A Question For Non-believers

[Canada 0]

[steps on soapbox]Ok, I know I'm new to this Religion forum, but my first experience is a little disheartening. Comments like1: "These theists are a little slow.."2. Complaining about the term "unbeliever" (I'm fine with the complaint), then equating ones view with the term "free thinker" and failing to see this is offensive in the same manner3. "Try to keep up.."4. "Enjoy your cave.."I don't feel like searching for more, but a lot of you (not all) seem to be in this for sport (both sides..), and not for honest debate. I realize this is a very personal and emotional subject, but it would be nice if we could clean it up. It just seems all this dialogue is so hate-laden, and it makes RodReynolds cry. [/steps off soapbox]Edit: Everybody who has corresponded with me directly has been completely civil, I want to make that clear. Also, a lot of this debate has been good, if you can ignore such things as listed above. I apologize if I come off sounding like a self-righteous ass, that is not my intent. Though if it was, I think I succeeded admirably.

Sorry your first experience hasn't been more fulfilling Rod, but let me give you a few pointers here to save those tears. A lot of debate has been going on here for some time with the same characters, so there does exist some presumed knowledge that makes it tough for new comers.Also 2 of the comments you have listed above are mine, so perhaps I can discuss them?1) "These theists are a little slow.."The actual quote was:You theists are always a little slow, and take everything as a personal attack on your beliefs. Now that was a blatant generalisation and even though humour doesn't travel well on forums the 'over-the-topness' and the face should make up for the shortcomings. I don't think like that and I can confidently state that neither does crow, tim, mrdannyg or any of the regular non-theists.2) Non-believer/free thinker. I'm guessing you are American, because you Americans really don't do irony well. (See what I did with the generalisation again?) Since day one non-Christians have been refered to as non-believers here and I put up the term free thinkers so that the more subtle here would come to the realisation that you did. However you missed the point that it was irony...As to the heated tone in some of my posts. I do not argue that it goes over the top, but I challenge, like I've challenged others to look at the context.Whenever we are discussing religion and belief systems I've taken an opposing but civil stand to those that believe in the Christian God.However when faced with deception delivered as religion I take a very aggresive line. I take this line as many read this other than those that post here, and I feel it necessary to highlight these lies and false claims. Keeping it aggressive stops the debate from shifting off subject as so many discussions here do.If somebody whats to follow a religious belief, terrific. However I strongly believe that nobody should be deceived into any belief and to do so is a disgusting practice. Can you think of any good that has come of followers being falsely led into a belief system? Highly unlikely, yet I could give a huge list of groups that do so and all considered 'wrong' by both theists, atheits and agnostics alike.So when somebody puts forward ID as a science they are spreading a falsehood that was generated by others for unethical reasons. As I've said before, put forward ID as a religion, then you are doing nothing wrong.Similarly when LMD continues to make false claims of 'unknown scientific facts' in the Bible despite being shown to be wrong on every turn he too enters the class of deceivers.Many theists here have professed a distate for TV evangalists and their ilk. If pressed as to why these 'preachers' are not appreciated you would find many who have the same objections I have discussed above.

[Loismustdie 0]

The fossil record will always have gaps. Duh.Say we have fossils of creatures A and C. There's a gap in the record. We don't know how A became C. Then someone discovers a fossil of species B. Now we know more about how A became C. But we still don't know how A became B and how B became C. The more fossils we find, the more gaps there will be.For example, people used to wonder about the "missing link" between humans and apes. Fossils of austrolopithicus and neanderthals and other species were discovered. Now people are wondering where the "missing link" between apes and austrolopithicus is, and they are wondering what the "missing link" between austrolopithicus and humans is.Go here for "proof" of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/After reading it, please come back and explain how each point is flawed.

Gaps I would understand. Nothing but Gaps makes one think the whole idea is just made up. Which it is- the only reason atheists cling to this idea is because if they didn't, they would have to accept a God, and by extension a belief system possibly delivered by said God. Or, come up with something crazier Tom Cruise style.

