Creationists

[daws101]

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

The answer is: because I say so!

Daws, are you copying this? ....

Hollie, Please confirm or deny my statement about your personal life. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more. If you confirm it, I will also speak of it no more.

why?you need more proof you're a liar?

 

[daws101]

Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.

I can appreciate your thoughts.

It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the standards by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.

If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:

"My gods are true and inerrant"

and how do we know this?

"This is what I was told the bible says"

and how do we know the bible is true?

"Because I believe it is true."

and why do you believe the bible is true?

"Because I was told the bible is true"

Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.

Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe" and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".

Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty. Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that. You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!

What do you fear? Why are you so scared to confirm or deny things about your personal life?

Daws probably wants to know why you continue to ignore me on these points, especially when I have agreed to admit I'm wrong if that is the case and not ever mention it again.

daws already knows your a rationalizing lying sack of shit.
what the point of attemping to pull me into this post?

 

[Hollie]

New genetic light shed on human evolution

New genetic light shed on human evolution - FT.com

A new genetic study of a group of sub-Saharan peoples has challenged the prevailing view that modern humans emerged from one location in Africa before spreading out across the world.

An international research team found that the Khoe and San groups from southern Africa are descendants of the earliest diversification event in the history of modern humans – 100,000 years ago.

Instead of localising the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region in Africa, the researchers discovered a complex record of interbreeding and genetic stratification, challenging the view of evolution in one place. Details appear in the journal Science.

...

“It is possible that modern humans emerged from a non-homogeneous group,” said Mattias Jakobsson from Uppsala University, one of the authors.

The scientists examined 2.3m DNA variants of 220 individuals representing 11 populations across southern Africa, the largest genomic study ever conducted among the click-speaking Khoe and San groups.

According to the study, the Khoe-San diverged from other populations more than 100,000 years ago but the genetic structure within the populations dated back to about 35,000 years ago, when it split into a northern and a southern group.

I’m always impressed that science, as a process of discovery, is able to explore, expand and even self-correct when new data is added to the base of knowledge.

 

[UltimateReality]

The answer is: because I say so!

Daws, are you copying this? ....

Hollie, Please confirm or deny my statement about your personal life. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more. If you confirm it, I will also speak of it no more.

why?you need more proof you're a liar?

Foolish Daws. This is the same type of illogical thinking you apply to your Darwinian faith. I am either a liar regarding Hollie or I am not. Hollie could silence me by saying she is not a lesbian and that her parents aren't fundies. Right now you have absolutely no evidence either way, yet you blindly claim I am the one lying. So typical of the twisted pseudoscience thinking of evolutionary theory. You are basically saying, "You are a liar because you are a liar". And no one is buying your or Hollie's fairytale's.

 

[UltimateReality]

New genetic light shed on human evolution

New genetic light shed on human evolution - FT.com

A new genetic study of a group of sub-Saharan peoples has challenged the prevailing view that modern humans emerged from one location in Africa before spreading out across the world.

An international research team found that the Khoe and San groups from southern Africa are descendants of the earliest diversification event in the history of modern humans – 100,000 years ago.

Instead of localising the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region in Africa, the researchers discovered a complex record of interbreeding and genetic stratification, challenging the view of evolution in one place. Details appear in the journal Science.

...

“It is possible that modern humans emerged from a non-homogeneous group,” said Mattias Jakobsson from Uppsala University, one of the authors.

The scientists examined 2.3m DNA variants of 220 individuals representing 11 populations across southern Africa, the largest genomic study ever conducted among the click-speaking Khoe and San groups.

According to the study, the Khoe-San diverged from other populations more than 100,000 years ago but the genetic structure within the populations dated back to about 35,000 years ago, when it split into a northern and a southern group.

I’m always impressed that science, as a process of discovery, is able to explore, expand and even self-correct when new data is added to the base of knowledge.

