From today I can call myself an atheist

Undergod

robindch wrote: »

Interestingly, I believe that the koran genuinely doesn't have any contradictions, since amongst its clashing rules and doctrines, it specifies that the rule or doctrine closest to the end of the book should take precedence.

That's pretty interesting; why is that? I recall someone here saying that the Qur'an is divinely inspired, which means my first thought that it was acknowledging its own fallibility can't be the case.

sink

Perhaps the last page was torn out.

"This is a work of fiction"

AhSureTisGrand

I hear it's actually meant to be read as if the writers forgot to put "/sarcasm" at the very end

dead one

kylith wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I can't watch videos on this PC.
Regardless of what one rabbi and someone who appears to be an immam say you are mistaken: Judaism is about 4000 years old (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Judaism.html,
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/history.htm), Christianity is about 2000 years old (I don't think I need to post links for that), and Islam dates from about 622CE (or AD, if you prefer) (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam.html, http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm) meaning that rather than Islam being, as you assert, the oldest of the Abrahamic religions, it is in fact the youngest by several hundred years.

See madame, Islam isn't newer religion, it started from adam and completed on muhammad, that is truth because that's what exactly quran teaches. You had given me reference about origin of Judasim and christianity But links have no reference from where these i.e "Judasim and christianity" came . These words were fabricated. You can read whole Bible, no where in bible Jesus used Christian for himself, even Jesus wasn't his original name, the name i guess came from greek. The name of Jesus is also fabricate by divine priests to make a new religion. All the prophets like jesus, moses, abraham, Adam, jacob were muslim according islam. They preached islam in their respective time.
i can give you reference from Quran if you believe.
"""""And Abraham instructed his sons [to do the same] and [so did] Jacob, [saying], "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims."
http://quran.com/2/132
Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, "What will you worship after me?" They said, "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac - one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
http://quran.com/2/133
Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah ]. And he was not of the polytheists.
http://quran.com/3/67

And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, "Believe in Me and in My messenger Jesus." They said, "We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allah ].
http://quran.com/5/111
I am puting more trust in quran than history because history can be fabricated. It is history which makes men and woman salve for ages. So what makes you to trust history. Ma'am!!!!. Would you kindly brief it.

kylith wrote: »

And I'm not a sir. You can call me Ma'am, if you want

Thanks Ma'am.

dead one

Shenshen wrote: »

Have a quick look at where religions have taken humanity in the past... if you just go by the level of suffering and the number of resulting deaths, they outshine any ideology that ever took evolution on board.

Religions mean interpretation from original religion. Original religion is peace and mercy sent to mankind by God. If people falsely interpret original teaching, than what do you blame people or religion. Think on it.

Shenshen wrote: »

But don't let that deter you. Killing Jews is only bad if the Nazis do it, if people do it out of religious faith it's perfectly ok.

Who said ok to that.

Boulevardier

Jeepers, talk about being blinded with science!

Nevertheless, I would say that even assuming these particles behave as described, I consider it most unlikely that all we see around us came about in the same way. Common-sense may not always be right, but it is not always wrong either.

Someone asked me to describe the deist deity. I cannot do better than to refer people again to sites such as www.deism.com

MagicMarker

Boulevardier wrote: »

Nevertheless, I would say that even assuming these particles behave as described, I consider it most unlikely that all we see around us came about in the same way.

No one is saying it did, we're all happy to admit we don't know. Unlike you.

oldrnwisr

Boulevardier wrote: »

Jeepers, talk about being blinded with science!

Nevertheless, I would say that even assuming these particles behave as described, I consider it most unlikely that all we see around us came about in the same way. Common-sense may not always be right, but it is not always wrong either.

Someone asked me to describe the deist deity. I cannot do better than to refer people again to sites such as www.deism.com

Nobody is claiming that our universe came about as a result of virtual particles. I was simply responding to your argument about something coming from nothing.

In any case, the big bang theory does not state that what we see around us came from nothing. The big bang simply states that the universe rapidly expanded from an initial hot dense state. Our current knowledge breaks down at Planck time after the Big Bang so any discussion about what preceded the Big Bang remains in the domain of hypothesis.

liamw

Boulevardier wrote: »

Someone asked me to describe the deist deity. I cannot do better than to refer people again to sites such as www.deism.com

www.deism.com wrote:

Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer.

That looks awfully like a 'we don't know so it must be god' argument.

Also, which 'designs' necessarily presuppose a designer?

liamw

liamw wrote: »

That looks awfully like a 'we don't know so it must be god' argument.

