awesome. :highfive:
yes!
high fives on the other hand are strictly forbidden in the old testament.. I am sure it is in there somewhere :)
well then it is a good idea for an athiest movement
yeah but i also believe that people have come to the conclusion that they will only pick and choose what to truly follow out of the old testament.
very true.

[paper halo]

it is a good cause...for the most part. Donating bibles to a book store in which most likely already has an abundancy of them. But who really knows. The real issue, to me in the incentive. Porn.. Not the donation. People are doing it for porn, otherwise why even include that incentive?

What's wrong with porn? Legitimate question. Its use by this group is probably in response to conservative Christian views of sex, which are frankly unhealthy. Granted, it's obviously also intended as a slight on the bible in this instance.

[caveBEAR]

I'm looking at porn right now...AND LOVING IT!

[paper halo]

I'm looking at porn right now...AND LOVING IT!

Heathen.

[ImTheSheriff]

this is really dumb, even for athiest. makes it seem like they hold porn to their highest standards.
Pretty low...

actually it doesn't seem like that at all, it is called SMUT for SMUT.

[derekmoyer4]

What's wrong with porn? Legitimate question. Its use by this group is probably in response to conservative Christian views of sex, which are frankly unhealthy. Granted, it's obviously also a slight on the bible.
i will tell you what is wrong with pornography. nothing.

[caveBEAR]

actually it doesn't seem like that at all, it is called SMUT for SMUT.

But...but...everybody in the world holds the Bible to be the highest regarded item in their lives...so Smut For Smut must mean they place porn just as high!

[ImTheSheriff]

But...but...everybody in the world holds the Bible to be the highest regarded item in their lives...so Smut For Smut must mean they place porn just as high!

ahhh yes, my bad. your logic is perfect, how stupid of me.

[Bruised26]

What a stupid idea. They are being JUST as in-your-face about their beliefs as radical Christians and other religions are. If theres one thing I cannot stand, it's people shoving their beliefs down your throat

[Bruised26]

What's wrong with porn? Legitimate question. Its use by this group is probably in response to conservative Christian views of sex, which are frankly unhealthy. Granted, it's obviously also intended as a slight on the bible in this instance.

Any addiction in itself is unhealthy. Christian views of sex (abstinence) are NOT unhealthy whatsoever.

[caveBEAR]

Any addiction in itself is unhealthy. Christian views of sex (abstinence) are NOT unhealthy whatsoever.

Does watching porn make you addicted now?

[Bruised26]

Does watching porn make you addicted now?

Not necessarily. But most people that watch porn are in fact porn addicts

[caveBEAR]

Not necessarily. But most people that watch porn are in fact porn addicts

Your figures/proof?

[The Indigo]

You think this is stupid, I think it's 'low-brow', but the people they're trying to irritate react much more fervently to shock value than logic, so I understand the tactic.
Like radical Muslim suicide bombers. Right, yeah, shock the opposition to get their attention. Great tactic.

[caveBEAR]

Like radical Muslim suicide bombers. Right, yeah, shock the opposition to get their attention. Great tactic.

You really trying to compare atheists in a courtyard handing out porn to suicide bombers? The ends and reasoning both groups do the respective actions for make them apples to oranges, but if you wish you compare, we can.


As well, don't try to equate shock = violence.

[cantnokdahustle]

Any addiction in itself is unhealthy. Christian views of sex (abstinence) are NOT unhealthy whatsoever.

Sexual repression (abstinence) is extremely unhealthy.

[The Indigo]

You really trying to compare atheists in a courtyard handing out porn to suicide bombers? The ends and reasoning both groups do the respective actions for make them apples to oranges, but if you wish you compare, we can.


As well, don't try to equate shock = violence.
Fair enough, but WBC is all about shock value, and they openly claim they do their protests just to shock people and get media attention. Are you as accepting of their tactics?

[caveBEAR]

Sexual repression (abstinence) is extremely unhealthy.

This, as well.

[caveBEAR]

Fair enough, but WBC is all about shock value, and they openly claim they do their protests just to shock people and get media attention. Are you as accepting of their tactics?

Nope, because the WBC actively spreads hate and misinformation, and the atheists with porn couldn't have been further from that end. The means =/= the end.

[Bruised26]

Sexual repression (abstinence) is extremely unhealthy.

Proof? I know many people who have stayed virgin until marriage and they have done very well.
In the end, I dont think its right to criticize someone for a moral choice. I think we should commend them for making such a strong decision.

[ImTheSheriff]

Not necessarily. But most people that watch porn are in fact porn addicts

what are you talking about? you are just pulling facts out of your ass.

[Theseventhson]

Like radical Muslim suicide bombers. Right, yeah, shock the opposition to get their attention. Great tactic.
Lol? Suicide bombers = handing out porn?

[caveBEAR]

Proof? I know many people who have stayed virgin until marriage and they have done very well.

Choosing to remain a virgin / sexual repression by way of religious misinformation about sexual education and abstinence are not the same thing.

[The Indigo]

Nope, because the WBC actively spreads hate and misinformation, and the atheists with porn couldn't have been further from that end. The means =/= the end.
Fair enough. I still think the neo-atheist movement would be a lot more effective if they didn't rely on the same pushy aesthetics they criticize evangelicals for having.

[Bruised26]

Choosing to remain a virgin / sexual repression by way of religious misinformation about sexual education and abstinence are not the same thing.

I'm not talking about celibacy, I was talking about being a virgin until marriage (not to do with religion, I know many non religious people who choose to follow this)

[caveBEAR]

Fair enough. I still think the neo-atheist movement would be a lot more effective if they didn't rely on the same pushy aesthetics they criticize evangelicals for having.

Oh, trust me, I find the 'neo-atheists' to be just as irritating as anyone who shoves their beliefs down someone's throats, but I have found much more levels of compassion and tolerance towards others (especially others that are different) than those who shove the beliefs of major religions.

[ImTheSheriff]

Any addiction in itself is unhealthy. Christian views of sex (abstinence) are NOT unhealthy whatsoever.

I'm not talking about celibacy, I was talking about being a virgin until marriage (not to do with religion, I know many non religious people who choose to follow this)

actually you did mention religion.

[The Indigo]

Oh, trust me, I find the 'neo-atheists' to be just as irritating as anyone who shoves their beliefs down someone's throats, but I have found much more levels of compassion and tolerance towards others (especially others that are different) than those who shove the beliefs of major religions.
I'll agree with that. At least when atheists are shoving beliefs down my throat, the most I get annoyed with is their pseudo-intellectual second hand knowledge, most of it stolen from Richard Dawkins excerpts and philosophers they know nothing about. With fundamentals, they're advocating for shit that shouldn't even be considered in the 21st century.

[peder458]

Any addiction in itself is unhealthy. Christian views of sex (abstinence) are NOT unhealthy whatsoever.

People should not be made to feel guilty or told that they risk BURNING FOREVER IN HELL for something natural between two consenting adults. That is unhealthy.

[caveBEAR]

I'm not talking about celibacy, I was talking about being a virgin until marriage (not to do with religion, I know many non religious people who choose to follow this)

Exactly, 'choose'. I don't give a shit about people who choose to not have sex (more to go around for me) I have a problem with people who want to have sex (which is a natural urge) but fall back on abstinence because of the BULLSHIT that religions/religious leaders let pour out of their mouths about sex.