I am not really impressed with how you continue to ignore challenges to admit your motivations for your intense hatred of fundamentalist Christians.

 

[LOki]

If you don't hate, why are you here???

The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.

It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians.

Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. Intense hate. Right. Ahem.

The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with Christian faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.

And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.

I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.

Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... because I say so." "I am right ... because I say so." "You are wrong ... because I say so." You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.

Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "PROOF" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.

You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​

How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?

Maybe this guy does a better job. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcdevmiR0U]Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube[/ame]

Why do they work so hard at trying to discredit our belief system?

Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.

I always think if they were so confident in their atheist beliefs, they would try so hard to prove us wrong.

No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.

They would just go about their business and not worry about folks practicing their freedom of religion.

If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint.

"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."--James Madison​

And they wouldn't work so hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation.

This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation.

"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."--Thomas Paine​

When folks start trying to rewrite history, and twist the truth about the past, I get a little nervous.

If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.

Folks just need to put their big boy panties on and not worry so much about the religious roots of the U.S.

These roots?

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."--John Adams​

Everyone's a victim nowadays.

Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.

I don't care what you say, no one is forcing their religion on you.

Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government.

“The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.”–-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​

If you lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, you might have some perspective on what forced religion is.

And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.

So you have to look at "In God We Trust" on the money. Get over it.

Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck." "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.

I have look look at the guys bumper sticker in front of me with the F word on it. Somehow it has been twisted that Christians are the radicals, when really, it is the Darwinist movement that is attempt to change things, and I would have to say not for the better.

I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.

Funny thing is, I think most atheists view of Christianity is based on a Christian they knew. Most have never taken the time to study the tenants (HA!) of the religion itself.

The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.

Christs main teaching was that we should die to self, that is, rid our bodies of our own desires and needs, and put others before ourselves. This is a beautiful thing in a marriage. Not so much when each partner is seeking their own way. This self denial goes so far as to do without, so that you can meet others needs.

Human sacrifice--even human self-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.

Our church raised enough money to build a dormitory for an orphanage in Kenya, and we did so in a crap economy. For you, Christ means oppression. For these precious people, Christ means hope:

Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube

We also just raised $75,000 for a leper colony in India. This money will provide food for them for over a year. How amazing is it that Jesus Christ is the reason a church in Chandler is making a difference for Lepers half way around the world!!!

The Leprosy Project on Vimeo

Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!

I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.

I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.

I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for their needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?

 

[LOki]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

 

[LOki]

Hollie, this is your best cut and paste attempt at sounding smart yet!! However, the answer to your bolded question above is a resounding "NO!!" Let's construct your argument and include all the unspoken assumptions you are making above.

If nature is designed, it requires a designer.
Humans are in nature.
Humans have a designer.
Humans design things.
All designers are designed.

This is a fallacious argument my dear. Once again you have assumed the false premise that the Designer of the universe is subject to the laws of nature. Our religion teaches He is not and exists outside the natural world in the spiritual realm.

Oddly, the above is precisely the ebb and flow of your argument.

You don't seem to be able to understand your own argument for gods is one large circular reference.

Usually the fundie will reply that God(s), being the Designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates,

Yes!!!

I think it’s obvious that the entirety of your argument is based upon an irrational precept. You arbitrarily exempt your gods from any rational critique.

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

The fundamental premises of the religious standpoint is not rational. The arguments that follow may be logical (they're really not), but conclusions remain as irrational as the premises.

 

[LOki]

If you insist that ID is science, and you place an intelligent designer at the foundation of you science, then you are most certainly pretending that your belief in God is a scientific principle--for fuck's sake ... it's the identifying principle of ID "science."

This is where your confusion with ID arises. My belief that the Designer is the Judeo Christian God is a religious belief. ID makes no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer. It just claims the necessity for a designer is evident and arguable from a scientific standpoint. The designer could be an alien life form for all we know under ID, although this would go back to the question of how the aliens arose. Again, ID says we can infer a designer based on empirical evidence.