Of course it is. Why do you think I brought my old sig back!

Boulevardier

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

MagicMarker

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

There's a pen on my desk, I don't know how it got there and no one else seems to know. Is it reasonable to think a supreme being could have put it there?

Boulevardier

It is reasonable to think someone put it there.

You probably believe that the pen quantumistically put itself there!

oldrnwisr

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is reasonable to think someone put it there.

You probably believe that the pen quantumistically put itself there!

MagicMarker

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is reasonable to think someone put it there.

Is it reasonable to think a supreme being put it there?

AhSureTisGrand

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

I imagine it's better to think with your brain than with your digestive system

RussellTuring

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

Why God?

Deism, to me at least, is just an arrogant cop-out. It's a way of preventing yourself from saying "I don't know" when it comes to your understanding of the origins of the universe. No atheist will feign knowledge of how the universe came into existence, they don't have a problem acknowledging that they simply don't know. Why invoke a supernatural being when admitting a lack of knowledge and understanding is, by far, the more reasonable position?

Invoking a supernatural being for this one event that isn't understood is a true implementation of the god of the gaps.

Delirium

MagicMarker wrote: »

There's a pen on my desk, I don't know how it got there and no one else seems to know. Is it reasonable to think a supreme being could have put it there?

You're welcome

ghostchant

MagicMarker wrote: »

There's a pen on my desk, I don't know how it got there and no one else seems to know.

You might say it was a Magic Marker :pac:

liamw

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

How is it reasonable though? You don't appear to have any evidence of a supernatural deity.

When you say 'common sense' and 'gut instinct', that doesn't count for anything. If you can understand the cognitive predispositions of the human brain, you can understand why humans have constructed god/s for millenia. One example is hyperactive agency detection among others.

You should stop invoking a supernatural entity to fill this gap, understand the limitations/predispositions of your own brain, and just admit that you don't know.

Boulevardier

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing. I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

The Mad Hatter

Boulevardier wrote: »

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing. I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

It sounds unconvincing because it is unconvincing.

Why posit anything at all for which there is no evidence? Just because you "just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like" doesn't mean that it must be so - your brain is as limited as the rest of ours. Why not just default to the position which most atheists and say "we don't know, so until it can be shown, we won't believe it"?

liamw

Boulevardier wrote: »

I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

No, my brain is pretty much wired the same as yours I'm sure. The only difference is I don't allow myself to fall victim to my own mental predispositions. You can do the same thing if you are intellectually honest.

MagicMarker

Boulevardier wrote: »

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing. I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

So you're not going to answer my question then?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Is it reasonable to think a supreme being put it there?

Funny how some people disappear after a question is asked only to come back a day or two later and carry on posting as if no question was posed at all.

oldrnwisr

Boulevardier wrote: »

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing.

Oh, I see your idea now is to make it harder to argue against you by making your definition of god nonsensical and vague.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Why not? What evidence do you have for your position?

Boulevardier wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing.

Gee, you think so?

Boulevardier wrote: »

Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

I think you're right there. I think that atheists and skeptics are missing the "willing to believe in bull**** for no reason" portion of our brains. Or maybe it's just switched off. Still though it's better to have a logical, analytical brain than none at all.

MRPRO03

In my opinion and with experience of people who say they are atheists, treat atheism as a religion rather than an belief. They are basically doing the same thing that religious people or groups do. For Instance, lets look at Dawkins, I would call him a preacher, cause what he does is the equivalent of what a pope, pastor or high religious figure would do and that is to convert the people to their belief via speeches, TV, Books, Internet etc.

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Like, a forum for atheists, like what do atheists talk about ?, its a strange one for me, I am not trying to argumentative here, but atheism is belief of no god or diety, so there is nothing to discuss and yet, it has over 1000 threads, It really amazes me. Its like those atheist only clubs, only atheists can join, but atheism does not mean that all atheists are the same, it is not about joining a group but a personal decision for personal gain and freedom. Some of these clubs have the potential to get very dangerous and secretive as more people possibly join them.

Go on web, and you have countless websites about atheism, whatever you want to know about how to be a good atheist to how to promote evolution. It is crazy how much atheism has 'evolved' over the years, for many famous faces from Dawkins to Hawking, trying their best to ram it down your throat, they should stick their sciences, which is what they are good at and be a good atheist without trying to mock those with religious beliefs.

If you an atheist, you have no need to explain to people why you an atheist, it is your belief, simple as that.

Turtwig

*Grabs Popcorn*

The Mad Hatter

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Same old, same old, and - wow - lots of it...

