“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” -Carl Sagan
So, Ben Carson made a speech in 2011 that's making the rounds, for some pretty scary reasons. I'm particularly concerned with what he has to say about the Big Bang.
Image credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss.
In particular, he says that it's wrong because of a hodgepodge of reasons: thermodynamics, entropy, the orbits of the moons and comets in our Solar System, etc. But the worst part is, I recognize this line of reasoning, and it's actually common among knowledgeable people who don't like the conclusions that science draws. And it's dangerous to all of us.
Image credit: Fake Science, via http://fakescience.tumblr.com/.
Here's what's going on, and why -- no matter what you believe -- you should care.
- Log in to post comments
That detail from the Michelangelo’s ‘Creation of the Sun and the Moon’ in the Sistine Chapel is quite intriguing.
I was not aware that Italians of that period practiced ‘mooning’.
One down, nine open letters to go!
Bush - mildly anti-vax. Doesn't think evolution should be taught in schools.
Christie - mildly anti-vax, Has made statements supporting local school decisions teaching creationism (but its not clear he was doing much more than a local pander).
Fiorina - doesn't think HPV is communicable.
Huckabee - more strongly anti-vaxx. Creationist.
Kasich - thinks both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools
Paul - mildly anti-vax. Said "pass" when asked how old the earth was.
Rubio - disagrees that there are anthropic contributions to climate change
Trump - mildly anti-vax.
Walker - thinks no woman ever dies of pregnancy. "Punted" on the question of whether evolution happens.
Is it really accurate to describe the Big Bang as "high-entropy?" It seems to me (following Sean Carroll here) that it has to be very LOW entropy in order for it to go up.
Ethan,
Can we get an open letter to Hillary about lying?
I think trust worthiness in a President is an important trait.
Why pick on Hillary?
Because she's a Democrat? Rather partisan of you.
How about Sarah Palin? What about Shrub and HIS secretary of state? THEY *destroyed* the emails rather than hand them over. And leaving "classified" documents on a privately owned server is a lot less worse than outing secret agents in public.
The problem has been that the job has always allowed a private server for the job for emails.
Having it all on government secured systems is what is touted as necessary, but almost none of it (other than classified stuff, and it doesn't work if you denote it classified later, it still wasn't at the time) is in practice.
Recording meetings and minutes has made politicians take fewer meetings on government premises. They can do their dealing outside the office and keep it verbal only.
If you want to do something about it, get the rules changed and clarified.
Berating one person who did less than others before her just shows up your partisan hate.
PS Your first president committed treason. I don't think you can whine about trust for a president with that history.
"Why pick on Hillary?"
Once again the board simpleton struggles with basics.
Because she is a pathological liar running for President knuckle head not Sarah Palin.
Hillary is no Maggie Thatcher.
"Because she is a pathological liar running for President knuckle head not Sarah Palin."
But Sarah Palin was one near-dead old man's heartbeat away from being it. And she's an INCREDIBLY STUPID pathological liar running for vice president, knucklehead. AND SHE'S DOING IT AGAIN with Trump.
GEORGE W BUSH ****WAS**** PRESIDENT.
And not just Secretary of State. Not just *running* for president.
And not just kept the emails on another server. HE DELETED THEM ALL.
The problem isn't Hilary, or even your idiotic insistence of "pathological liar", but with her being a Democrat. whereas Palin and Shrub are Republicans. And they're ALLOWED to be pathological liars. And horrendously stupid.
Not sure why you would bother with presidential candidates and PR they put out..since it very rarely has to do with anything real, and all to do with what certain crowds want to hear..
On the other hand... he is a retired neurosurgeon.. not a physicist... so anything he says about physics, let alone high energy / cosmology physics is same as an i.e. architect talking about finer points of open heart surgery and claiming that all those "doctors" are simply wrong.
Further, according to wiki, he says evolution is wrong, his views on marriage and abortion are again... bordering on being a biggot..
So in the end.. who cares what he thinks or says.. might have put trump there as well and be amazes on the amount of idiocy coming out of his mouth...
Am just suprised Mr Carson didn't "heal" his patients with prayer instead of medicine.. then again, who knows maybe he did...
You DO have to do some physics before you can do biology. And he apparently has NO CLUE WHATSOEVER what the third law of thermodynamics is.
Nor even the creotard rubbish about a tornado (not a hurricane) making a 747 in a junkyard.
But even if you are given that as an unearned freebie, have you heard him on Evolution? Apparently Evolution was whispered by The Deciever into Charles Darwin's ear.
Because Carson is a nutcase.
"And horrendously stupid" Yes Hillary is, But Brave As Hell dodging that Sniper Fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I23fjRN-PGc
"Because Carson is a nutcase"
Nope, the thought of an "Uncle Tom" in a position of power gettin all uppity makes your skin crawl.
@Alan L. Post #1. Many think Michelangelo's religious paintings contain his inside jokes and editorializing. That "backside of God" basically is a commentary on Exodus 33:18-23, where Moses asks to see God, but God only lets him see his backside. Another such item is in the famous Creation of Adam panel, where the "free form shape" surrounding and enclosing God is meant to represent a brain, meaning God is all made up in our heads. Or so I've read.