No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.

If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.

It won't make the claim about any of the attributes or identity of that designer.

This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.

 

[LOki]

Your invisible being is in another dimension not subject to the laws of this universe?

My question is: why is anyone wasting their time with an imbecile of this magnitude? If believing such utter nonsense makes you able to go on in life, good for you, you've found your "opium" so that you don't have to think anymore.
Hollie, move on, there's nothing to debate here. UR is convinced of her invisible superbeing in another dimension for which any size of horseshit pile can explain anything, just adjust the amount.

I can appreciate your thoughts.

It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the standards by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.

If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:

"My gods are true and inerrant"

and how do we know this?

"This is what I was told the bible says"

and how do we know the bible is true?

"Because I believe it is true."

and why do you believe the bible is true?

"Because I was told the bible is true"

Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.

Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe" and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".

Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty.

I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.

Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that.

You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.

You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!

There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.

 

[LOki]

She needs to ask herself who created the evolver or how the evolver evolved.

What a typically nonsensical comment.

In spite of the claims to supernaturalism, gods and magical events insisted upon by fundies, all completely without evidence and justification, we have every reason to reject such irrationality. There is no evidence of a personal, designer gods and no evidence of the necessary hierarchy of designers of designer gods. There is no reason to believe that we are created in the image if any God(s). In spite of the requirement for fundies to attach human emotions to their god(s), the universe does not have emotions, desires, feelings, thoughts, longings, or intentions. The universe is neither jealous nor angry, not forgiving or merciful. The universe does not demand sacrifice, prayer, worship or slaughter of animals.

All of the feelings, emotions and other human attributes heaped upon gods by superstitious fundies is not advancing of humanity.

At the end if the day, an uninterested, uninvolved and uncaring entity: a God or God(s) is synonymous with “nothing”. So why give “nothingness” human attributes?

You believe a natural process of evolution caused the diversity of living organisms.

Valid logic, applied to the evidence supports the conclusion. Yes.

AGAIN.

Clearly the natural process had to evolve to go from complex organisms to more complex organisms.

Non-sequitur. So, no.

How does this unintelligent process think to produce all the necessities for life to exist ?

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce all the necessities for life to exist.

How can this process produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms ?

Since no-one but you posits the thinking unintelligent process you assert, no one but you has to explain how this unintelligent process thinks to produce a planet that would sustain these living organisms.

Takes faith to believe natural processes produced all we can see with purpose in mind.

This is true, but no one but you is asserting the reality of the thinking unintelligent process you assert.

 

[LOki]

Wrong!!! It may not be scientifically provable, but it is VERY rational and logical from a religious standpoint.

Nonsense. There is nothing rational or logical about asserting supernatural entities. By your standards (such as they are), we could presume that plunging large needles into dolls bearing the likeness of humans is also rational and logical. Santaria is just as rational and logical as christianity.

The truly important question in this debate because both sides agree that life had a beginning, What was the cause a designer or unintelligent process ?

Intelligence is the only method to produce order.

Wrong.

Chaos only produces chaos it cannot produce order.

Wrong.

You can give me any example of chaos or randomness that produced order and we will discuss it.

Ok.

 

[UltimateReality]

The meaning (or more likely, the validity) of the premise of your question is unclear; hence I'm not clear about the question that is being asked.

It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians.

Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. Intense hate. Right. Ahem.

The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with Christian faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.

And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.

I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.

Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... because I say so." "I am right ... because I say so." "You are wrong ... because I say so." You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.

Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "PROOF" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.

You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​

How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?

Maybe this guy does a better job. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcdevmiR0U]Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube[/ame]

Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.

No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.

If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint.

"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."--James Madison​

This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation.

"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."--Thomas Paine​

If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.

These roots?

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."--John Adams​

Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.

Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government.

“The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.”–-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​

And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.

Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck." "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.