Zillah wrote: »

I could easily become the greatest troll on earth based on my experiences on this forum. Such...things...I could say to atheists to trigger that twitch.

...That you, Zillah?

Undergod

Atheism =/= belief. Atheism =/= disbelief. Atheism = absence of belief.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

In my opinion and with experience of people who say they are atheists, treat atheism as a religion rather than an belief.

That may be the case for some people; I don't find it to be the norm on these boards at least. Also, atheism is not a belief.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Really? Atheists shouldn't be allowed tell others of their absence of belief? Why is "making someone else come to that way of thought" such a bad thing for non-believers to do, but evangelism is okay? Could you not say that people ought to come to the idea of religious faith from a personal perspective?

Seems like you've already got a position of "belief good, atheism bad" and are basing your argument on that.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Like, a forum for atheists, like what do atheists talk about ?,

Many people are interested in making society more secular, it's not an interest exclusive to atheists, but you can see why there might be an overlap.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

It really amazes me. Its like those atheist only clubs, only atheists can join, but atheism does not mean that all atheists are the same, it is not about joining a group but a personal decision for personal gain and freedom. Some of these clubs have the potential to get very dangerous and secretive as more people possibly join them.

Theism does not mean all Theists are the same. Presbyterianism does not mean all Presbyterians are the same. Of course not all atheists are the same, I'm not sure what the point is.

How could a club for atheists get very dangerous? Is revolutionary comradeship to be found in the absence of faith, or in the cold, absent embrace of no gods? And how does it get more secretive as it gets bigger?

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Go on web, and you have countless websites about atheism, whatever you want to know about how to be a good atheist to how to promote evolution. It is crazy how much atheism has 'evolved' over the years, for many famous faces from Dawkins to Hawking, trying their best to ram it down your throat, they should stick their sciences, which is what they are good at and be a good atheist without trying to mock those with religious beliefs.

Evolution is not a part of atheism. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. What do you mean by "how to be a good atheist"? How to be atheist well, or how to be a good person while being an atheist? While the idea of the first one is admittedly odd, the second one is interesting as one of the common responses to atheism is "where do you get your morals?"

Stephen Hawking? Where does he ram atheism down anyone's throat? I've certainly never heard him accused of mocking people with religious beliefs. And again; why should atheists not be allowed to promote their opinions?

MRPRO03 wrote: »

If you an atheist, you have no need to explain to people why you an atheist, it is your belief, simple as that.

If you are Baha'i you have no need to - I'm sure you can guess where I'm headed. Except atheism is an absence of belief.

AhSureTisGrand

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Atheism isn't "about" anything except the absence of belief in god or gods

ghostchant

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Atheism isn't "about" anything except the absence of belief in god or gods

I got the impression that that was the poster's point. If that's all it is, then why is it so important to people that we end up with hundreds of different threads about it here. Would a forum dedicated to people who don't like golf get as much activity?

As for the question 'then why is evangelism ok', I think the point is that preaching, whether about belief or non-belief, is not ok.

My opinion is that belief/atheism is a personal choice, and thousands of posts mocking each other for that choice isn't terribly productive.

AhSureTisGrand

ghostchant wrote: »

I got the impression that that was the poster's point.

I disagree

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''

Glowing

ghostchant wrote: »

My opinion is that belief/atheism is a personal choice, and thousands of posts mocking each other for that choice isn't terribly productive.

I'd be inclined to agree with you only for religion being a huge cause of death and unrest around the world. The way you word it, you're making it sound like a person or groups beliefs don't have any consequences ...

Anyway I've been reading this thread with interest. I'm an atheist myself - can't fathom how people can 'disbelieve' evolution and deny that the world is as old as it is. I actually thought it was more of a US based thing but I'm so surprised that so many people here are so sure that god is involved in how the earth and life developed and put so much trust in 'creationism' (that word on it's own fills me with frustration!!) Argh!

ghostchant

Glowing wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with you only for religion being a huge cause of death and unrest around the world. The way you word it, you're making it sound like a person or groups beliefs don't have any consequences ...

Anyway I've been reading this thread with interest. I'm an atheist myself - can't fathom how people can 'disbelieve' evolution and deny that the world is as old as it is. I actually thought it was more of a US based thing but I'm so surprised that so many people here are so sure that god is involved in how the earth and life developed and put so much trust in 'creationism' (that word on it's own fills me with frustration!!) Argh!