Anyway, Carson is scary because he is high in the polls, while the other fundamentalists (Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz, etc) are low. I think what distinguishes Carson is his neurosurgeon background giving him this highly intelligent aura. The more he talks and people get to know his views, he hopefully may fall in the polls, also.
Carson is an idiot (and liar) on many levels.
- his views on evolution, big bang, and science in general
- his asinine views on homosexuality
- the foolishness in thinking that his chosen religion is preferable to others when they're all on equal footing
- his (dangerous) views on vaccines (unless he knows there is no problem with the timing with vaccines, but hints there is to say on the good side of the loons)
He's no more sane, or honest, than the typical bigoted tea bagger that forms the core of the extreme right: he's just better dressed with a larger vocabulary
"Carson is an idiot (and liar) on many levels."
And Your A Racist Bigot.
Back to science, for a moment? To reiterate AJ #3's query: A lot of pop-physics writing, certainly Sean Caroll, and including Brian Greene, is devoted to exploring Boltzmann's assertion that the earliest universe must have been very low entropy, and to explaining how that property must be true of the earliest pre-Bang "hot gas." (It's easy to see why we'd like the early stuff to be low entropy, but I've never been able to grasp the explanations of why it was actually so.) Now you are giving us a high entropy early universe?
RM@6:
Just an aside, I wasn't trying to start a general candidate vs. candidate debate; I intentionally limited my comments to the candidates' views on science. AFAIK both Hilary and Sanders recognize the social reasoning to vaccinate children who are going to be around other children; acknowledge anthropic climate change; accept the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and evolution, and don't think creationism should be taught in schools. However, I will admit that I didn't research them for my @2 comment, so if you have info that they are anti-mainstream on any of these topics (or other science topics), feel free to respond to my post with the details and I'll accept that I didn't look at the Democrats the way that I should have.
Sinisia:
I care. First because while I think the likelihood of him becoming president is very slim, its not zero. Second, because how the public reacts to campaign speech can influence candidate position, future speech, and possibly what they will do in office. IOW if you want some candidate to adopt better public policy positions on scientific topics, the best way to do that is to publicly voice support for the better position and complain to the candidate when they oppose it. Like exactly what Ethan did. Now granted, he's just one small voice...but lots of 'one small voices' can be very influential.
Wow @9:
Pre-meds don't technically have to major in biology. Though obviously medical schools will look to see if they took all the biology coursework needed if they major in something else. So no, they probably don't need much physics. I know a guy who became a successful ob/gyn in part because he thought chemistry was too hard a major, so he changed to pre-med after finishing organic chemistry in sophomore year. That means he basically had no thermodynamics or quantum mechanics (except the minimal introduction to those subjects you might get in your 101-level course).
Lastly, even if doctors have taken these courses, by the time they're Carson's age they've been not-using it for 30+ years. I certainly don't remember all the peripheral stuff I learned as an undergrad, so I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a 64-year old doesn't remember the stuff that is peripheral to his job, either.
I should add that I don't support or defend Carson's anti-mainstream position. I think he's not only wrong but very badly wrong. My point was that no, one does not need to know the third law of thermodynamics to academically qualify to become a surgeon - or to have a successful career as a surgeon.
"And Your A Racist Bigot."
A (wrong) assertion without evidence - from you, that's no surprise. Where is the racism or bigotry in stating a person is completely ignorant of science and likely lying about vaccinations?
"I should add that I don’t support or defend Carson’s anti-mainstream position"
Doublespeak Eric?
Eric, ask yourself, between Hillary and Carson, who seems the more decent human. That's what you should be considering.
"A (wrong) assertion without evidence "
The preponderance of evidence is equal to what you have accused of me in the past Dean,
Just So Ya Know.....
Eric @#2:
He is more than mildly anti-vax. He advances the disproved notion that the MMR Vaccine causes autism. He repeats the "too many too soon" trope, which is also false. He speaks about children getting "20 shots" in one go, which is unrealistic on its face. He has been engaging in this propaganda for literally years. In short, he is massively anti-vax.
@23 - thanks for the correction. I didn't know he supported the autism connection, the articles I looked up just mentioned that he took the "leave it up to the family" position. Yes I agree with you, if he supports the autism connection, that does make him seriously anti-vax.
"The preponderance of evidence is equal to what you have accused of me in the past Dean"
You have spoken against minorities, poor, women ... as groups.
I have not. Your "preponderance of evidence" is a load of crap.
"who seems the more decent human."
She does.
Eric - here is part of what Trump said at the last debate:
As is his norm, he gave no indication where he might have heard this story or whether (as is likely) he simply made it up.
Either way - he's giving aid and comfort to the scientifically ignorant, just as Carson is.
Ben Carson is amusing because I think he actually believes what he's saying. It ultimately doesn't matter because he has no shot. I'm pulling for Trump because I like underdogs with fight in them. That and there is the whole bread and circuses aspect. I don't care what he does not doesn't profess to believe because unlike Carson I don't Trump believes it. He's being an entertainer.