I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.

The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.

Human sacrifice--even human self-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.

Our church raised enough money to build a dormitory for an orphanage in Kenya, and we did so in a crap economy. For you, Christ means oppression. For these precious people, Christ means hope:

Huruma Children's Home - Ngong 2012 Documentary - YouTube

We also just raised $75,000 for a leper colony in India. This money will provide food for them for over a year. How amazing is it that Jesus Christ is the reason a church in Chandler is making a difference for Lepers half way around the world!!!

The Leprosy Project on Vimeo

Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!

I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.

I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.

I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for their needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?

There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all. Funny, that much your post uses assumptive language or the inference that because you have not experienced it, it doesn't exist. You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt. This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview. They don't. Let's remind you of what Darwinist Philosopher Wil Provine says about Darwinism:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear . . .

-There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.
-There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me.
-There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."


Will Provine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

That's really the problem isn't it. You are so twisted by the pseudoscience and "just so" stories of evolution, you wouldn't know "valid evidence" if it hit you in the face.

 

[UltimateReality]

I can appreciate your thoughts.

It's typical for fundies to insist with 100% certainty (and with 0% facts), as to their particular partisan version of gods being true and inerrant to the exclusion of competing religions/ gods. This is done while making special pleadings for an exemption from any requirement to bring forth even the most basic of proofs for their beliefs. What matters of course and what is rejected by the fundie within his demands for allowances to special pleading is the standards by which belief should be applied. The fundie will demand an exemption from any rational standard of support for, and evidence for his claims because absent the requirement that others must accept supernaturalism as his argument, the claims to gods are simply background noise.

If you objectively observe the comparisons between reason and rationality vs. fear and superstition, you will see that fundies will consistently reject the natural explanations in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done consistently by the fundies in this thread. Despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves upon fraudulent terms and predefined suppositions, the fundies will to continue to insist upon such circular reasoning as:

"My gods are true and inerrant"

and how do we know this?

"This is what I was told the bible says"

and how do we know the bible is true?

"Because I believe it is true."

and why do you believe the bible is true?

"Because I was told the bible is true"

Despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are promoting such fraud who are doing it and culling the gullible, fundies exempt their particular beliefs from charges of fraud. They will, of course, reject such fraudulent claims from those who offer the same circular arguments for competing religious belief.

Fundies do this because they have a deep seated desire to "believe" and will not apply the strictures of reason, rationality and true knowledge to their claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles the belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole. In discussions like this I've had with fundies, there is a consistent pattern of self inflicted ignorance typically bolstered by such comments as "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".

Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty.

I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.

Belief in God is a religious belief you moron. No one is making it out to be more than that.

You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.

You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!

There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.

And that is why you continually refer to it as the "fact" of evolution. Quit deluding yourself about the Darwinist belief system and the faith you require.

 

[LOki]

It was just a passing remark regarding the intense hatred atheists have for Christians.

Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. Intense hate. Right. Ahem.

The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with Christian faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.

And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.

I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.

Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... because I say so." "I am right ... because I say so." "You are wrong ... because I say so." You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.

Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "PROOF" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.

You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​

How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?

Maybe this guy does a better job. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXcdevmiR0U]Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube[/ame]

Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.

No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.

If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint.

"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."--James Madison​

This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation.

"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."--Thomas Paine​

If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.

These roots?

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."--John Adams​

Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.

Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government.

“The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.”–-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​

And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.

Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck." "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.

I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.

The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.

Human sacrifice--even human self-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.

Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!

I am very much for charity. But charity means the person chooses to give and is a better person for it. I am not for people in facncy hats (otherwise, known as the "govment") stealing my money and giving it to other people.

I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.

I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for their needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?

There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.

I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.

Funny, that much your post uses assumptive language or the inference that because you have not experienced it, it doesn't exist.

"Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.

You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt.

Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.

This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.

Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.