It's certainly fun to read through any thread that a creationist pops up in, I'll give you that but I've been reading this thread where a deist and an agnostic atheist (both atheists yes? I mean neither are theists? I hate the terminolgy of all this stuff!) have been arguing over a point that neither of them will likely ever know. Personally before the big bang I think any guess/belief is as rational/irrational as the next. If your hypothesis is that there was a cause that 'sparked' it (a method to the madness if you will) and you're open to your hypothesis being wrong (if there is ever a way of testing for it, which I don't imagine there will be), then what's the harm? I have no clue personally, but if someone believes in something having caused it then that's cool too.

As for religion causung death and conflict, yep you're right, but if religion was wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow there would be another reason taking its place the next day. Money/politics/land etc.

Galvasean

ghostchant wrote: »

Personally before the big bang I think any guess/belief is as rational/irrational as the next. If your hypothesis is that there was a cause that 'sparked' it (a method to the madness if you will) and you're open to your hypothesis being wrong (if there is ever a way of testing for it, which I don't imagine there will be), then what's the harm? I have no clue personally, but if someone believes in something having caused it then that's cool too

That's all well and good, but I (and many here by the look of it) take exception when a deist claims a naturally occurring universe is 'beyond belief', but one created by a super being who exists beyond the laws of physics is somehow not. It strikes me as an extremely illogical stance to take.

ghostchant

Do you think you'll be able to change their mind?

Galvasean

ghostchant wrote: »

Do you think you'll be able to change their mind?

I would say more than 90% of the time when debating with someone on an internet forum you have virtually no chance of changing the mind of the person you are debating with. To paraphrase Aaron Eckhard's character in Thank you For Smoking, you're not trying to get your opponent to agree with you, but the audience.

Turtwig

MRPRO03 wrote: »

In my opinion and with experience of people who say they are atheists, treat atheism as a religion rather than an belief. They are basically doing the same thing that religious people or groups do. For Instance, lets look at Dawkins, I would call him a preacher, cause what he does is the equivalent of what a pope, pastor or high religious figure would do and that is to convert the people to their belief via speeches, TV, Books, Internet etc.

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Like, a forum for atheists, like what do atheists talk about ?, its a strange one for me, I am not trying to argumentative here, but atheism is belief of no god or diety, so there is nothing to discuss and yet, it has over 1000 threads, It really amazes me. Its like those atheist only clubs, only atheists can join, but atheism does not mean that all atheists are the same, it is not about joining a group but a personal decision for personal gain and freedom. Some of these clubs have the potential to get very dangerous and secretive as more people possibly join them.

Go on web, and you have countless websites about atheism, whatever you want to know about how to be a good atheist to how to promote evolution. It is crazy how much atheism has 'evolved' over the years, for many famous faces from Dawkins to Hawking, trying their best to ram it down your throat, they should stick their sciences, which is what they are good at and be a good atheist without trying to mock those with religious beliefs.

If you an atheist, you have no need to explain to people why you an atheist, it is your belief, simple as that.

The world isn't black and white. Your post is very myopic in its view of atheism. Atheism is defined by one thing and one thing only; a lack of belief in deities. This definition includes those who actively believe there is no God and those who doubt there is a God. In some cases atheism can be a form of a religious or spiritual viewpoint. Buddhists don't believe in deity, but depending on their "school" of buddhism they have different doctrines of faith to follow. The Pirahã tribe are a group of people in the amazon who don't believe in a supreme deity but are extremely spiritual and superstitious. The tribe has never heard of suicide and they thought the suggestion or idea of one taking their own life was hilarious! Both the groups I mentioned are atheists. There are many more. The key point I'm trying to make here is that atheism can be a part of a religion, it can also be a part of a belief system or even a political one, but it doesn't necessarily have to be part of any. For a person to be an atheist all they need do is tick one box : lack of belief in a deity. They can be homophobic, superstitious, cannibalistic, pacifists,spiritual, flat earthers, etc. As long as they don't have belief in a deity they are atheists.

Hopefully by now you understand that atheism has nothing to do with letting a person make their mind up for themselves. Nor, does it have anything to do with a person being against theism and religion. These positions are known as anti-theism and anti-religion, which a large proportion of the posters here would subscribe to. In fact, judging by your original post I'd say you are also anti-religious. "Let people believe what they want, but don't shove your beliefs in their face" am I right? That's anti-religion because on of the key characteristics of any religion is getting its members to proselytise the doctrines and beliefs of that religion to non believers. It's a two sided coin, if you let people belief what they want then for all religions that includes letting those people believe that it is their spiritual mission to spread their beliefs. The vast majority of posters here wouldn't care about religion if it wasn't for how prevalent it is in society.