If you are fooled by Trump's position in the polls into thinking he's not an underdog then you don't know our political system. That system is working really hard right now to make Marco Rubio the nominee.
If Rubio becomes the nominee, it will be disheartening because it demonstrates exactly how much influence the political establishment still holds. Besides, I live in California where we have no water. We can't afford to have a President as thirsty as Rubio in office.
Rubio! I really doubt the RNC has him in mind. I think if the choice was left up to the party leaders, they'd pick Bush or Christie. I bet early on they would've loved Walker too. On paper he looked like an ideal GOP nominee. But he utterly failed at getting popular support once Trump started sucking all the air out of the room, so, buh bye.
@eric #28
Christie's campaign was DOA. He was too chummy with Obama, and then he had 'bridgegate'. Bush was the early golden boy with a lot of big money lined up behind him, but Trump crushed him with the label of 'low energy'. He isn't, but he can come across that way so now that is all anyone sees. He's now fighting for his life and even with that big war chest there are doubts he can turn it around.
It is still early and a lot can happen to change minds, but Rubio seems to be the one they like right now. He's got the best shot at addressing the GOP's problem with Hispanics.
"And Your A Racist Bigot."
What about his racist bigot?
Oh, and don't try to go "He's black, so you can't criticise him". You do it all the time to Obama.
"Nope, the thought of an “Uncle Tom” in a position of power gettin all uppity makes your skin crawl."
Nope, you already got one in office. And the batshit insanity is coming form YOUR end of the aisle, teabaggie.
What I don't want to see is a complete and utter moron getting into power in the USA (again).
"Pre-meds don’t technically have to major in biology."
That's depressing.
It explains how he managed to get there with a complete lack of comprehension of science. I suppose he just learned the names of the bits he has to cut and what they do.
I wonder if he's ever been asked where in the brain the soul resides.
After all, remove a leg and the person is still there.
Remove a small part of the brain, and the person who was there is gone, even if it walks about.
"I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a 64-year old doesn’t remember the stuff that is peripheral to his job, either."
No, this isn't forgetting like forgetting how to do contour integrals or how to design a circuit that depresses feedback loops, this is forgetting entirely how science is done.
If he doesn't remember, he shouldn't damn well be using it in conversation.
If he ONCE knew it, he would refrain from it.
But he didn't. Therefore he's most likely ignorant of it from the get-go.
Funny, but I seem to recall that an earlier post by this same blogger was calling out those that decried the Pew survey on scientific literacy as "punching down"? Ironic now!
This goes back to my statement on that earlier post. All of this is an indictment of our educational standards. We don't even try to teach science.
As to physicians. No, they are not required to know much physics... but EVERYONE should at least know the basics of how science works and a modicum of basic knowledge that we have learned using science (the method).
Clearly most of the GOP field have varying levels of science knowlege, with some being lower than the national average! But then, I believe the same is true on the other side as well... given the anti-vaxx and anti-GMO movements.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a really smart, educated, electorate that doesn't give credence to ignorance like this? That starts in the schools... time to teach science and rational thought processes.
We are a representative democracy, and we get what we vote for. When you see a politician who is visibly flawed in some regard (science, ethics) before being elected, remember - we literally asked for that.
Out of 300+ million citizens, there's a distribution among us for every characteristic. I use the "WalMart test" as a reality check. Go to WalMart and learn what that group thinks. You'll get pretty close to the average.
Of course, there is a weighting factor for influence, but we work hard to reduce that generally.
The changes we've been making to our institutions (school, church, media, government, business) do have a huge effect over time. The USA isn't doing a great job preserving itself, at the moment. But there's a lot of inertia.
Well Carl, That worthless POS Weeper Of The House Boehner is out thank God and the Tea Party pressure for that.
Govt Shut down may be less likely not that Tea Party backers have a scalp.
Now That
"The USA isn’t doing a great job preserving itself, at the moment."
We have a contender for the most amazingly stupid comment of the week right there.
What does it take to be a leader? Simple. Followers.
What does it take to be a good leader? Wisdom. A good leader needs to know who to trust and how to set priorities (know what is important).
Dean Quote:
"We have a contender for the most amazingly stupid comment of the week right there."
Urr Uh No we don't Dean, You Stole the Show with This one:
“who seems the more decent human.”
She does (HILLARY).
Tell us Dean, what has that Bitch Accomplished?
OK she has deceived the world that Chelsea is Bills daughter when in fact she is Webster Hubble's DNA:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/huge-scandal-chelsea-isnt-bill-clint…
Dean please enlighten us as to why the pathological lying CUNT should be president?
"We are a representative democracy, and we get what we vote for ... we literally asked for that."
Nope, you didn't. you didn't ask "Can we have the dumbest one please". You voted party lines. And the smaller majority won several times, so it wasn't even the most popular single candidate.
You ALSO run an electoral college system, therefore you only get to chose from the options pre-supplied for you.
And the media have a huge bearing on your voting options. Pretty obviously Faux has the right wing sewn up, but the classic overt case is with the Dems at the moment.