[caveBEAR]

I'll agree with that. At least when atheists are shoving beliefs down my throat, the most I get annoyed with is their pseudo-intellectual second hand knowledge, most of it stolen from Richard Dawkins excerpts and philosophers they know nothing about. With fundamentals, they're advocating for shit that shouldn't even be considered in the 21st century.

Yup, that's almost exactly how I feel. I don't like anyone lecturing me on a subject that they themselves do not fully comprehend, and that's the feeling I get from a lot of 'Neo-Atheists'. However, like you said, at least the things they don't fully grasp have a place in the present day.

[Bruised26]

Exactly, 'choose'. I don't give a shit about people who choose to not have sex (more to go around for me) I have a problem with people who want to have sex (which is a natural urge) but fall back on abstinence because of the BULLSHIT that religions/religious leaders let pour out of their mouths about sex.

Yes and I have a problem with that too, because that's false convictions. But if someone is choosing to not have sex for moral reasons, I don't see any problem with that.

[Scrandon]

This is just depressing...

[npmshah]

Well it's up to the individual to not generalize that all atheists are "sex-obsessed" because of the acts of a few people with respective beliefs. The same that all Islamic people aren't terrorists because of the acts of Al-Quaida and not all Christians are bat shit crazy because of the acts of the Westboro Baptist lunatics. Not that I agree these people are sex obsessed because of this campaign.

While that is true, and both you and I understand that, the majority of the American population doesn't share our level of thought. You'd be shocked at how many people think Islam preaches terrorism, and, to be fair, the WBC is only twenty-odd people. And they preach an extreme version of Christianity in a country where Christian values and beliefs are deeply embedded. I don't think the WBC can ever be really considered when dealing with this type of situation.

[caveBEAR]

Yes and I have a problem with that too, because that's false convictions. But if someone is choosing to not have sex for moral reasons, I don't see any problem with that.

...no shit?

[paper halo]

Any addiction in itself is unhealthy. Christian views of sex (abstinence) are NOT unhealthy whatsoever.

Watching porn does not equate addiction in the slightest.

Intentionally repressing and condemning completely natural urges is very unhealthy. However, I am aware that this does not apply to all Christians.

[paper halo]

I'll agree with that. At least when atheists are shoving beliefs down my throat, the most I get annoyed with is their pseudo-intellectual second hand knowledge, most of it stolen from Richard Dawkins excerpts and philosophers they know nothing about. With fundamentals, they're advocating for shit that shouldn't even be considered in the 21st century.

I find this offensive. Richard Dawkins is a tool. :stickout:

[Impress]

What if all I have is Koran?

[Theseventhson]

What if all I have is Koran?
You get Victoria Secret Catalogs.

[ImTheSheriff]

What if all I have is Koran?

you get double the porn.

[bastard_of_ness]

Whether or not you believe in the Bible.... this is just stupid and petty. May as well adopt the motto, "Atheist Agenda: Join us if you want to forever be a 16 year old punk rock kid who mocks religion and masturbates alot"

[peder458]

Whether or not you believe in the Bible.... this is just stupid and petty. May as well adopt the motto, "Atheist Agenda: Join us if you want to forever be a 16 year old punk rock kid who mocks religion and masturbates alot"


.....?

[caveBEAR]

When did potty humor and dick jokes become so looked down upon. Does no one moon anyone anymore?!

[The Indigo]

Whether or not you believe in the Bible.... this is just stupid and petty. May as well adopt the motto, "Atheist Agenda: Join us if you want to forever be a 16 year old punk rock kid who mocks religion and masturbates alot"
C'mon, you don't wanna be like these guys?

http://www.freewebs.com/sarahpugh/AIDEN--large-msg-115601782553.jpg.

"CruciFICTION is more like it, amirite?"

[deFobbed14yrs]

good publicity stunt

[Debut_Fin]

All Christianity is a cult.

Christianity hasn't been a cult for about 1600 years

[Chia-Like]

Christianity hasn't been a cult for about 1600 years
explain.


also, this is making atheists look bad. :mellow:

[GeeBee]

Please explain. My belief system is that God may or may not exist. I'm not religious in any way, but I don't have the balls to deny the existence of God (paraphrasing Stephen Colbert). Is there a more appropriate label for me?

Agnosticism (a- without gnost-knowledge) is simply an acknowledgment of the obvious: we don't (and can't) know. As such, everyone is technically "agnostic", whether they admit it or not. Those who use the label for themselves are simply admitting it.

Also, the following distinction is important:

Atheism =/= active belief in the non-existence of god
Atheism = passive nonbelief in the existence of god

Atheism is not an assertion, it's a rejection.

I'm as atheist as it gets, and I have no problem saying that there may or may not be a god. I wasn't necessarily addressing you specifically, just putting it out there.

[Debut_Fin]

explain.


also, this is making atheists look bad. :mellow:


It's a major world religion and has been since it was made the official religion of the roman empire. before then you could argue that it was a cult

there are cult-like sects (Westboro Baptist Church), but Christianity in general is not a cult

EDIT: i'm not christian. i believe in god so i'm not agnostic, but i don't believe in any religion

[Chia-Like]

It's a major world religion and has been since it was made the official religion of the roman empire. before then you could argue that it was a cult

there are cult-like sects (Westboro Baptist Church), but Christianity in general is not a cult

EDIT: i'm not christian. i believe in god so i'm not agnostic, but i don't believe in any religion

i dunno, in my mind all religion is a cult. i mean, it all is just something (this is my opinion) that makes people feel better about dying who aren't willing to accept it. i mean im sure religions single out people who would be the right type of person to join just like cults do. i guess some christians don't do that but born-agains kinda seem to. just wanted to hear your opinion not starting a fight haha.

[inthemidst]

I mean, if you're screaming "be an atheist!" then there isn't much seperating you and the religous fanatic. Thats what this stupid protest feels to me. If you don't like the bible, fine, ignore it. But don't do something as pointless as this.

If you truly think about it, atheism is a religious claim in itself.

[Debut_Fin]

i dunno, in my mind all religion is a cult. i mean, it all is just something (this is my opinion) that makes people feel better about dying who aren't willing to accept it. just wanted to hear your opinion.

If all religions were cults there wouldn't be two different words. Cults are small and (relatively) new by definition. Religion isn't just about accepting your inevitable death. Sure a lot of the teachings of religion are so that you can get to "heaven" but I believe that religion is to be interpreted by the individual and not everyone focuses on that aspect of religion. Some people feel it just makes them a better person.

[Theseventhson]

If you truly think about it, atheism is a religious claim in itself.

See:


Atheism =/= active belief in the non-existence of god
Atheism = passive nonbelief in the existence of god

Atheism is not an assertion, it's a rejection.

[GeeBee]

If all religions were cults there wouldn't be two different words. Cults are small and (relatively) new by definition.

I need you to back up both of these sentences. Because they're dumb. And I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[xshady121]

i dunno, in my mind all religion is a cult. i mean, it all is just something (this is my opinion) that makes people feel better about dying who aren't willing to accept it. i mean im sure religions single out people who would be the right type of person to join just like cults do. i guess some christians don't do that but born-agains kinda seem to. just wanted to hear your opinion not starting a fight haha.