 

[LOki]

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

That's really the problem isn't it. You are so twisted by the pseudoscience and "just so" stories of evolution, you wouldn't know "valid evidence" if it hit you in the face.

"Just so" is a meaningless term. Your accusation is meaningless.

If there's anything that could be considered a "just so" story, it the story that says the world was designed, and that is evidence for a designer.

 

[LOki]

Strawman!! We do not insist with 100% certainty.

I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.

You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.

You are the one going around calling a theory a fact and pretending 100% certainty on something so totally laughable as natural selection!!

There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.

And that is why you continually refer to it as the "fact" of evolution.

No one but those who exercise the unconditional certainty of faith, think the expression of fact of evolution is one of unconditional certainty.

Rational people just do not adhere to the superstitious paradigm of the faithful. Get over it.

Quit deluding yourself about the Darwinist belief system and the faith you require.

No faith required. It's been demonstrated time and again.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hmm. "Hate?" Ok. Intense hate. Right. Ahem.

The issue, I think (because I can't claim to speak for all atheists), is not so much with Christian faith, but with the nihilistic anti-reason of faith in general. And if you object to the phrase "nihilistic anti-reason of faith," please don't voice your objection until you have fully considered nature of the center stage role that faith has played in the ongoing drama featuring the several tribes of superstitious rock chucking retards in the middle east.

And just to be clear; as I have stated before, atheism offers no certain immunity from the anti-rationality of faith--there are clearly atheists around who hold an unstubstantiated conviction that there is just-no-God, and they are no more rational than anyone else holding beliefs by the same retarded standard.

I suspect that here in the U.S., where the privileges that Chistians enjoy are taken for granted, whenever the validiy of faith's realationship with objective reality is questioned, it appears that Christianity is under attack rather than anti-rationality.

Hollie has the end-game of superstious retards characterized precisely: "X is true ... because I say so." "I am right ... because I say so." "You are wrong ... because I say so." You don't dare question this because you can't "PROVE" them wrong.

Which leads to the obstinate hypocricy of the faithful in setting the bar of validation at "PROOF" for others, while not even requiring logical validity for themselves, is just the tip of the iceberg that is their sanctimoniously arrogant anti-reason.

You know what? I might be wrong that the issue isn't about Christians. The obvious (undeserved) privilege of deference they enjoy, combined with their manifestly retarded hubris, just serves to make them a bunch of insufferable *****.​

How did I do? Did I capture the "hate" well enough for you?

Maybe this guy does a better job. Sam Harris Simply Destroys Christianity - YouTube

Because some of them are not smart enough to realize that no amount of hard work will suffice to discredit a belief system that is already intellectually and morally bankrupt--faith is bereft of moral and intellectual capital.

No one is really trying ... it's just being pointed out. And the reason for pointing out how wrong you are, is the hope that you might develop a moral conscience--that cannot be consoled by obedience to God--such that you will all stop killing everyone--whether through war, genocide, murder, or the cultivation of ignorance.

If the sentiment was at all reciprocal, you would probably not have any reason to make this complaint.

"That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business."--James Madison​

This isn't happening the way you think. Christians are literally working hard at irradicating the religious heritage of our nation.

"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are universally denominated rude and barbarous."--Thomas Paine​

If you are not considering talking about David Barton, then you are just talking crazy talk.

These roots?

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."--John Adams​

Including the Christians. No one here is feeding them to lions. I kid you not.

Oh, let's not pretend that there's no effort among the Christians to advance Christianity though the coercive appurtenances of government.

“The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and now is less important than the hereafter.”–-Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice​

And if contemporary Christians had some perspective on what forced religion is, they'd stop insisting that their efforts to wedge their religion into government policy are all so innocent.

Well, rational atheists ARE over it. To us, "In God We Trust" on the money has the same objective intellectual and moral value as "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck." "In God We Trust" just enjoys the benefit of brevity.