Hillary is basically winning over most of her polling because of name recognition and the lack of knowledge of ANY of the alternative candidates (of which there are very many fewer than the Rep candidates, but they still get put on the voting polls and up for the debates). So as long as there aren't debates with alternatives, Hillary will win.
So the media are REFUSING to allow Lessig to get on the voting ballot, despite getting 1% of the necessary polling on the most recent (and now, possibly the last) poll he was on. Why? Because the rules say that you have to get 1% of the polling in the six weeks before the first debate to get ON the debate. And since Larry got 1% on the first one that counted, he's no longer going to be on the polling choices.
Hard to get 1% if your name isn't on the list...
And debates are pre-paid, so your lack of funding doesn't stop you being known, whereas all the big money is behind Hillary, so she can swamp people with name recognition on pre-written talking points, and nobody else will get a look in.
And if there are no alternatives winning enough votes, then the electoral college will put up only one candidate. Hillary.
Voting party line or having the media influence who is in debates etc. IMO still counts as part of Carl's 'you get what you pay for.' A better counterexample would be gerrymandering; it can cause the outcome of an election to not match what the people paid for...and the US districts are fairly heavily gerrymandered.
@eric #43
The issue of gerrymandering is one that caused me to lose all faith in the American political system. There was a prop up to reform the process here in California just over a decade ago. The proposed system that replaced the legislators ability to gerrymander was brilliant and garnered support from virtually every newspaper in the state. Conservative leaning, liberal leaning, north, south, city, farmland, you name it.
Of course the legislators didn't want to lose the power to gerrymander the districts so they hired Judge Wapner, the original judge from the People Court television show. They payed for an election ad that ran in heavy rotation that had Judge Wapner spouting some fluff about it taking power from the people, and closed with Wapner repeating multiple times in a booming voice with heavy reverb 'No on 77! No on 77! No on 77!' as a computer generated gavel slammed down.
That was all it took. All the reasoned arguments in the world didn't matter. Gerrymander reform went down in flames as the voting public did exactly as Judge Wapner's booming voice from god told them to do.
I was wrong. The comment rg made about wherein he shows he buys one of the most asinine conspiracy theories ever shared by the brain damaged right wing is the most stupid comment.
I was going to comment on the difficulty created by people like Ben Carson, who, whether intentional or not, promote a type of logic that ranges from poor to non-existent.
What I did not expect is that instead of generating a flurry of well-considered feedback, it aroused belligerently expressive minions who value embracing a deliberate lack of reasoning.
MandoZink,
The odd thing is Csrson had been saying things this stupid for a long time. He didn't just become the ignorant creationist anti vascine and anti science loon for the election, it's his normal behavior. The odd thing is that people are surprised for it.
But when you realise that Armstrong Williams is a close friend and pseudo-official advisor you know the ignorance is going to keep coming.
"still counts as part of Carl’s ‘you get what you pay for.’ "
Absolutely not. If something isn't available, you can't choose to buy it.
Look up "Hobson's choice".
It's a fake choice.
Try CHOOSING to breathe.
"A better counterexample would be gerrymandering; it can cause the outcome of an election to not match what the people paid for"
Your electoral college still decides what you buy.
REMEMBER: voter turnout shows the choice of those NOT TO BUY ANY OF THEM is by FAR the great majority winner of elections.
"That was all it took. All the reasoned arguments in the world didn’t matter. Gerrymander reform went down in flames as the voting public did exactly as Judge Wapner’s booming voice from god told them to do."
And this proves how little choice is made in the elections.
re: Prop 77 - in California, many folks default choice on propositions is NO, because we get so much crap propositions in our Pay To Play system.
I don't remember the Prop 77 ads from then, but do take heart - a different redistricting did pass recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_11_%282008%29 and then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_20_%282010%29
Please keep abreast of 'recent' changes when forming and disseminating opinions. 2008 is when prop 11 passed.
Hm, have a comment in moderation probably because of links, but contrary to Wow's assertion, CA voters did pass and retain a different redistricting proposition. Prop 77 was rejected in 2005, but a different one was approved in 2008, and updated in 2011(?)
"but contrary to Wow’s assertion,"
Not mine, dear. I was quoting Ragtag. Being a merkin, he would know better than I what is going on in that foreign land.
BAMO!!! ma 'boy Carson is almost tied with Trump in new polls today.
Keep the insults coming folks it only drives support.
And #54 clearly illustrates the lowest common denominator congenital liars like carson drag in for support.
"congenital liars"
Oh you mean like Hillary?
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byru…
You can't claim Politifact is is a conspiracy site.
Well, the reference here would be issues concerning
- science - so like carson and you
- vaccinations and their timing - so carson (I haven't heard your opinion on vaccines so can't make a judgement there)
- the role of religion in politics - so, more dishonesty from carson and you
your list - yes, lots of stupid lies - none as dangerous as the anti-vaccine crap spewed by carson and trump, or the dishonest take on science in general by them (and supporters).
"I haven’t heard your opinion on vaccines"
I am down with Vaccines, all 3 of my Kids have been properly vaccinated and I had no worries what so ever.