You can't just say "in my mind, this is x" when it goes against the definition of x.

You can't just make up your own definitions.

[inthemidst]

See:

If you're telling me to read the statement; I've already read it. But you can't, in the same sentence, state the non-existence of God, then say that it's not a faith claim, and that you're rejecting it. That is a faith claim. Atheists arguably have more faith than any other form of religious belief because they're claiming with absolute conviction the non-existence of a higher power.

I agree with GeeBee in the sense that everyone is Agnostic in a way, based on the definition of an Agnostic. None of us truly KNOW, but we believe, whether logically and/or emotionally.

[Praetor]

It's a major world religion and has been since it was made the official religion of the roman empire. before then you could argue that it was a cult

there are cult-like sects (Westboro Baptist Church), but Christianity in general is not a cult

EDIT: i'm not christian. i believe in god so i'm not agnostic, but i don't believe in any religion
Technically all religions are cults. I mean, I'm not trying to say it to sound edgy or whatever, but the anthropological/sociological definition of the word "cult" is a lot different than the mainstream use of the word.

[GeeBee]

If you're telling me to read the statement; I've already read it. But you can't, in the same sentence, state the non-existence of God, then say that it's not a faith claim, and that you're rejecting it. That is a faith claim. Atheists arguably have more faith than any other form of religious belief because they're claiming with absolute conviction the non-existence of a higher power.

I agree with GeeBee in the sense that everyone is Agnostic in a way, based on the definition of an Agnostic. None of us truly KNOW, but we believe, whether logically and/or emotionally.

You're in serious need of Philosophy 101, and apparently reading comprehension, too.

Atheism is not "stating the non-existence of God". It's rejecting the existence. And it's not a faith claim. It takes no more "faith" to reject god's existence than it does to reject the existence of fairies, because the onus is on the claimant to prove existence, not the other way around.

Atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS, it rejects them.

[GeeBee]

Also, please see:
Theological Noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism). Since no one can define the word "god", no one can discuss its existence.

[xshady121]

You're in serious need of Philosophy 101, and apparently reading comprehension, too.

Atheism is not "stating the non-existence of God". It's rejecting the existence. And it's not a faith claim. It takes no more "faith" to reject god's existence than it does to reject the existence of fairies, because the onus is on the claimant to prove existence, not the other way around.

Atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS, it rejects them.
I would argue most who claim that they are atheists are not aware of this fact. Of course, then they are no longer atheists, but they don't know that.

[inthemidst]

You're in serious need of Philosophy 101, and apparently reading comprehension, too.

Atheism is not "stating the non-existence of God". It's rejecting the existence. And it's not a faith claim. It takes no more "faith" to reject god's existence than it does to reject the existence of fairies, because the onus is on the claimant to prove existence, not the other way around.

Atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS, it rejects them.

Took Philosophy 101; aced it.

How can you sit there and tell me that you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that God doesn't exist? Were you there during the origin of everything? Please, give me proof of some kind, seriously. If you can't, then you have faith that God doesn't exist, just as much, if not more, than I do in claiming that God does exist.

Didn't want this to turn into an argument, but you opened the floodgates. Nice touch by opening with an insult by the way.

[Debut_Fin]

I need you to back up both of these sentences. Because they're dumb. And I don't think you know what you're talking about.

In both the world religions class and the two sociology classes i've taken that is how cults were defined.

[Debut_Fin]

Technically all religions are cults. I mean, I'm not trying to say it to sound edgy or whatever, but the anthropological/sociological definition of the word "cult" is a lot different than the mainstream use of the word.

Then I suppose most of the Earth's population is a member of a cult

[Praetor]

Then I suppose most of the Earth's population is a member of a cult
Yeah. I mean, I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way, "cult" has become this dirty word or whatever and it has a nasty connotation now. But technically, yes, most of the Earth's population are cult members.

[Debut_Fin]

Yeah. I mean, I don't mean for that to sound condescending in any way, "cult" has become this dirty word or whatever and it has a nasty connotation now. But technically, yes, most of the Earth's population are cult members.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Praetor]

Fair enough. I understand that it's a malleable word and different definitions exist. I wish I could find my Anthropology textbook, it had a really interesting perspective on the word "cult" and its subdivisions...if I remember correctly, by its definition, Christianity would be considered an ecclesiastical cult (which makes sense, considering its emphasis on bureaucracy).

[GeeBee]

I would argue most who claim that they are atheists are not aware of this fact. Of course, then they are no longer atheists, but they don't know that.
I'd agree with your argument. They're more aptly called "anti-theists", or "positive atheists".
I'd sooner label myself as a theological noncognitivist, because before the discussion about whether something exists or doesn't, you have to define it in concrete terms. The word "god" is ambiguous at best, and defined at-will by those who employ it.
Took Philosophy 101; aced it.

How can you sit there and tell me that you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that God doesn't exist? Were you there during the origin of everything? Please, give me proof of some kind, seriously. If you can't, then you have faith that God doesn't exist, just as much, if not more, than I do in claiming that God does exist.

Didn't want this to turn into an argument, but you opened the floodgates. Nice touch by opening with an insult by the way.
Apparently the insult was apt, because you haven't read a word I've posted.

And since you apparently "aced" Philosophy 101, you'd know it's not possible to prove a negative, and the onus of proof is on the claimant, so I don't need to prove god exists. You, as the believer, would need to prove he does. I never claimed god didn't exist. No true atheist would. Likewise, where do you come off claiming fairies don't exist?

Just where is the overwhelming evidence that makes it impossible for me to not believe in god without a vast amount of faith?

[inthemidst]

I'd agree with your argument. They're more aptly called "anti-theists", or "positive atheists".
I'd sooner label myself as a theological noncognitivist, because before the discussion about whether something exists or doesn't, you have to define it in concrete terms. The word "god" is ambiguous at best, and defined at-will by those who employ it.

Apparently the insult was apt, because you haven't read a word I've posted.

And since you apparently "aced" Philosophy 101, you'd know it's not possible to prove a negative, and the onus of proof is on the claimant, so I don't need to prove god exists. You, as the believer, would need to prove he does. I never claimed god didn't exist. No true atheist would.

Just where is the overwhelming evidence that makes it impossible for me to not believe in god without a vast amount of faith?

This here is the source of your argument, and is also contradictory. How can you reject the existence of God, then state that you never said that "he doesn't exist"? Does that not make you Agnostic based on your earlier definition of the term?

Look at yourself in the mirror. I would say that's pretty overwhelming proof. Think about it. Do you really think that you were just randomly placed here for no reason? Do you honestly think we're just here by chance? I mean, take your eye for instance: there are thousands of parts of your eye that all work together for the creation of sight.

This intricacy cannot be summed up by some big explosion that just somehow arranged this world in such a deliberate order. Of course, your "theological noncognitivism" argument seems like a cop-out.

[GeeBee]

This here is the source of your argument, and is also contradictory. How can you reject the existence of God, then state that you never said that "he doesn't exist"? Does that not make you Agnostic based on your earlier definition of the term?

