449 réponses à ce sujet

[haberman13]

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

[Emperor Mars]

I am a catholic.

I believe in evolution, I believe the resurrection, I do not think that the Eucharist physically becomes the body and blood of Christ, but I think it does obtain some form of spiritual significance. I think that the big bang is a likely form of universal creation, I also believe in God.



This is not a black and white, mind slave vs enlightened world. I have seen different people in many places call the religious mind slaves, which I take more offense to then when just argues atheism. In a way, I am less of a mind slave then pure atheists as I subject to almost every scientific theory about highly controversial subjects and still believe in God/religion.



Do I take offense to atheists pushing their beliefs on me, yes I do, But I also feel the same towards religious folk who are as others have said are ignorant/arrogant and force their beliefs on others.



I think religion is a private matter, and up to each individual. Each idea is correct, each is incorrect.



This is a debate that will last until the universe rips itself apart, and then for some reason I think it will manage to continue on after that.

[newcomplex]

haberman13 wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Why do people like yourselves who clearly didn't read your own Bible completely feel the need to post the same old BS from some christian pastor's badly summarized speech here? Do you think you're going to convert people? Do you think you're going to prove your somehow superior? You christians are so obsesseed with running around trying to shove your "God" down people's throats as if you managing to scream at enough people would make it so your religion was validated.

And honestly silly debate is silly.

Islam and Buddhism are smaller combined than agnosticism or atheism?

wot lol

In defense of the christian logic, when one accepts that world view as true, it is morally imperative to spread god's message.  Also, the world view is beautiful, and would fix man's problems if followed.  It's really a cry for justic and desire for fairness that pushes most christians forward.  If you aren't interested they won't torture you or harm you, I promise.

This quote is funny.    Their are two interpretations.   One is figuratively followed.    That would be Puritan New england, scarlet letter, etc, etc.   In other words, a hellish place to live where they ocstrazize individuals and burn deviants.    Holy Roman Empire or something.

Now, your going to say "well, those people corrupted Gods message for personal power".    Which is certainly true.    But people are incapable of following gods orders without corrupting it because they are people.    If they did, you would get heaven.   We have desires, we have corruption, we have anger, we hate, have bias, etc etc.     The entire new testaments about how you can't live a sinless life, so Jesus is their for you.    

[ImperialOperative]

Emperor Mars wrote...

I am a catholic.

No, you are a heretic.

[newcomplex]

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not.  Respect that.   Though Christians should respect you too.  

That would be a nice world to live in...yeah...

Too bad it'll never exist, and we'll continue hating, burning, killing, murdering each other for what the the internet colloqually deems as "nerd rage" for as long as we can still be considered human by all modern medical definitions of human

That being said, I would pay so much ****ing money to see Atheist v Jihadist v Scientologist deathmatch, though I'm somewhat appalled that were comparing the latter to the former 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:10 .

[Collider]

ReconTeam wrote...
Which I just happen to see used again and again by stereotypical forum atheists...

Not my fault dude.

Yeah, sure you aren't... I have seen the same thing dozens of occasions and too often trying to convert some people is the objective. You may not believe in a reward but perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself, or the same old story of simply wanting people to think as you do. Hell, I want people to think as I do as well.

Here's what's important. I did not come into this discussion whatsoever with an ounce of intent of converting people. AT ALL. Whereas you, being religious, may want to believe so they can have paradise in the afterlife, being an atheist I have nothing like that.

Really now, then why do you and others come in here with the same old behavior of dismissing Christianity and this attitute of "in the future everybody will be like us".

Um, I never posted anything like that. Don't clump me up with other people. If I clumped you up with Christians who praised God for every dead U.S. soldier in Iraq, would you like that? No.

Yet on the internet I always see the damned atheists with the largest egos, and typing up the usual self-gratifying nonsense. This may or may not apply to you, but frankly it is damned annoying.

For your part, assuming things about me and suggesting that I be put in with the likes of violent islamist extremist radicals isn't exactly a gesture of compassion and moderation.

Am I not merciful?

You may want to practise the golden rule. Just sayin'

[Emperor Mars]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Emperor Mars wrote...

I am a catholic.

No, you are a heretic.

I didnt say I was good catholic I just implied that is my chosen form of worship, because it is a setting I am comfortable with.

[Collider]

newcomplex wrote...
Religion doesn't require the belief in dieties, your right.    Atheists cannot believe in dieties.   Find me a link which says athiests can believe in dieties (IE:zeus.   The living buddha)    

Um, I already know that atheist can't believe in deities. My point is that religion does not require any deities. I can believe in a religion that states that fairies exist and help people who pray to them 10 times a day. Did that require a belief in a god? No. Buddha is not necessarily a god, in fact I wouldn't surprised if Buddha would have been apalled at the idea of being viewed as a god.