What I do have a concern over is the Federal govt forcing any legislation on people/states who take issue with vaccinations.
It's a states issue and each state should deal with it as they see fit. You don't want to immunize your kid, I don't care let them die then.
So you are only 90% as stupid about vaccines as I anticipated. I am surprised.
I can never understand the reasoning by which a federal rule is tyranny, but a state rule is peachy for the same matter.
"Oh you mean like Hillary?"
Well, since the emails were BEFORE she was Secretary of State, and the trawl was for her email messages AS Secretary of State, really, the only thing here is your rightwing nutjob hate for Hillary merely for being the Democratic front-runner (to MSM) in a race that has FUCK ALL chance of a Republican being ANYTHING votable.
Since your retards are showing how crazy they are, you have to fluff up SOMETHING about Hillary.
And compare with Shrub's DELETION of emails when demanded he turn them over. Strangely silent on that.
"I can never understand the reasoning by which a federal rule is tyranny, but a state rule is peachy for the same matter."
You'll note only when the state wants to rule for Christian law, or forbidding abortions or similar. When the state wants to legalize cannabis or same sex marriage, the same people demand Federal overview.
"And #54 clearly illustrates the lowest common denominator congenital liars like carson drag in for support."
And their obsession with sex with another male.
"And their obsession with sex with another male."
Seems your leader likes tea bagging dead pigs.
Now That's a strange obsession...haha
"Seems your leader likes tea bagging dead pigs."
seems like you're maiking shit up again.
YOU brought up the sex with men thing, teabaggie. And now you're bringing in bestiality.
PLEASE keep your drives repressed.
Nope not made up:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/david-cameron-accused-…
Thought we were discussing 'false assertions', not 'insertions'.
OK, PJ.. Aside from you and Woozie Wowzie's atheistic woomancing hating on me in this weeks weekend diversion.
That's there post #67 was pretty good :)
There's no hate in my words. Glad you enjoyed the play on words.
Teabag sees "hate" because it means he can dismiss your claims without thought since he can just go "Ah, there's nothing other than your bad emotions behind it, therefore there's no VALIDITY behind it".
Indeed this is used where "You're just fucking nuts" would be used if it weren't possible and necessary to make HIM the victim and you the villain of the piece (and therefore him heroic by pointing out his victimhood against the big bad bully).
If you're just nuts, he's dismissing your claims.
If your just hating him, he's a martyr for "the cause".
See the difference?
See why he does it? It's pretty transparent, but so common it's socially normalised and therefore uncommented on.
Teabag, since atheism merely means a lack of belief in god, why you got so much hate for it?
If god exists, he doesn't stop existing because we don't believe in it. So why should you care if nobody believes in him or not?
Wrong DR. Skinner, atheism is NOT merely a lack of belief in God, if so, then your claim is meaningless. A gold fish does not believe in God, does that make him an atheist?
You're belief has a causative affect on your actions, just look at all your fanatical ranting and ravings on this blog alone against God and believers.
Why should I care?
Listen to words of your own atheist Giacomo Leopardi who said "But the alternative to Christianity, in modern times, is the barbarism of reason" Remember Jacobinism rule in France, which aimed to remake the world by force. These political religions would be even more intolerant than Christianity, Leopardi believed, he was spot on, just look at the militant leftist "progressives" hell they want to put climate change deniers in prison.
Your simple claim of lack of belief is actually a belief system all it's own that has ramifications for mankind.
You do know there is an atheist Church in London don't you ("Sunday Assembly")?
Man is a beast and Judaeo Christian values and social structure has been more a positive to mankind than a negative. By doing away with it because of the shortcomings of mankind's interpretations, it still has a positive benefit that a non belief system can't provide.
This is mankind wisdom with out God:
Saudi A'fuckingrabia is chosen to head the UN's Human rights council.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/09/20/not-a-joke-saudi-arabia-chosen-…
He worships the same god you do rgm - only the methods are different.
"atheism is NOT merely a lack of belief in God"
Yes it is.
It's the definition of the word.
"A gold fish does not believe in God, does that make him an atheist?"
YES.
Or her.
"You’re belief has a causative affect on your actions"
My beliefs do, but my atheism isn't a belief.
"Saudi A’fuckingrabia is chosen to head the UN’s Human rights council."
Whose god is the same Abrahamic one you worship.
"He worships the same god you do rgm – only the methods are different"
"Whose god is the same Abrahamic one you worship."
So do the Catholics you tards, so do the Catholics. Which will provide you two company burning in hell together(Say hi to the pope for me).
"My beliefs do, but my atheism isn’t a belief."
Yes it is dumb ass, Richard Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion" BECAUSE????
So rm is
- a mysogonist
- a racist
- clueless about science
- a believer that a member of any religion other than his is doomed to go to a common hell, regardless of how much of a better person than him anyone else might be
Fits all of the requirements to be a tea bagger in the upper class by virtue of birth.
Of course, in murica, "upper class" means "I am one day going to be obscenely wealthy, so don't you DARE make it not worth my while getting there until I'm done!"
"So do the Catholics you tards, so do the Catholics. Which will provide you two company burning in hell together(Say hi to the pope for me)."