Look at yourself in the mirror. I would say that's pretty overwhelming proof. Think about it. Do you really think that you were just randomly placed here for no reason? Do you honestly think we're just here by chance? I mean, take your eye for instance: there are thousands of parts of your eye that all work together for the creation of sight.

This intricacy cannot be summed up by some big explosion that just somehow arranged this world in such a deliberate order. Of course, your "theological noncognitivism" argument seems like a cop-out.

Strike three, you're out.

You're apparently not only completely ignorant of philosophy, but also cosmology, anthropology, and a whole slew of -ologies that you simply write off in favor of fairy tales that give you a sense of purpose. Best of luck.

I've already heard the Kirk Cameron bullshit, so spare me. I'm not going to debate with you. Adieu.

[inthemidst]

Strike three, you're out.

You're apparently not only completely ignorant of philosophy, but also cosmology, anthropology, and a whole slew of -ologies that you simply write off in favor of fairy tales that give you a sense of purpose. Best of luck.

I've already heard the Kirk Cameron bullshit, so spare me. I'm not going to debate with you. Adieu.

Fair enough. I will continue to give life value and purpose, and you can arrogantly shove everyone off. I hope it works out for you in the end; I do.

Glad to know that you know everything about everything. I will make sure to check with you before posting anything because I'm just so darn simple-minded. Just how does that whole alphabet thing go? Is it A-B-C or Z-G-B? Good golly, I just don't know!

[perceptrons]

I find this offensive. Richard Dawkins is a tool. :stickout:
How so?

This here is the source of your argument, and is also contradictory. How can you reject the existence of God, then state that you never said that "he doesn't exist"? Does that not make you Agnostic based on your earlier definition of the term?

Firstly, as he already covered, we're all agnostic.
Secondly, rejecting a claim =/= making a claim. I, and he as far as I know, reject the claim because of insufficient evidence. If sufficient evidence were provided, we would accept.


Look at yourself in the mirror. I would say that's pretty overwhelming proof. Think about it.

That's not anything remotely resembling proof, and definitely not overwhelming.


Do you really think that you were just randomly placed here for no reason?

Yes.


Do you honestly think we're just here by chance?

More or less.


I mean, take your eye for instance: there are thousands of parts of your eye that all work together for the creation of sight.

You'd think god wouldn't give us a blind spot, if there were such an awesome creator. You'd think god would let us see more of the spectrum. You'd think god would give us better resolution. You'd think god would make it so we didn't have to blink all the time. You'd think god would give us better night vision. You'd think god would make it so we don't have to rely almost completely on our brain to fill in the gaps of the world that we don't see in the millions of saccades. You'd think god would make our rods regenerate more quickly and our cones more sensitive to light. There are a huge number of improvements that could be made to our eyes. Pick a better example next time, champ.


This intricacy cannot be summed up by some big explosion that just somehow arranged this world in such a deliberate order.
Way to not know shit about what you're talking about.


Of course, your "theological noncognitivism" argument seems like a cop-out.
You think it's a cop out to want to know the definition of the word being discussed? Odd.

Fair enough. I will continue to give life value and purpose, and you can arrogantly shove everyone off. I hope it works out for you in the end; I do.

Glad to know that you know everything about everything. I will make sure to check with you before posting anything because I'm just so darn simple-minded. Just how does that whole alphabet thing go? Is it A-B-C or Z-G-B? Good golly, I just don't know!
You're an absolute moron.

[inthemidst]

How so?


Firstly, as he already covered, we're all agnostic.
Secondly, rejecting a claim =/= making a claim. I, and he as far as I know, reject the claim because of insufficient evidence. If sufficient evidence were provided, we would accept.


That's not anything remotely resembling proof, and definitely not overwhelming.


Yes.


More or less.


You'd think god wouldn't give us a blind spot, if there were such an awesome creator. You'd think god would let us see more of the spectrum. You'd think god give us better resolution. I could go on and on. Point is, you'd think our eyes wouldn't be as bad as they are, but guess what, they are!


Way to not know shit about what you're talking about.


You think it's a cop out to want to know the definition of the word being discussed? Odd.


You're an absolute moron.

The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. If I'm a moron, then I am wise, which, in turn, makes you the fool.

[perceptrons]

The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. If I'm a moron, then I am wise, which, in turn, makes you the fool.
I added more things to the list of why our eyes suck ass, in case you wanted to see more reasons you are a moron.

And talk about a fucking cop out.

[inthemidst]

I added more things to the list of why our eyes suck ass, in case you wanted to see more reasons you are a moron.

And talk about a fucking cop out.

Your arrogance precedes you.

[perceptrons]

Your arrogance precedes you.
Still think our eyes are the best an all powerful god could have done?

[Theseventhson]

Your arrogance precedes you.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you is arrogant? Cool to know.

[Impress]

You'd think god wouldn't give us a blind spot, if there were such an awesome creator. You'd think god would let us see more of the spectrum. You'd think god would give us better resolution. You'd think god would make it so we didn't have to blink all the time. You'd think god would give us better night vision. You'd think god would make it so we don't have to rely almost completely on our brain to fill in the gaps of the world that we don't see in the millions of saccades. You'd think god would make our rods regenerate more quickly and our cones more sensitive to light. There are a huge number of improvements that could be made to our eyes. Pick a better example next time, champ.

According to the Christian belief I have found that God's intention, when He created Adam and Eve, was that they were made perfectly and were supposed to remain that way. If they wouldn't have fucked up, then the humans now would too be perfect, since they are supposedly our ancestors. Thus, your desired eye sight would be realistic. So I guess what I am saying is that maybe "our ancestors" didnt have to blink all the time, had better night vision, etc...

[Theseventhson]

Why the fuck do I have to have shitty eyesight because some chick ate an apple? Kind of a dick move on God's part.

[perceptrons]

According to the Christian belief I have found that God's intention, when He created Adam and Eve, was that they were made perfectly and were supposed to remain that way. If they wouldn't have fucked up, then the humans now would too be perfect, since they are supposedly our ancestors. Thus, your desired eye sight would be realistic. So I guess what I am saying is that maybe "our ancestors" didnt have to blink all the time, had better night vision, etc...
I don't recall the Bible saying anything about physically changing Adam and Eve (especially not their eyes) after they "fucked up," but I could be wrong, it's been awhile since Catholic school. Assuming I'm right, then their genes would have remained the same and they would have passed them on in the way we know that genes do.

[ImTheSheriff]

According to the Christian belief I have found that God's intention, when He created Adam and Eve, was that they were made perfectly and were supposed to remain that way. If they wouldn't have fucked up, then the humans now would too be perfect, since they are supposedly our ancestors. Thus, your desired eye sight would be realistic. So I guess what I am saying is that maybe "our ancestors" didnt have to blink all the time, had better night vision, etc...

if you take adam and eve literally than you are beyond help.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Christianity hasn't been a cult for about 1600 years

Wrong. It was a cult then and it's a cult now. All religions are cults.

[jessicalynn-xx]

If all religions were cults there wouldn't be two different words. Cults are small and (relatively) new by definition.

You can't just say "in my mind, this is x" when it goes against the definition of x.

You can't just make up your own definitions.