Sorry your first experience hasn't been more fulfilling Rod, but let me give you a few pointers here to save those tears. A lot of debate has been going on here for some time with the same characters, so there does exist some presumed knowledge that makes it tough for new comers.Also 2 of the comments you have listed above are mine, so perhaps I can discuss them?1) "These theists are a little slow.."The actual quote was:You theists are always a little slow, and take everything as a personal attack on your beliefs. Now that was a blatant generalisation and even though humour doesn't travel well on forums the 'over-the-topness' and the face should make up for the shortcomings. I don't think like that and I can confidently state that neither does crow, tim, mrdannyg or any of the regular non-theists.2) Non-believer/free thinker. I'm guessing you are American, because you Americans really don't do irony well. (See what I did with the generalisation again?) Since day one non-Christians have been refered to as non-believers here and I put up the term free thinkers so that the more subtle here would come to the realisation that you did. However you missed the point that it was irony...As to the heated tone in some of my posts. I do not argue that it goes over the top, but I challenge, like I've challenged others to look at the context.Whenever we are discussing religion and belief systems I've taken an opposing but civil stand to those that believe in the Christian God.However when faced with deception delivered as religion I take a very aggresive line. I take this line as many read this other than those that post here, and I feel it necessary to highlight these lies and false claims. Keeping it aggressive stops the debate from shifting off subject as so many discussions here do.If somebody whats to follow a religious belief, terrific. However I strongly believe that nobody should be deceived into any belief and to do so is a disgusting practice. Can you think of any good that has come of followers being falsely led into a belief system? Highly unlikely, yet I could give a huge list of groups that do so and all considered 'wrong' by both theists, atheits and agnostics alike.So when somebody puts forward ID as a science they are spreading a falsehood that was generated by others for unethical reasons. As I've said before, put forward ID as a religion, then you are doing nothing wrong.Similarly when LMD continues to make false claims of 'unknown scientific facts' in the Bible despite being shown to be wrong on every turn he too enters the class of deceivers.Many theists here have professed a distate for TV evangalists and their ilk. If pressed as to why these 'preachers' are not appreciated you would find many who have the same objections I have discussed above.

I am sure everybody applauds you for your aggressive stance against deception. However, I have never tried to decieve anyone- there is no reason to continue to point out I was wrong when I said so myself, again and again and again. On one- count it- one point where I was clearly wrong. Yet you see this as a reason to be a pompous *** at every turn. Grow up. My friend The Rock here will now give you a Rock Bottom and my work is done.

[Canada 0]

On one- count it- one point where I was clearly wrong. Yet you see this as a reason to be a pompous *** at every turn. Grow up.

You see if this was the case you would have a point, however you started this whole line nearly a year ago here and still continue at the end of this thread.You get not one, that's right, not one piece of support from other theists on the subject and you blatantly contradict yourself when the arguments shifteg from the first thread

Either these writers are very good guessers or someone higher than they was dictating there words. Look it up and get back to me.

and the second

Who said the Bible was dictated by God? Inspired by and dictated by are 2 different things.

Added to that, every single point (not one as you claim, but all) you have put forward on your 'scientific' claim has logically and clearly been refutted, by myself and others.Not once have we attempted to prove God doesn't exist, but without doubt we have proven your 'scientific' claim is completly hollow.In fact I am so confident that you have been shown to be false that I openly ask RodReynolds whom I believe is a Christian new to this forum with what appears to be a solid mind between his ears to read those 2 conversations from beginning to end and express an opinion on your claims of unknown scientific fact in the bible.Asking me to grow up is so laughable, given that i have seen 5 year olds less stubborn than you

[crowTrobot 2]

Which it is- the only reason atheists cling to this idea is because if they didn't, they would have to accept a God, and by extension a belief system possibly delivered by said God.

those that believe in evolution do so because of the evidence, not because they want to avoid god. a LOT of christians believe in evolution by the way.

Or, come up with something crazier Tom Cruise style.

to an objective informed observer who doesn't happen to be immersed in christianity and can see beyond its cultural acceptance, christianity and scientology are equally insane things to believe in.

[RodReynolds 87]

Sorry your first experience hasn't been more fulfilling Rod, but let me give you a few pointers here to save those tears. A lot of debate has been going on here for some time with the same characters, so there does exist some presumed knowledge that makes it tough for new comers.Also 2 of the comments you have listed above are mine, so perhaps I can discuss them?1) "These theists are a little slow.."The actual quote was:You theists are always a little slow, and take everything as a personal attack on your beliefs. Now that was a blatant generalisation and even though humour doesn't travel well on forums the 'over-the-topness' and the face should make up for the shortcomings.2) Non-believer/free thinker. I'm guessing you are American, because you Americans really don't do irony well. (See what I did with the generalisation again?) Since day one non-Christians have been refered to as non-believers here and I put up the term free thinkers so that the more subtle here would come to the realisation that you did. However you missed the point that it was irony...