So you are all burning in Hell too??? So believing in god makes you burn in hell. OK, so why the hate for people who DON'T believe in god?
"“My beliefs do, but my atheism isn’t a belief.”
Yes it is dumb ass, Richard Dawkins wrote “The God Delusion” BECAUSE??"
Because believing in god is a delusion.
Dumbass.
"so don’t you DARE make it not worth my while getting there until I’m done!”
Looks like Astrophysicist along with physicist fields are making it just fine avg 90K a year:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Astrophysicist/Salary
"Because believing in god is a delusion."
Nope, quite the contrary, not believing is. ya know, ying/yang particle/antiparticle.
Quite the compelling argument. Is that Aquinas?
"Quite the compelling argument. Is that Aquinas?"
I dunno, I am busy today so was just shooting from the hip. My schedule flips tomorrow and I will have more time over the next 3 days to pound away on the keyboard.
" Nope, quite the contrary, not believing is. ya know, ying/yang particle/antiparticle."
Nope, not at all.
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
Not believing in god is not a belief.
"Not believing in god is not a belief."
Yes it is, dumb dumb..it's a belief in NOTHING!!!
And... That's OK. Accept the fact that you believe in nothing. It's really no biggie or that you to claim that, so why fight it?
Carson is Climbing folks and his Anti Muzzy statements that he didn't back away from has solidified his base.
Being a Clean and Articulate Brother, he just may be the one that can finally put the Bible back in the classroom and a steeple on the white house. :)
"Yes it is, dumb dumb..it’s a belief in NOTHING!!!"
No it isn't. That is nihilism.
Atheism is different. You can tell by the different word and the different meaning.
I believe that I will one day die.I believe that the world is a better place without religion anywhere in it. And I believe in a lot of things. I don't believe NOTHING.
I don't believe in Unicorns. I don't believe LotR is actual history. And I don't believe in any god.
I'm an atheist. Not a nihilist.
No wonder you get so bent out of shape and confused when atheists exist and you find out about them: you haven't a fucking clue what atheism is.
"I’m an atheist. Not a nihilist."
haha, You're a Barasts from the The Neanderthal Parallax
You would LOVE that type of society:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neanderthal_Parallax
"you haven’t a fucking clue what atheism is."
Yes I do, and I am fairly reasonable of thought that you have/had very little choice about being one.
".I believe that the world is a better place without religion anywhere in it. "
Shows you haven't a damn clue..
"To test whether religion might have emerged as a way of improving group co-operation while reducing the need to keep an eye out for free-riders, Dr Sosis drew on a catalogue of 19th-century American communes published in 1988 by Yaacov Oved of Tel Aviv University. Dr Sosis picked 200 of these for his analysis; 88 were religious and 112 were secular. Dr Oved's data include the span of each commune's existence and Dr Sosis found that communes whose ideology was secular were up to four times as likely as religious ones to dissolve in any given year.
A follow-up study that Dr Sosis conducted in collaboration with Eric Bressler of McMaster University in Canada focused on 83 of these communes (30 religious, 53 secular) to see if the amount of time they survived correlated with the strictures and expectations they imposed on the behaviour of their members. The two researchers examined things like food consumption, attitudes to material possessions, rules about communication, rituals and taboos, and rules about marriage and sexual relationships.
As they expected, they found that the more constraints a religious commune placed on its members, the longer it lasted (one is still going, at the grand old age of 149). But the same did not hold true of secular communes, where the oldest was 40. Dr Sosis therefore concludes that ritual constraints are not by themselves enough to sustain co-operation in a community—what is needed in addition is a belief that those constraints are sanctified. "
http://www.economist.com/node/10903480
"“.I believe that the world is a better place without religion anywhere in it. ”
Shows you haven’t a damn clue.."
Says someone who doesn't know what religion has done. And is still doing. Science doesn't make people fly planes into skyscrapers. Believing that voices in someone's head is an all-powerful deity and there is an afterlife of bliss if you do what the "holy book" says.
Moreover, DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WERE. Because it's a BELIEF I have.
PROVING your claim I believe in nothing was complete and utter toss.
Oh, vampire bats are altruistic. Nobody knows if they believe in God, but most godbotherers (and pretty much everyone else not in a wrap-around jacket) think they have neither soul nor knowledge of god.
There's absolutely no need for religion to form stable societies. And the life-after-death promise for the "real people" (i.e. those who believe the same BS as the heads of the tribe) ensures that people will fight and kill for religion, because this life is unimportant. It's not even a blip compared to the "eternity" of their afterlife. So religion WILL ALWAYS lead to fundamentalists who will murder willingly for their fantasy mythical skydaddy (or mommy).
Science offers no pretend hope of eternal life, only the consequences of actions in this, your only single life, therefore nothing makes this life worthless.
"“I’m an atheist. Not a nihilist.”
haha, You’re a Barasts from the The Neanderthal Parallax"
Nope, complete and utter fiction.
Which is unsurprising coming from a moronic credulous godbotherer. Fantasy being real and the made up being valid truth is just par for the course for the religious.