Exactly so maybe we should get some definitions in here?
Dictionary.com?
"1 : formal religious veneration : worship (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship)
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents"

All religions are cults.


EDIT: tytygood is unsatisfied with my choice of dictionary. Here's Webster's:

1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3.the object of such devotion.

4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7.the members of such a religion or sect.

8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

[Theseventhson]

Lol at using dictionary.com

[jessicalynn-xx]

According to the Christian belief I have found that God's intention, when He created Adam and Eve, was that they were made perfectly and were supposed to remain that way. If they wouldn't have fucked up, then the humans now would too be perfect, since they are supposedly our ancestors. Thus, your desired eye sight would be realistic. So I guess what I am saying is that maybe "our ancestors" didnt have to blink all the time, had better night vision, etc...

Even if that were true, their genes never would have got to us because they had only two sons.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Lol at using dictionary.com

Webster's:
"1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3.the object of such devotion.

4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7.the members of such a religion or sect.

8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

"

I thought it was kind of long so I went with Dictionary.com instead. Lol at me having to define words for people.

[Chia-Like]

You can't just say "in my mind, this is x" when it goes against the definition of x.

You can't just make up your own definitions.

i'm sorry was that the webster's definition of religion? as far as i knew religion can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. i don't have to accept his definition, which may or may not be correct.

[jessicalynn-xx]

You're in serious need of Philosophy 101, and apparently reading comprehension, too.

Atheism is not "stating the non-existence of God". It's rejecting the existence. And it's not a faith claim. It takes no more "faith" to reject god's existence than it does to reject the existence of fairies, because the onus is on the claimant to prove existence, not the other way around.

Atheism MAKES NO CLAIMS, it rejects them.

Where is this coming from? I hear so many atheists saying that, "atheism isn't a belief it's a lack of a belief." Since when and according to who? A lot of people disagree on this one on both sides. And if there were any realm of study in which you could make a reasonable case for the non-existence of a theistic god it's philosophy. Remember, it's a-THEISM, not a-DEISM. If atheism is NOT an active belief that there is no theistic god, what would a person who holds that view be called?

[GeeBee]

The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. If I'm a moron, then I am wise, which, in turn, makes you the fool.

The wisdom of the christian god is foolishness to Xenu. Thor finds Xenu's wisdom to be foolishness. Xenu is a mere gnat compared to Osiris.

See how we can keep going and going? Also, now it's up to YOU to prove what I just typed to be false.

Yeah. You're an ace philosophy student. :rolleyes:

[peder458]

Strike three, you're out.

You're apparently not only completely ignorant of philosophy, but also cosmology, anthropology, and a whole slew of -ologies that you simply write off in favor of fairy tales that give you a sense of purpose. Best of luck.

I've already heard the Kirk Cameron bullshit, so spare me. I'm not going to debate with you. Adieu.

I am surprised you made it this far with him... I am not sure he read a word you posted.

[peder458]

The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. If I'm a moron, then I am wise, which, in turn, makes you the fool.

Please stop. It was ignorance before, but now you are just completely not making sense.

[GeeBee]

Where is this coming from? I hear so many atheists saying that, "atheism isn't a belief it's a lack of a belief." Since when and according to who? A lot of people disagree on this one on both sides. And if there were any realm of study in which you could make a reasonable case for the non-existence of a theistic god it's philosophy. Remember, it's a-THEISM, not a-DEISM. If atheism is NOT an active belief that there is no theistic god, what would a person who holds that view be called?

An anti-theist or a positive/strong atheist.

Again...you can't prove a negative. That's a basic fallacy that so many of you seem to not be able to get over. It's a fool's game to go about trying to disprove something's existence. No one NEEDS to make a case for the non-existence of god. They merely need to point out the shortcomings in the case for the existence of one. You've heard of "the burden of proof", no?

I can't prove fairies and unicorns don't exist. That still doesn't bode well for the case that they do.

EDIT: The "since when" and "according to who" are best answered by enrolling in a basic course on logic, critical thinking, philosophy, etc.

[GeeBee]

I am surprised you made it this far with him... I am not sure he read a word you posted.

Yeah, I pretty much posted the same thing three times and it still didn't register. It's just too tedious anymore to try.

[peder458]

Yeah, I pretty much posted the same thing three times and it still didn't register. It's just too tedious anymore to try.

I understand the fact that explaining that atheism is a lack of belief is somewhat difficult (I recently tried, and I think I succeeded with one of my roommates), but I don't see an easier way to do it than how you just did.

[macabre]

Oh you guys haven't dealt with the worst of them. I know someone who believes that Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin murdered people because of their "atheistic religion". I tried explaining that atheism was a passive disbelief in God and then she went on a rant about the ACLU and how they're trying to destroy the moral fabric of our society.

[GeeBee]

I understand the fact that explaining that atheism is a lack of belief is somewhat difficult (I recently tried, and I think I succeeded with one of my roommates), but I don't see an easier way to do it than how you just did.

Fairies, man. No one can prove they don't exist, but no one gets after you for saying you don't believe in them.

[GeeBee]

Oh you guys haven't dealt with the worst of them. I know someone who believes that Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin murdered people because of their "atheistic religion". I tried explaining that atheism was a passive disbelief in God and then she went on a rant about the ACLU and how they're trying to destroy the moral fabric of our society.

I love that people think that if you repeat it enough times, Hitler will eventually be an atheist retroactively.

[Formatfun]

I find that hilarious.

[ArtForLovers]

i will tell you what is wrong with pornography. nothing.
ew derek

[CarouselBoy]

All religions are cults. A cult is a group of people who share a religious belief. Even if your religion is mainstream where you live, there are places where it isn't, and in the eyes of the people living there, your religion is the cult. To say that Westboro Baptist Church is "more of a cult than Christianity" is a redundant statement that has no basis in reality. They are both cults. As are all religions.

so howcome religions aren't referred to as cults?

[caveBEAR]

so howcome religions aren't referred to as cults?

Because people of religion are touchy about that kind of stuff, and there's more people that don't think they're cults than there are people who think they are.

[caveBEAR]

The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. If I'm a moron, then I am wise, which, in turn, makes you the fool.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :lol: nah, that just makes you a moron.

[ninthandash]

I find it weird that they call it smut for smut. Last I heard, smut referred explicitly to porn?
But, this is like Marilyn Manson calling himself the Antichrist or whatever. Good 15 minutes of fame gimmick to get people talking.

I recognize by posting this I'm adding to it as well lol.

[caveBEAR]

I find it weird that they call it smut for smut. Last I heard, smut referred explicitly to porn?

It's a colloquial term for pornography or obscenity, and there are those who find the things in the Bible obscene.

[ninthandash]

It's a colloquial term for pornography or obscenity, and there are those who find the things in the Bible obscene.

ahh gotcha. makes more sense now.

[karadoll]

I think this is a pretty good idea, actually.

[paper halo]

How so?

I was perhaps a bit harsh in my original comment, I actually have a lot of respect for him as an evolutionary biologist.

I guess I just find him to be somewhat of a 'pop-atheist', in that his attacks on religion are pretty easy and obvious. I would prefer a bit more depth. Just a personal opinion.

[ImTheSheriff]

I was perhaps a bit harsh in my original comment, I actually have a lot of respect for him as an evolutionary biologist.