Regarding the question of why atheists have forums and activist groups, well why do vegetarians have a forum? You used the analogy of golf, so I'll extend it a bit. Imagine, if you're the biggest the fan of golf. Imagine that because of this, your kids are not allowed a place in the local primary school. Imagine if someone comes knocking to your door regularly about the beauty of golf. Imagine if because of the fact you don't play golf you are least trusted member of society and constantly misunderstood. I could go on and on...It's basic human nature if one perceives their beliefs to be under threat or impinged on then they'll form activist groups to preserve their beliefs. This is why in America certain atheists groups tend to be more vocal and perhaps dogmatic than say in Denmark where there is little impeding on their way of life. With specific regard to this A&A forum the reason is simple the forum is Irish, the folks posting here tend to be likeminded individuals who share a lot in common and leads to some stimulating threads. That, and atheism is still a bit of taboo in Ireland poorly understood and, in my opinion, AtheistIreland is only making things worse. If only they could change their bloody name.

Finally, Dawkins and Hawkings promote science because they are scientists, there tonnes of religious scientists who promote science too. Evolution is the central theory on which nearly all of modern biology is based so it has to be promoted. Not promoting it would be a crime akin to not promoting Einstein's relativity.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I would say more than 90% of the time when debating with someone on an internet forum you have virtually no chance of changing the mind of the person you are debating with. To paraphrase Aaron Eckhard's character in Thank you For Smoking, you're not trying to get your opponent to agree with you, but the audience.

I changed someone's mind once on an abortion thread. That was a long time ago though!!!

robindch

ghostchant wrote: »

if religion was wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow there would be another reason taking its place the next day.

That's a bit like claiming that if cigarettes were removed from the planet, then people would find something else to smoke.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

That's a bit like claiming that if cigarettes were removed from the planet, then people would find something else to smoke.

Well... :pac:

Undergod

robindch wrote: »

That's a bit like claiming that if cigarettes were removed from the planet, then people would find something else to smoke.

It's more like claiming that if cigarettes were removed, people would continue to smoke all of the other stuff that they smoke instead.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

I would say more than 90% of the time when debating with someone on an internet forum you have virtually no chance of changing the mind of the person you are debating with. To paraphrase Aaron Eckhard's character in Thank you For Smoking, you're not trying to get your opponent to agree with you, but the audience.

Aren't all debates this way?. In my opinion, debates are an almost useless format for communication. Most of the people who attend the debates will already have made their minds up and will probably concede afterwards that although one side "won" their own position remains unchanged. In cases of debates with highly emotive content almost nobody switches sides and biases such as conversation blindness start coming to the fro.

Debates : useless.

Galvasean

Malty_T wrote: »

Aren't all debates this way?. In my opinion, debates are an almost useless format for communication. Most of the people who attend the debates will already have made their minds up and will probably concede afterwards that although one side "won" their own position remains unchanged. In cases of debates with highly emotive content almost nobody switches sides and biases such as conversation blindness start coming to the fro.

Debates : useless.

I like to think that visitors / onlookers of that monstrosity of a Creationism thread look at both sides of the debate and conclude for themselves that J C is a nut.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

I like to think that visitors / onlookers of that monstrosity of a Creationism thread look at both sides of the debate and conclude for themselves that J C is a nut.

Me 2. But if JC were to appear in a debate, he wouldn't appear half the nut. Let's face it, to someone who knows so little about evolution (and probabilty) JC's arguments give the appearance of being valid. (Especially when others posters lose their patience with him and reply bluntly with witty remarks) It doesn't matter if your point is valid in a debate all that matters is that it appears valid to the audience. A shotgun approach is super effective!:D

Galvasean

Are you suggesting we kill those who oppose us?

mikhail

Galvasean wrote: »

Are you suggesting we kill those who oppose us?

Capital idea. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? It must be the lingering effect of religion among those of us brought up religious: being religious, we couldn't possibly consider killing those who disagree with us, as murder is forbidden by the major world religions, except when inconvenient.

Boulevardier

Here's a bit of Einstein to keep you all happy. Yes, all sides use him, but this bit looks pretty good:

I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

oldrnwisr

Boulevardier wrote: »

Here's a bit of Einstein to keep you all happy. Yes, all sides use him, but this bit looks pretty good:

I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

A quote-mined appeal to authority? Are you trying to make your argument look ridiculous or is it just an unfortunate side-effect?

Anway since we're just tossing Einstein quotes randomly into the mix here's three:

"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."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

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

Anyway, why should I care what Einstein has to say about God in the first place. Opinion is not evidence.