Modifié par Collider, 01 mars 2010 - 04:10 .

[ImperialOperative]

newcomplex wrote...

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

Didn't Pope John Paul II (and Benedict) say that evolution was OK by him, that it doesn't contradict Gods ultimate creation anyway?

I don't see why creationists keep at it.

[newcomplex]

Collider wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Religion doesn't require the belief in dieties, your right.    Atheists cannot believe in dieties.   Find me a link which says athiests can believe in dieties (IE:zeus.   The living buddha)    

Um, I already know that atheist can't believe in deities. My point is that religion does not require any deities. I can believe in a religion that states that fairies exist and help people who pray to them 10 times a day. Did that require a belief in a god? No. Buddha is not necessarily a god, in fact I wouldn't surprised if Buddha would have been apalled at the idea of being viewed as a god.

Uh....wut?

Ok then.   Whats the problem?    Atheists believe in their on constuvistic dieties.   It is impossible to not to, as evident by your lack of empirical proof to justify your own existence.   My original thesis.  

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:13 .

[haberman13]

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

[PyroFreak301]

Emperor Mars wrote...

I am a catholic.
I believe in evolution, I believe the resurrection, I do not think that the Eucharist physically becomes the body and blood of Christ, but I think it does obtain some form of spiritual significance. I think that the big bang is a likely form of universal creation, I also believe in God.

This is not a black and white, mind slave vs enlightened world. I have seen different people in many places call the religious mind slaves, which I take more offense to then when just argues atheism. In a way, I am less of a mind slave then pure atheists as I subject to almost every scientific theory about highly controversial subjects and still believe in God/religion.

Do I take offense to atheists pushing their beliefs on me, yes I do, But I also feel the same towards religious folk who are as others have said are ignorant/arrogant and force their beliefs on others.

I think religion is a private matter, and up to each individual. Each idea is correct, each is incorrect.

This is a debate that will last until the universe rips itself apart, and then for some reason I think it will manage to continue on after that.

A lot of people have more of a problem with the organised religion rather than the members themselves. I mentioned the catholic church earlier and the way they do disgusting things in the name of God. My problem lies with the Pope who has the power to say "ok, you can use condoms now" and save thousands upon thousands of lives by doing so. Yet he doesn't.

That being said, I know I'm not much better than these extremist zealots or pushy atheists when I meet a person who will happily blind themselves to science and fact if it contradicts with a book of theirs. Theres something about people seriously claiming that evolution was a lie that makes me want to bang thier head against a wall until they see what's right in front of their eyes. I dont actually do that, I'm just compelled to argue forever like a moron and get nowhere.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 01 mars 2010 - 04:14 .

[newcomplex]

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

[tripehound1]

Emperor Mars wrote...

ImperialOperative wrote...

Emperor Mars wrote...

I am a catholic.

No, you are a heretic.

I didnt say I was good catholic I just implied that is my chosen form of worship, because it is a setting I am comfortable with.

Esentially you are religious but also rational?

I for one respect this.

[Collider]

newcomplex wrote...
 Whats the problem?

You tell me. All I said that atheists can be religious and you jumped on me with a slew of metaphysical bull****.

[ImperialOperative]

Collider wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
Religion doesn't require the belief in dieties, your right.    Atheists cannot believe in dieties.   Find me a link which says athiests can believe in dieties (IE:zeus.   The living buddha)    

Um, I already know that atheist can't believe in deities. My point is that religion does not require any deities. I can believe in a religion that states that fairies exist and help people who pray to them 10 times a day. Did that require a belief in a god? No. Buddha is not necessarily a god, in fact I wouldn't surprised if Buddha would have been apalled at the idea of being viewed as a god.

He most certainly would have been.  He was an atheist, which is why he rejected doctrine from the Jainists and the Hundu's of that day (though he took some elements from their way).

Ironically, the most popular form of Buddhism (Mahayana) reincorporated that sort of divine aspect, even elevating Buddha to a divinity.

[haberman13]

ImperialOperative wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

Didn't Pope John Paul II (and Benedict) say that evolution was OK by him, that it doesn't contradict Gods ultimate creation anyway?

I don't see why creationists keep at it.

Yes they did, and realistically we should all go by what is observable like they did, Genesis isn't a science book lol; some people like to think it is and undermine their true argument by sticking to that fallacy.

[newcomplex]

Collider wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
 Whats the problem?

You tell me. All I said that atheists can be religious and you jumped on me with a slew of metaphysical bull****.