I guess I just find him to be somewhat of a 'pop-atheist', in that his attacks on religion are pretty easy and obvious. I would prefer a bit more depth. Just a personal opinion.

have you read his book the god delusion?

[paper halo]

have you read his book the god delusion?

Several years ago, yes. As I recall, it read as an excessive but rather simplistic rant. In itself, as an attack on the belief in God as potentially harmful, it is an okay read, but I prefer a more in-depth, philosophical argument. I would certainly never quote it in a religious debate.

[LastDeclaration]

Still think our eyes are the best an all powerful god could have done?

lol

This guy's retarded.

[caveBEAR]

lol

This guy's retarded.

Actually, he made a very well-thought out and well articulated point.

[LastDeclaration]

Actually, he made a very well-thought out and well articulated point.

He's completely missing the point of what God is. Actually, taking into consideration who he was arguing with, he actually was making a fair point; that guy he was talking to seems even more retarded than he is and is probably a obnoxious Bible-pusher. Still, I hate that argument that he's making, and it bothers me how common it is. Assuming we're NOT talking about the ridiculously anthropomorphic God in the Bible, that argument just isn't valid.

[caveBEAR]

He's completely missing the point of what God is. Actually, taking into consideration who he was arguing with, he actually was making a fair point; that guy he was talking to seems even more retarded than he is and is probably a obnoxious Bible-pusher. Still, I hate that argument that he's making, and it bothers me how common it is. Assuming we're NOT talking about the ridiculously anthropomorphic God in the Bible, that argument just isn't valid.

How not?

EDIT: Do you mean that his argument doesn't hold water against someone who believes that god doesn't divinely intervene in human day to day affairs and matters such as evolution? Because I assure you, he knows that, and those weren't the people he'd be aiming those comments at.

[LastDeclaration]

How not?

Ehh, it seems like he's basically just getting at the problem of evil - why did God "make" us imperfect? And there're countless solutions to that problem. I think Augustine's is the most sensible, if you're familiar with it. But just to give my own opinion: Why would God make us perfect? I mean, to me it seems an almost ridiculous question. God is perfection, so why would he create another world of perfection? That just doesn't make sense to me.

[caveBEAR]

Ehh, it seems like he's basically just getting at the problem of evil - why did God "make" us imperfect? And there're countless solutions to that problem. I think Augustine's is the most sensible, if you're familiar with it. But just to give my own opinion: Why would God make us perfect? I mean, to me it seems an almost ridiculous question. God is perfection, so why would he create another world of perfection? That just doesn't make sense to me.

For the same reason I don't spit on the food I make at work. Why do something if you aren't going to do it right?

[The Indigo]

It's a colloquial term for pornography or obscenity, and there are those who find the things in the Bible obscene.
So, really, smut for smut could be anything for anything, based on one's individual leanings.

[ImTheSheriff]

Several years ago, yes. As I recall, it read as an excessive but rather simplistic rant. In itself, as an attack on the belief in God as potentially harmful, it is an okay read, but I prefer a more in-depth, philosophical argument. I would certainly never quote it in a religious debate.

fair enough, i was just curious about your thoughts on it.

[caveBEAR]

So, really, smut for smut could be anything for anything, based on one's individual leanings.

....yup. :mellow:

Perception is tricky that way, isn't it?

[DejaGuy89]

i feel the same way every time someone brings up Westboro Baptist Church rallies... bleh.

exactly

[The Indigo]

....yup. :mellow:

Perception is tricky that way, isn't it?
I see it more of a linguistics things, but I'm an English major so that comes with the territory haha.

[caveBEAR]

I see it more of a linguistics things, but I'm an English major so that comes with the territory haha.

Well, smut calls morality into play, and that takes it to another league beyond linguistics.

[LastDeclaration]

For the same reason I don't spit on the food I make at work. Why do something if you aren't going to do it right?

It's more interesting that way, I guess. I mean, who knows why God created the universe. He just did. And a universe of perfection is God Himself. Nothing can be as perfect as God, so everything in existence is imperfect to some extent - some things to a greater extent than others.

Really, I've learned that arguments between believers and non-believers never amount to anything. There's just a clear difference in each's manner of thinking. That's why I rarely post in these types of threads. But nonbelief will always be valid, and I can understand somewhat where you're coming from.

[caveBEAR]

It's more interesting that way, I guess. I mean, who knows why God created the universe. He just did. And a universe of perfection is God Himself. Nothing can be as perfect as God, so everything in existence is imperfect to some extent - some things to a greater extent than others.

Really, I've learned that arguments between believers and non-believers never amount to anything. There's just a clear difference in each's manner of thinking. That's why I rarely post in these types of threads. But nonbelief will always be valid, and I can understand somewhat where you're coming from.

Perceptions (if that's the guy who posted the argument, I believe it was) beliefs are not the same as mine, I just didn't want to see a well spoken usual of this forum get called retarded for his well-thought out argument in response to rigid, close-minded thought.


I myself straddle the line of agnostic/I don't give a fuck.

[LastDeclaration]

Perceptions (if that's the guy who posted the argument, I believe it was) beliefs are not the same as mine, I just didn't want to see a well spoken usual of this forum get called retarded for his well-thought out argument in response to rigid, close-minded thought.


I myself straddle the line of agnostic/I don't give a fuck.

Yeah, he's not retarded. I was just being a dick. I understand why atheists can see that as good point, but when you believe in God, you look at that argument in a completely different way, and it just seems asinine. I guess I take it for granted that others think of God in the same way that I do.

[caveBEAR]

Yeah, he's not retarded. I was just being a dick. I understand why atheists can see that as good point, but when you believe in God, you look at that argument in a completely different way, and it just seems asinine. I guess I take it for granted that others think of God in the same way that I do.

I have the Island of Unicorn Belief System. I have no reason to think there is an island of unicorns on Earth. I don't believe there is one. However, I would never be so bold as to say I know for sure that it isn't possible. It just doesn't enter my realm of thought in day to day functions.

Switch in 'god' for 'island of unicorns' and that's how I feel.




Now, on the other side of the coin, I 'believe' in good/bad luck, 'karma', and when I'm in a sticky situation, I hope to something things turn out alright (you know, the in your head 'come on, come on...' that's gotta be directed to something...); what's that?

[Scrandon]

I have the Island of Unicorn Belief System. I have no reason to think there is an island of unicorns on Earth. I don't believe there is one. However, I would never be so bold as to say I know for sure that it isn't possible. It just doesn't enter my realm of thought in day to day functions.

Switch in 'god' for 'island of unicorns' and that's how I feel.




Now, on the other side of the coin, I 'believe' in good/bad luck, 'karma', and when I'm in a sticky situation, I hope to something things turn out alright (you know, the in your head 'come on, come on...' that's gotta be directed to something...); what's that?

You seriously believe in luck but not God? That's ridiculous. And how could karma work without something making it happen

[HometownHero]

It's more interesting that way, I guess. I mean, who knows why God created the universe. He just did. And a universe of perfection is God Himself. Nothing can be as perfect as God, so everything in existence is imperfect to some extent - some things to a greater extent than others.