Yes, apparently I did miss the irony. However, I am Canadian, and I do appreciate irony on occasion. In fact, I've been known to use it myself, even on these forums, leading to disastrous results! (it has led to someones believing I was Anti-Semitic) So, perhaps irony doesn't come across well on forums. Rereading, it is still not clearly ironic to me, but perhaps it is because I don't have the necessary historical background of your character to decipher it as such. Or maybe I really am dumb .I guess I was under the impression that this is what you do, make glib over the top generalisations which though funny to those who agree with you, come across as insulting to those on the other side of the debate. Perhaps you don't see very clearly how you come across? Maybe that's not your problem.I still think comments like these are not helpful towards the debate, as even if they are done, as you claim, in a purely harmless manner, they can be easily misinterpreted, as apparently I've done. (that's five commas in once sentence... not bad)Also, I have no problem with you aggressively attacking what you perceive to be falsehoods, if done in a respectful manner.But honestly, who do I think I am, this over-sensitive newcomer setting the rules for the debate?!

[mrdannyg 274]

Gaps I would understand. Nothing but Gaps makes one think the whole idea is just made up.

Nothing but gaps? So there are no fossils, or evidence of evolution?Your posts are becoming illogical again. I hope you'll do some more research, including Sluggo's link, and report back if you still have some valid complaints.

[Canada 0]

I guess I was under the impression that this is what you do, make glib over the top generalisations which though funny to those who agree with you, come across as insulting to those on the other side of the debate. Perhaps you don't see very clearly how you come across? Maybe that's not your problem.

Actually its a RW tool that I've found very useful. Those that can take an 'non-insulting' insult and laugh or even return in kind always turn out to be worth knowing as it shows they are non-reactionary and willing to think on their feet.

I still think comments like these are not helpful towards the debate, as even if they are done, as you claim, in a purely harmless manner, they can be easily misinterpreted, as apparently I've done. (that's five commas in once sentence... not bad)Also, I have no problem with you aggressively attacking what you perceive to be falsehoods, if done in a respectful manner.But honestly, who do I think I am, this over-sensitive newcomer setting the rules for the debate?!

Some are definately not harmless, don't get me wrong.OK maybe the aggression has gained too much momentum of late. I'll turn that down, but I'm keeping the glib over the top generalisations and the irony.You can keep the commas.

[RodReynolds 87]

Actually its a RW tool that I've found very useful. Those that can take an 'non-insulting' insult and laugh or even return in kind always turn out to be worth knowing as it shows they are non-reactionary and willing to think on their feet.

Interestingly enough, my strategy to figure out who is worth knowing is a function F of how many (n) sociological experiments they perform on me. Max(F(n)) occurs for n=1, in order to ensure that others using my system will rate me as maximally worthy. This implies that unless I am part of any other of your experiments, I find you worthy. This is good news for you.Also, I occasionally begin to utter nonsense when I'm bored. This is no doubt one of those times.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Interestingly enough, my strategy to figure out who is worth knowing is a function F of how many (n) sociological experiments they perform on me. Max(F(n)) occurs for n=1, in order to ensure that others using my system will rate me as maximally worthy. This implies that unless I am part of any other of your experiments, I find you worthy. This is good news for you.Also, I occasionally begin to utter nonsense when I'm bored. This is no doubt one of those times.

Even by my very liberal standards, this statement is incredibly nerd like.Keep up the good work, sir.

[RodReynolds 87]

Even by my very liberal standards, this statement is incredibly nerd like.Keep up the good work, sir.

Yeah, the chicks dig me, as you can well imagine.You and Actuary have expressed similar sentiments. I'm starting to recognize this as a real problem.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm starting to recognize this as a real problem.

Never.And I'm confident that I can come close to out nerding almost anyone on the planet if I really had to.

[timwakefield 68]

Ok I am completely making these numbers up (gasp!) but it's not really important that they be very accurate. They're in the general ballpark, and they will give you an idea of what the fossil record is all about.I don't think I'm far off in saying that there have been trillions and trillions of individual organisms which have lived and died on this planet. Of those, perhaps .00001% were fossilized (this number is probably fairly generous). Of those which were fossilized, perhaps .001% (definitely generous) have been discovered by scientists. Now do you see why there are gaps?

[Sluggo 0]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...l_intermediatesThese fossils fill in the gaps.