I can't think of a single uniquely Christian contribution that is of any benefit at all. And to clarify, I'm not speaking of contributions by Christians that are just the rationally valid contributions decent folks would offer regardless of religion.

The tenets of Christianity-specifically characteristic of Christianity-are not all that, or a bag of chips. They're rather embarrassingly self-indicting.

Human sacrifice--even human self-sacrifice--is intellectually and morally repugnant. Nihilism, no matter how divinely rationalized, is not a moral paradigm any rational society should embrace.

Well that's just sad. It's sad that without Jesus Christ, there'd just be no reason for the members of your church in Chandler to attempt something so nice. Thanks Jesus!

I agree with this. Entirely. But I am skeptical of the charitable under-pinnings that churches lay claim to.

I have yet to discover a church--ANYWHERE--that when the collection plate is passed around, the kind folks of the congregation are as free of conscience to pull a few bucks out of the plate--for their needs, as they are to put a few bucks in. Why is that?

There are so many things wrong with this rebuttal that I don't have time this morning, or today, to get into them all.

I'm betting you won't get to them ever, and that has less to do with how much time you have, and more to do with my ability to expose the usual fallacies you employ for rebuttal.

"Assumptive language" is the term you use to describe my statements of conditional certainty ... just before you accuse me of making statements of uncnditional certainity.

You also haven't responded to the horrors of materialism, but try to charaterize Christianity as being morally bankrupt.

Let's just say your first clause has merit; a pot calling a kettle black, does not make the kettle any less black.

This is the most preposterous thing of all about your post, that you borrow terms from the theistic worldview and pretend like they have any logical basis in the materialistic worldview.

Wrong. Your pretense that ID is science; that your superstition and every conclusion derived from it is rational, is you taking terms from a rational worldview and insisting your superstitious worldview has any logical basis in reality. They don't.

This isn't even a response to my statement you put in quotes. I was referring to your materialist worldview that drives your belief system. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what you actually believe, since your posts scream that you are utterly and totally lost. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more with the worldview which you espouse...

"Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.

Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many,[2][3][4] all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of and how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter.[4]

The materialist view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically, famously by René Descartes. However, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized. In practice, it is frequently assimilated to one variety of physicalism or another.

Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description — typically, at a more reduced level. Non-reductive materialism explicitly rejects this notion, however, taking the material constitution of all particulars to be consistent with the existence of real objects, properties, or phenomena not explicable in the terms canonically used for the basic material constituents. Jerry Fodor influentially argues this view, according to which empirical laws and explanations in "special sciences" like psychology or geology are invisible from the perspective of basic physics. A lot of vigorous literature has grown up around the relation between these views.

Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined.

Materialism typically contrasts with dualism, phenomenalism, idealism, vitalism, and dual-aspect monism. Its materiality can, in some ways, be linked to the concept of Determinism, as espoused by Enlightenment thinkers. It has been criticized as a spiritually empty philosophy.

During the 19th century, Karl Marx extended the concept of materialism to elaborate a materialist conception of history centered on the roughly empirical world of human activity (practice, including labor) and the institutions created, reproduced, or destroyed by that activity (see materialist conception of history)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

 

[UltimateReality]

I had no idea that you were to any degree uncertain about the existence of your God; uncertain that your God loves you; uncertain that your God created you.

You're right. No one is. Hence, based upon nothing, you are unconditionally certain that your God is real.

There's no pretense a certainty on this side of the issue. That's been demonstrated since natural selection was proposed as hypothesis.

And that is why you continually refer to it as the "fact" of evolution.

No one but those who exercise the unconditional certainty of faith, think the expression of fact of evolution is one of unconditional certainty.

Rational people just do not adhere to the superstitious paradigm of the faithful. Get over it.

Quit deluding yourself about the Darwinist belief system and the faith you require.

No faith required. It's been demonstrated time and again.

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”

Amos Bronson Alcott