Really, I've learned that arguments between believers and non-believers never amount to anything. There's just a clear difference in each's manner of thinking. That's why I rarely post in these types of threads. But nonbelief will always be valid, and I can understand somewhat where you're coming from.
Incredibly bold statement. Wrong (to me) but quite bold

[HometownHero]

You seriously believe in luck but not God? That's ridiculous. And how could karma work without something making it happen
There is no such thing as luck (IMO) Also no God. You make your life what it is

[Scrandon]

There is no such thing as luck (IMO) Also no God. You make your life what it is

Believing in luck sounds like believing in magic or something... should be left to the 12 year olds.

[HometownHero]

Believing in luck sounds like believing in magic or something... should be left to the 12 year olds.
So does believing in God?

[Scrandon]

So does believing in God?

Not even comparable. Magic is clearly wrong, people have explained how to do tricks. God has not been disproved by any means.

[HometownHero]

Not even comparable. Magic is clearly wrong, people have explained how to do tricks. God has not been disproved by any means.
There has nothing been done to prove he is there either. The Bible? Hahaha no

[Scrandon]

There has nothing been done to prove he is there either. The Bible? Hahaha no

There are also plenty of things that, with our current knowledge, cannot be explained without God.

[ImTheSheriff]

There are also plenty of things that, with our current knowledge, cannot be explained without God.

uhh, what?

[Scrandon]

The beginning of the Universe.
The beginning of life.
Why are atheists so self-righteous

Just to name a few.

[Scrandon]

uhh, what?

The beginning of the Universe.
The beginning of life.
Why are atheists so self-righteous

Just to name a few.

....

[ImTheSheriff]

The beginning of the Universe.
The beginning of life.
Why are atheists so self-righteous

Just to name a few.

please tell me this is a joke.

the beginning of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

the beginning of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Scrandon]

What started the big bang.

And I tend to believe life doesn't spontaneously appear, that sounds like alchemy or something.

Edit: And after reading that abiogenesis article, it sounds more like a bunch of guessing and philosophy, not science as it is portrayed.

[ImTheSheriff]

What started the big bang.

And I tend to believe life doesn't spontaneously appear, that sounds like alchemy or something.

Edit: And after reading that abiogenesis article, it sounds more like a bunch of guessing and philosophy, not science as it is portrayed.

well if you want to go this route than what made god? where did he come from?

[Scrandon]

well if you want to go this route than what made god? where did he come from?

Nothing had to make God, you can't explain God with science.

Man, continuing to read that abiogenesis crap is just ridiculous. I'm going to go ahead and stop that now seeing as it's just a bunch of atheists desperately grappling at the origin of life so that they can say it wasn't started by God.

'People came from rocks'

[jwicklun]

What started the big bang.

And I tend to believe life doesn't spontaneously appear, that sounds like alchemy or something.

Edit: And after reading that abiogenesis article, it sounds more like a bunch of guessing and philosophy, not science as it is portrayed.
why don't you do research instead of automatically declaring that its God?

[jwicklun]

Perceptions (if that's the guy who posted the argument, I believe it was) beliefs are not the same as mine, I just didn't want to see a well spoken usual of this forum get called retarded for his well-thought out argument in response to rigid, close-minded thought.


I myself straddle the line of agnostic/I don't give a fuck.
You just summed up my theology.

[ImTheSheriff]

Nothing had to make God, you can't explain God with science.

Man, continuing to read that abiogenesis crap is just ridiculous. I'm going to go ahead and stop that now seeing as it's just a bunch of atheists desperately grappling at the origin of life so that they can say it wasn't started by God.

'People came from rocks'

you are very close-minded and stubborn, i'm done.

[Scrandon]

why don't you do research instead of automatically declaring that its God?

umm... there's nothing to research. There is no widely accepted scientific explanation for either of the questions I posed above.

[Scrandon]

you are very close-minded and stubborn, i'm done.

Close minded because I don't necessarily jump on board with your whole 'spontaneous combustion of life' theory. right.

[ImTheSheriff]

umm... there's nothing to research. There is no widely accepted scientific explanation for either of the questions I posed above.

according to you that is, and so then you default to god? wow.

[ImTheSheriff]

Close minded because I don't necessarily jump on board with your whole 'spontaneous combustion of life' theory. right.

no because you aren't open to new ideas, no matter what comes along to you, you will just shrug it off and say "nope, it was all god".

[Scrandon]

according to you that is, and so then you default to god? wow.

Really, according to me? Okay, pick a room full a scientists and I guarantee you get no where near a majority agreement with that theory.

[Scrandon]

no because you aren't open to new ideas, no matter what comes along to you, you will just shrug it off and say "nope, it was all god".

Yes you know me so well!! And by the way, "no matter what"? Oh you mean like the one idea you proposed to me about life spontaneously appearing from inorganic matter.

[ImTheSheriff]

Yes you know me so well!! And by the way, "no matter what"? Oh you mean like the one idea you proposed to me about life spontaneously appearing from inorganic matter.

:wallbash:

[Scrandon]

:wallbash:

Uh oh someone found the smileys.

I looked - and there was no smiley that would adequately express "what? people really think life came from rocks?"

[ImTheSheriff]

Uh oh someone found the smileys.

I looked - and there was no smiley that would adequately express "what? people really think life came from rocks?"

god you are too fucking stupid.

1. quit saying 'people came from rocks' like that's a direct quote from the link i sent you
2. i never said i believed that, only that there are other theories besides your almighty god
3. i'm done talking to you, i will not reply to any more comments, because it is a waste of time

[Scrandon]

god you are too fucking stupid.

1. quit saying 'people came from rocks' like that's a direct quote from the link i sent you
2. i never said i believed that, only that there are other theories besides your almighty god
3. i'm done talking to you, i will not reply to any more comments, because it is a waste of time

I like how this somehow ended in your extreme frustration leading you to acknowledge that your original point was bullshit.

[paper halo]

Close minded because I don't necessarily jump on board with your whole 'spontaneous combustion of life' theory. right.

Isn't that closer to what you believe? The whole 7 days rubbish?

[paper halo]

Nothing had to make God, you can't explain God with science.

Man, continuing to read that abiogenesis crap is just ridiculous. I'm going to go ahead and stop that now seeing as it's just a bunch of atheists desperately grappling at the origin of life so that they can say it wasn't started by God.

'People came from rocks'

Lol, weren't you calling atheists self-righteous above?

It's interesting that you demand proof from atheists, yet when asked the same questions your answer is "you can't explain God with science".

[derekmoyer4]

There are also plenty of things that, with our current knowledge, cannot be explained without God.
nothing can be explained by god. they can only be "explained" and then believed by individuals who are otherwise rational.

Lol, weren't you calling atheists self-righteous above?

It's interesting that you demand proof from atheists, yet when asked the same questions your answer is "you can't explain God with science".
haha, that is very true. he did say that.

[bastard_of_ness]

I am not geting into the debate about the existence of God, or textbook definitions of "cult", etc...

I am simply going to reassert that the Smut 4 Smut campaign is one of the most juvenile attacks on religion I've seen in some time.

If I were an atheist, I'd actually be upset because I believe that this actually sets back our cause from a national sense.

[ArtForLovers]

Somehow I knew this would end up in a debate about the existence of God. Always does...