How did that end up happening?   My entire point was that Atheism is a kind of religion because of the above.    lol.    


Though uh...Buddha is a god.    Technically, hes above a god, as the word Buddha in hindu and chinese carries a greater connotation then the world "god".    

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:16 .

[haberman13]

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

Adaptation to environment doesn't stop, I'm certainly not saying life is static.  I'm saying frogs didn't "adapt" their way into a different family.  The number of frog species however has greatly expanded via adaptaion.

(sorry, I incorrectly used species before, my intent was "family")

[Collider]

newcomplex wrote...
How did that end up happening?   My entire point was that Atheism is a kind of religion because of the above.    lol.   

Atheism is NOT a religion. You seriously equate not believing in something as a religion? Dang. Not believing in leprechauns is a religion too then I guess.

[redhead1979]

Aha! Found it. Here's Einstein's real views:



"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."



"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."



"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

[newcomplex]

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

redhead1979 wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

atheism seems myopic to me, as an ideology it simply refuses to answer key questions by relying on arguments like the spaghetti monster. Sure, I can't prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, but I'm not proposing that the universe was created by a spaghetti monster... i.e. the universe is evidence of creation; where as a spaghetti monster would have no logical causal affect on that fact.

Things like red shift in the universe proving expansion, and the fact that there has NEVER been observation of a genome gaining data... which would be necessary for cross-special evolution.

Dawkins is a smart man, but google for "dawkins and aliens" or "dawkins and adding to the genome" and you will laugh as the atheist-messiah is truly stumped by the genome question, and suggests that humans were planted here by aliens because of the irrationality of human evolution coming from apes (even he doesn't believe it).

Also, Einstein was convinced there is a creator, though he denies the christian god he does explicitly state that the complexity of the universe and everything he understands about it suggests intelligence.

You managed to jam so much wrong into that post that you deserve some kind of award.

Atheism is not an ideology and makes no attempt to answer "key questions".  It is merely someone who does not believe that god or gods exist.  Period.  If you want to find out what they believe you'll have to be more specific with your questions.

The alien response Dawkins gave was in response to a question in which the interviewer asked if he could think of any scientific hypothosis for intelligent design.  Panspermia was the response.  No biggie.  The second was an ambush by a creationist during an interview.  His pause was him realizing the interviewer had come under false pretenses and wanted to choose his words carefully so they wouldn't be quote mined or taken out of context.

Genomes gain data.  It's called duplication.

I don't think Einstein ever said anything of the like.  Would you care to provide the quote?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."

"I want to know how God created this
world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of
this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are
details."

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning
power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God."

I wholeheartedly agree.    Seriously, fellow Atheists, don't hate on religious folks unless their burning your abortion clinic or something.    Realize that what Einstein said is true, and that ironically, logical will never give us meaning.    Because meaning itself according to logic, is a construction that exists soley within our heads.    We cannot live without meaning.   

So to be an (hardcore) atheist is to purposely embrace the illogical.     Though I'm perfectly ok with the former.   Your free to be ok with that too.    Some people are not. 

Though I kinda wish they would stop denying evolution.   Its annoying <_<

I observe adaptation in nature, like Darwin's birds, not cross-speciel evolution.  Amoeba != man from the observable fossil record.

Lol.    Why would adaptations just stop?   Continued Adaptation=evolution lol.    

Adaptation to environment doesn't stop, I'm certainly not saying life is static.  I'm saying frogs didn't "adapt" their way into a different family.  The number of frog species however has greatly expanded via adaptaion.

(sorry, I incorrectly used species before, my intent was "family")

So uh, why couldn't frogs loose legs and become salamanders those funky amphibians without any legs?   As uh...frogs lengths are clearly variable to their enviromental demands?

Modifié par newcomplex, 01 mars 2010 - 04:19 .

[haberman13]

redhead1979 wrote...

Aha! Found it. Here's Einstein's real views:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

That is exactly what I said, without the actual quotes, Einstein denied the personal (christian) god, but believes in a general god who created the universe.

[PyroFreak301]

www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

Undeniable proof that atheists win. I don't advise taking this too seriously.

[addiction21]

massive_effect wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

massive_effect wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
-DA

Yeah, but...you will eventually die. What then?

I do not know. I do not presume to know and I do not care either way. I try to live a good life and treat others as I myself would like to be treated. If that earns me eternal damnation so be it.

That is the Golden Rule. If you live like that, you will be in heaven.

I know it is called the "golden rule" but long long long before it was called that it was named karma.  FYI your religion does not have a monopoly on morales nor did they "create" them.