[Canada 0]

Interestingly enough, my strategy to figure out who is worth knowing is a function F of how many (n) sociological experiments they perform on me. Max(F(n)) occurs for n=1, in order to ensure that others using my system will rate me as maximally worthy. This implies that unless I am part of any other of your experiments, I find you worthy. This is good news for you.Also, I occasionally begin to utter nonsense when I'm bored. This is no doubt one of those times.

See, I knew you were a keeper

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

One of the arguments I have seen from non-believers is this: They claim that most people who believe in GOD do so because they were brought up in church and that is what they have been taught . . . the term brainwashing rings a bell. To me there is some validity to this in some cases. I'm sure there are believers that believe just because they have been taught that their whole lives. But . . . couldn't that be true the other way around? I mean, if you have never set foot in a church or your parents were non-believers . . . wouldn't that affect your own beliefs?So my question is this. How many of you non-believers will admit that they either 1) have never been to church or 2) believe the way they do because their parents were non believers also?

interesting question. I haven't read the thread, but I'll answer the questions for you. I was raised baptist, I've been to church lots, and my partents still very much are x-ian. I ""Died Again" sometime during college, hard to point out when exactly I lost my faith, it was a slow process and a very depressing one. I'm not one of these gun ho atheists who want to shake all xian's faith and hate the church orwhat not. Being an xian was very comforting, and realising that I was alone in the universe sucked ***. I don't wish that depressing existential crisis on anyone,and rather wish I still was xian. I don't think it matters much what you believe, because I think we are all worm food. so if berliving Christ died for your sins is your Dumbo's feather for happiness, then more power too you.

[Mercury69 3]

Man, oh, man, there are some sickenenly deluded minds at work on this thread. Y'all can make up whatever excuses, reasons, formulae, quantumly proven theorems and whatever else you want to make yourselves happy. I, for one, am going to allow my mind to remain open to my own experiences and use them developmentally to create my own framework of spirituality. I don't need anyone to agree with me, I don't need a specific place to go to show that I believe in whatever it is I believe in and I don't need a bunch of naysayers proving just how stupid and incapable of cogent thought they are.I'll assume that some will think this is funny, useless or something else, but I can assure you that whoever takes this post as a personal affront is one of those to whom I am speaking.What is it I am saying? That's for you to decide. If you decide that I am "against" you, maybe you should re-examine your own belief set.

[crowTrobot 2]

What is it I am saying?

you're saying f' any reality beyond myself. i'm gonna believe in whatever makes me happy. good for you.

[mrdannyg 274]

I refuse to take responsibility for any intellectual thought by having no strong opinions about anything.

FYP.seriously though, all we've done is question when people stated specific beliefs or claims. if you say "i believe in god because a purple unicorn told me he was real, and purple unicorns never lie," I will question several aspects of that statement.However if you say, "I believe in god because what I believe was a purple unicorn told me he was real, and the logic surrounding this purple unicorn's argument seemed correct to me," then I have no basis to tell you you're wrong.The only certain statements that have been made in this thread are where people have purposely misstated scientific "facts."

[Mercury69 3]

you're saying f' any reality beyond myself. i'm gonna believe in whatever makes me happy. good for you.

Nice try, but you're off in the wrong direction. Part of my arguement is that spirituality comes from within and helps to define our outward actions, like compassion, generosity and forgiveness. I'm saying that I don't need someone else's moral compass to help me decide what's right and what's wrong. I'm saying I believe the downfall of the human race lies within a variety of religions believing that their "way" is the best or only way. I believe in tolerance and equity in quality of life. I don't believe in mocking people because they perceive things differently from me, but I do believe in mocking them for thinking that my way isn't "correct". If people are too caught up in their own belief systems to accept another way of perceiving life, are they truly alive?MrDannyG, I can understand, I suppose, why you would fix my post, but I didn't drop by to argue fossils. Ultimately, this "discussion" seems to be predicated on "how we got to this point" and the belief variances inherent in the various scientific and religious theorems. Part of what I'm saying is: Does it really matter? We are here now. Why argue about the past and that which cannot be proven? Why kill each other because someone thinks the other is leading a life that is blasphemous? Who, then, is the blasphemer? Oh, riiiight, I can interpret a 2000 year old book any way I want, as long as it serves my ultimate goal of ridding the face of the planet of the unbeliever.Please, people, listen to yourselves. You are wasting time discussing things for which you don't have all the factual components and never will. Why not accept the fact that there is more than one way to peel an orange?