[xshady121]

Note to theists:

You're doing more harm than good to your fellow theists. Seriously. Shut the fuck up, and quit acting so self-righteous. Nobody owes you anything. God isn't "undefinable by science". We believe in him. That's great. Other people don't. That's great to. But when you stand on a soapbox and shit on those who don't, all while turning your bible into a history book, then you appear crazy and paint all theists as crazies, thus devaluing our religion and beliefs.

Seriously, cut the shit.

Thx.

[ImTheSheriff]

I like how this somehow ended in your extreme frustration leading you to acknowledge that your original point was bullshit.

okay i lied, i'm replying again, quote me when i said "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE".

[caveBEAR]

You seriously believe in luck but not God? That's ridiculous. And how could karma work without something making it happen

I don't 'believe' in luck in the sense that people believe in god, I believe in luck in the sense that when I've won 5 hands in a row, and I'm sitting on a Full House...I'm pretty sure luck's on my side. However, luck is nothing more than being on the right side of statistics. As well, I believe in 'karma' in the sense that I believe 'if you do good, good happens to you', which is really just my reasoning for being a decent human being, and that's all perception anyway, it's about deciding if you let the good or bad get to you more.


I make no assumptions on where these come from, what neurological forces may have caused these feelings, etc., etc., because I would have no way to prove these things, and I'm not that arrogant.

[caveBEAR]

'People came from rocks'

This isn't really for you, because you're too stubborn/stupid to understand it, it's more for open-minded people who may be lurking and actually want to learn something;

- The Big Bang occurs. No one knows for sure when, why, or with what, but people who took the time to go to school, get degrees, and expand their mind to understand science all agree that it happened.

- The first known life on Earth is found in old, old, rocks like stromatolites, in which you can find the very beginning of amino acids and other building blocks of life. (For anyone who knows...well, anything, you are already aware that scientists can create very basic life in a lab in a petri dish from amino acids and other building blocks; this was just it occuring naturally.)

- Over billions and billions of years, life began evolving, until the first 'creatures' as we know them today evolved.





Or, in 7 days, God shit out Earth, thought, 'it'll do', and got back to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, which he didn't give us for another 5,000 years.

Yeah, the athei-, I'm sorry, SCIENTISTS are the one's grasping at straws, not your local pastor. :rolleyes:

[xshady121]

This isn't really for you, because you're too stubborn/stupid to understand it, it's more for open-minded people who may be lurking and actually want to learn something;

- The Big Bang occurs. No one knows for sure when, why, or with what, but people who took the time to go to school, get degrees, and expand their mind to understand science all agree that it happened.

- The first known life on Earth is found in old, old, rocks like stromatolites, in which you can find the very beginning of amino acids and other building blocks of life. (For anyone who knows...well, anything, you are already aware that scientists can create very basic life in a lab in a petri dish from amino acids and other building blocks; this was just it occuring naturally.)

- Over billions and billions of years, life began evolving, until the first 'creatures' as we know them today evolved.





Or, in 7 days, God shit out Earth, thought, 'it'll do', and got back to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, which he didn't give us for another 5,000 years.

Yeah, the athei-, I'm sorry, SCIENTISTS are the one's grasping at straws, not your local pastor. :rolleyes:



Devils advocate here for a moment, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[caveBEAR]

Devils advocate here for a moment, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, definitely not, but have you read his posts about how (my scientific argument) is essentially 'lol atheists bullshit i know everything'? He referred to the research on metabolism without genetics as 'lazy', when he can't be bothered to even give a real read to the subject.

What else is new, though.


EDIT: Although, the stromatolites billions of years of evolution =/= Creationism.

[Here It Goes]

if this is what you truly believe Christians to be, you should not post in the politics forum at all. at least until you do some research.

Well, mind you, those weren't Christians who were intermarrying. Those were Israelites. And their options were kinda limited.

[Here It Goes]

Oh, definitely not, but have you read his posts about how (my scientific argument) is essentially 'lol atheists bullshit i know everything'? He referred to the research on metabolism without genetics as 'lazy', when he can't be bothered to even give a real read to the subject.

What else is new, though.


EDIT: Although, the stromatolites billions of years of evolution =/= Creationism.

You should read Darwin's Black Box.

[caveBEAR]

You should read Darwin's Black Box.

A book overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community? You're going to have to sell me on this one.

[Here It Goes]

A book overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community? You're going to have to sell me on this one.

Overwhelmingly rejected by an extremely biased scientific community. We can't really expect a group of scientists to accept a book that essentially advocates creationism, not with their reputations at stake. It doesn't make the reasoning behind the book any less convincing, not to me anyways.

[macabre]

Overwhelmingly rejected by an extremely biased scientific community. We can't really expect a group of scientists to accept a book that essentially advocates creationism, not with their reputations at stake. It doesn't make the reasoning behind the book any less convincing, not to me anyways.

I've read excerpts of Darwin's Black Box and I'm familiar with Behe's argument. He basically argues that bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex, in which the lack of any of their constituent parts would result in a non-functional system. Such a system obviously could not have evolved since it requires those parts to function, thus natural selection is false.

When he wrote the book, it was very convincing in terms of illustrating the difficulties that scientists had in describing how bacterial flagella could have evolved. This was a gap in scientific knowledge. However, instead of claiming that further research was required, he jumped the gun and claimed that the evolution of such a mechanism was impossible; God must have done it. The problem with his argument is that he ignores the possible ways that this system may have evolved. Just because there is a current gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science cannot and will not ever explain it.

In addition, there has been research done in the evolution of the flagellum and it's definitely not impossible like Behe suggests.

-1Rstu5t4Js

[ImTheSheriff]

Overwhelmingly rejected by an extremely biased scientific community. We can't really expect a group of scientists to accept a book that essentially advocates creationism, not with their reputations at stake. It doesn't make the reasoning behind the book any less convincing, not to me anyways.

it advocates ignorance.

[Here It Goes]

I've read excerpts of Darwin's Black Box and I'm familiar with Behe's argument. He basically argues that bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex, in which the lack of any of their constituent parts would result in a non-functional system. Such a system obviously could not have evolved since it requires those parts to function, thus natural selection is false.

When he wrote the book, it was very convincing in terms of illustrating the difficulties that scientists had in describing how bacterial flagella could have evolved. This was a gap in scientific knowledge. However, instead of claiming that further research was required, he jumped the gun and claimed that the evolution of such a mechanism was impossible. God must have done it. The problem with his argument is that he ignores the possible ways that this system may have evolved. Just because there is a current gap in scientific knowledge does not mean that science cannot and will not ever explain it.

In addition, there has been research done in the evolution of the flagellum and it's definitely not impossible like Behe suggests.


Not impossible, no, but so incomprehensibly unlikely that a logical person could fairly dismiss it as representative of fact.

The problems with both belief of evolution and belief of God are one and the same, I find, and probably will never be resolved: both views require allowance for an infinite period of time, which is a concept that no human being can fully comprehend. Both belief in God and belief in evolution require faith, and it all depends on what you choose to put your faith in. I'll never be able to put my faith in the fact that life spontaneously came to be and is completely without purpose, and no amount of theoretical evidence is going to change my mind on that.