[JadeTiger 0]

Please, people, listen to yourselves. You are wasting time discussing things for which you don't have all the factual components and never will. Why not accept the fact that there is more than one way to peel an orange?

I dont believe in oranges...j/k thought id re-enter the discussion with a little humor as a sign of good faith (no pun intended... or was it?)

[Mercury69 3]

I dont believe in oranges...j/k thought id re-enter the discussion with a little humor as a sign of good faith (no pun intended... or was it?)

Yeshhhhh!

[mrdannyg 274]

Nice try, but you're off in the wrong direction. Part of my arguement is that spirituality comes from within and helps to define our outward actions, like compassion, generosity and forgiveness. I'm saying that I don't need someone else's moral compass to help me decide what's right and what's wrong. I'm saying I believe the downfall of the human race lies within a variety of religions believing that their "way" is the best or only way. I believe in tolerance and equity in quality of life. I don't believe in mocking people because they perceive things differently from me, but I do believe in mocking them for thinking that my way isn't "correct". If people are too caught up in their own belief systems to accept another way of perceiving life, are they truly alive?MrDannyG, I can understand, I suppose, why you would fix my post, but I didn't drop by to argue fossils. Ultimately, this "discussion" seems to be predicated on "how we got to this point" and the belief variances inherent in the various scientific and religious theorems. Part of what I'm saying is: Does it really matter? We are here now. Why argue about the past and that which cannot be proven? Why kill each other because someone thinks the other is leading a life that is blasphemous? Who, then, is the blasphemer? Oh, riiiight, I can interpret a 2000 year old book any way I want, as long as it serves my ultimate goal of ridding the face of the planet of the unbeliever.Please, people, listen to yourselves. You are wasting time discussing things for which you don't have all the factual components and never will. Why not accept the fact that there is more than one way to peel an orange?

For the most part, I think what you are saying is excellent. Your points about people having their own moral compass, and not relying on others for their version of what your beliefs should be is at least commendable, and in my opinion, a strong and logical point of view.i think you are misunderstanding what most of us are trying to do in these discussions. we are not trying to change anyone's mind or alter anyone's beliefs. personally, i am interested in understanding other's beliefs. sometimes i'll question them in hopes of better understanding them, which occasionally necessitates pointing out that their logic or basis seems to be flawed. it is then their choice whether to argue those points and try to better define their beliefs, or accept that it is simply my opinion, and they need not give it any weight.

[Mercury69 3]

For the most part, I think what you are saying is excellent. Your points about people having their own moral compass, and not relying on others for their version of what your beliefs should be is at least commendable, and in my opinion, a strong and logical point of view.i think you are misunderstanding what most of us are trying to do in these discussions. we are not trying to change anyone's mind or alter anyone's beliefs. personally, i am interested in understanding other's beliefs. sometimes i'll question them in hopes of better understanding them, which occasionally necessitates pointing out that their logic or basis seems to be flawed. it is then their choice whether to argue those points and try to better define their beliefs, or accept that it is simply my opinion, and they need not give it any weight.

Gotcha, DannyG. Probably my fault for assuming and not having totally read the thread. Thanks for the clarification!

[Loismustdie 0]

Ok I am completely making these numbers up (gasp!) but it's not really important that they be very accurate. They're in the general ballpark, and they will give you an idea of what the fossil record is all about.I don't think I'm far off in saying that there have been trillions and trillions of individual organisms which have lived and died on this planet. Of those, perhaps .00001% were fossilized (this number is probably fairly generous). Of those which were fossilized, perhaps .001% (definitely generous) have been discovered by scientists. Now do you see why there are gaps?

Millions of people have believed in God and Jesus, hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands walked with him. Some wrote books of him- both entities, which have been put into one book. Yet this is not enough. Why the hell would an explanation that they are simply not there because of statistics be enough for me? Your statement just proves the lengths you will go to cling to anything but God.

[Mercury69 3]

Millions of people have believed in God and Jesus, hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands walked with him. Some wrote books of him- both entities, which have been put into one book. Yet this is not enough. Why the hell would an explanation that they are simply not there because of statistics be enough for me? Your statement just proves the lengths you will go to cling to anything but God.

My impression is that you are seriously misguided about your sense of religion. I will refrain from mocking you for being such a hard-liner. BTW, doesn't the Bible forbid gambling?