"Yes I do, and I am fairly reasonable of thought that you have/had very little choice about being one."
Nope, you're entirely unsupported in that thought.
"So religion WILL ALWAYS lead to fundamentalists who will murder willingly for their fantasy mythical skydaddy (or mommy)."
So will humanism. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot.. Nothing "Religious" driven there now was there?
IN FACT:
"Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith, Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers."
How did that work out for MILLIONS of DEAD Humans in that/those society?
"Science offers no pretend hope of eternal life,"
Oh but they search to keep extending it
"Scientists find 'key to eternal life' "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/606831/Scientists-find-key-to-ete…
You Stupid humanbotherer always putting faith in a mythical "GOOD" of mankind.
Keeping It Classy Leftwing Demtards:
Moonbat Ivy League Professor Calls Ben Carson A “Coon”…
http://www.weaselzippers.us/236072-moonbat-ivy-league-professor-calls-b…
Yes teabagger, she is a loser. No call for that, and she should apologize ASAP
I look forward to Carson's repudiating
- all the lies he's told about science (evolution, big bang, vaccines, ...)
- all the bigotry he's pushed about people who aren't Christian
- all the immense lies he's told about homosexuality
- all of his supporters doing the same
However: I suspect she won't, given her history.
I'm sure Carson will not apologize, since he realizes he needs to lie and pander to folks in order to maintain his support, and I don't expect his followers to apologize because they aren't smart enough to realize what he's saying and they are buying are lies.
– all the bigotry he’s pushed about people who aren’t Christian
Bigotry, Dean? It's called JUDGEMENT. Hell Dean, Biblical prophecy has predicted a one world currency and we are right on the cusp with it., Mark OF The BEAST ya know. Heck look at Apple pay ect.. It's coming folks just keep kidding yourselves.
So as were in the Days Of Noah.
Heck I saw this coming back in the 90's when I was micro chipping my exotic Birds Emu's, Ostriches and Rhea's
I won't be long..........
"“So religion WILL ALWAYS lead to fundamentalists who will murder willingly for their fantasy mythical skydaddy (or mommy).”
So will humanism. "
No it won't. What would make it inevitably do so?
Maoism and Stalinism were putting human constructs in the "Holy" place. They were personalities of cult, just like the original Jesus cult.
“Raised in the Georgian Orthodox faith"
Therefore a christian. Where he learned how if you pretend that something is more important than any, or even ALL, humans, you can garner huge power over people if they believe that tripe.
"How did that work out for MILLIONS of DEAD Humans in that/those society?"
And this is still BS. They didn't die from atheism.
"“Science offers no pretend hope of eternal life,”
Oh but they search to keep extending it"
So what?
Godbotherers, so wound up in their mythology, so TERRIFIED of letting go, they can't envision anything other than "belief in god" as being possible, so the only option is "reject god", when the fact is that I am an atheist because I have been unable to choose which god is supposed to be real.
Something a REAL deity that exists and is known of should be able to do EASILY.
"Bigotry, Dean? It’s called JUDGEMENT."
Then why not shut the fuck up and let the judge do it? If you REALLY believed in god, you wouldn't bother with this vitriol against those who believe differently or don't believe in any of the mythological beasts on offer. You'd let it sort things out.
So it IS BIGOTRY, not "judgement", moronic godbothering loon.
"Biblical prophecy has predicted a one world currency and we are right on the cusp with it."
Yeah, right. We had one too with the Roman Empire.
Funny how all these religions predict stuff and this "proves" they are right, as long as you reinterpret them later.
Bible prophesy is as reliable and as accurately specified as astrology.
"No it won’t. What would make it inevitably do so?"
HUMAN NATURE.
"And this is still BS. They didn’t die from atheism."
They didn't die from Christianity either.
"So what?"
Atheist Humanbotherers, afraid to acknowledged the fact that humans are imperfect rebellious creatures against God and choose to delude themselves and others that mankind through Zeitgeist knowledge alone without wisdom from God can create utopia.
Bollocks!!!!
"Then why not shut the fuck up and let the judge do it? "
Seems your the one running from thread to thread seeking out mere connotation of anything remotely religious so you can pounce all over it and the poster.
Take your own advice and "STFU" if no God exist, let them figure it out themselves when nothing is there for those who call on the name of the Lord.
After all the jokes on them already according to your mind correct?
"Bible prophesy is as reliable and as accurately specified as astrology."
Bullshit... Israel was reborn a nation no?
You better wise up idiot because you are stuck right in the middle of the old Roman Empire that will rise again. Heck the UK is debating about jumping out of the euro already.
"So it IS BIGOTRY, not “judgement”
And your the Biggest BIGOT around. And raving lunatic who bullies mentally sick people.
You beat up on people who believe in sky fairies so they must be mentally ill correct?
Look in the mirror who the ass clown bigot is.
"And your the Biggest BIGOT around."
Nah, you mistake a lack of respect for your faith in a mythological fairy story for bigotry.
But, remember, it doesn't matter whether you think that the world would be better without religion, it's something I believe in, making the lie to your claim atheism is a belief in nothing.
Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god.
YOU are atheist about Wotan. Or Set. Or Marduk, and so on for over 6000 known versions of it,
Is your lack of belief in Odin a belief in NOTHING?
"“No it won’t. What would make it inevitably do so?”
HUMAN NATURE."
Nope, it wouldn't.
"Then why not shut the fuck up and let the judge do it?"
Perhaps he will me to deal with it on his behalf.
"Is your lack of belief in Odin a belief in NOTHING?"
From a believable point of view I would ask to see the fruits of polytheistic gods like Odin, Pan and compare those to that of the Abrahamic monotheistic God.
How is man's relationship between them?
The God of Abraham gave us the 10 commandments
The god Pan runs around fucking goats and sheep. Odin wasn't even the creator his origins are from a damn salt lick
Marduk, what are his fruits?
Compare how many charities, hospitals and universities that the polytheistic pagan inspired have built to that of the monotheistic inspired God of the Judaeo Christians.
What's it's fruit?
That is but one of the reasons nobody takes you seriously.
That is another - especially conflating a fictional character with a service you don't have to use.
To use a quote remembered from my high school studies, those comments were
"…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
"That is but one of the reasons nobody takes you seriously."
It's God that you two, Tweedledum and Tweedledummer should take serious. Wowzer, you do know "Her Majesty" attends church every Sunday don't you?
Sad that a once decent cultured society from whence my roots came shall soon be muzzy land. Anyone guarding the Chunnel Wow?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/29/no-end-in-sight-for-mi…
That doesn't exist, therefore doesn't need to be taken seriously. Only the deluded need to have their fictions treated as real.
Sad that so many people are crazy deluded on the topic, though, and STILL think that mysticism and fantasy must be real merely by being strongly believed to be real by the one person claiming it.
"So, no these are NOT the fruits of christianity."
WRONG!
"A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[3][4] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[5][6] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%)."
Atheist Commit suicide at a higher rate as well:
The American Journal of Psychiatry
" Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation."
Any thoughts or tendencies you'd care to share wowzer?
Fruits of Atheism?
You Fuckers steal from each other:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/24/richard-dawkins-sues-josh-…
Human Nature..no?
You Atheist have your whiny fucks as well:
How the Atheist Movement Failed Me – Part 1: Cost
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/10/how-the-atheist…
For Fuck Sake I was about to go scorched earth your ass and then I did happen upon a quaint atheist site for Midwesrerners:
http://www.kcatheists.org/
They seem to be semi organized folks, But in the end pityful as chances are nothing much of great human kind will be achieved by a bunch of lost folks trying to find a place in a lost and ill conceived dogma.
"But ALL those things, WITHOUT the demands to take up the mythology and the ravings based on it, are done by atheists today. Because atheists are FINALLY allowed to live lives free of death threats and state sanctioned robbery"
REALLY.... our science board atheist Jesus?
Then where are your FRUITS? a cheap 100 euro Ice cream social at the local park that has a "Christian" name by the way?
You worthless piece of atheist shit, you run around chasing Christians off a science blog while your mission falters for funds.
WORTHLESS LOOOOOOOSER. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR MEANING???? In the GUTTER I say.
WOW, THE GREAT ATHEIST WHO INSPIRES ALL BUILD A TEMPLE WITH GREAT WORKS OF ART THAT UPLIFT'S MANKIND TO A HIGHER CALLING BEYOND HIMSELF...
GO AHEAD DO..... IT........... B...I...T...C...H...............
haha
"The FACT that if you believed in another religion (or even the wrong patchset version of the same one) you were liable to be killed or robbed by the state or church"
WHICH PROVES YOUR CHICKEN SHIT ASS IS NOT WILLING TO DIE FOR YOUR CAUSE.
JESUS DID....Dumb....ass
"WHICH PROVES YOUR CHICKEN SHIT ASS IS NOT WILLING TO DIE FOR YOUR CAUSE."
What cause? There is none. Atheism, remember. No crede, no religion.
"JESUS DID….Dumb….ass"
No he didn't. He didn't ever exist.
But, even if he did, thousands of people died for their cause. The suidide bombers in 2001, for example.
But even if he did, AND HE WAS AS DESCRIBED by others (not himself, the text has him refusing to be deity), he didn't die. He just got back "home" to heaven and came back. NEVER DIED.
Big whoop.
If you think you're going to heaven, then the chicken shits like yourself have no risk in dying, since all you're doing is buying your first class ticket to the eternal gravy train. What have you lost?
NOTHING.
"What cause? There is none. Atheism, remember. No crede, no religion."
Yes there is:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Creed-Michael-Palmer/dp/0718830830
Just google your creed, a lot of writings along the lines of your siblings, the humanist manifest:
http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III
They have a similar theme:
"These truths I hold to be self-evident:We are human beings, intelligent and self-aware, possessing both reason and emotion, with the potential for immense good as well as terrible evil. Which of these two comes to be depends on our choices.Every human being possesses inherent worth, and every human life is equally valuable. Our conscious existence is a thing worthwhile for its own sake, requiring no further justification.By the exercise of our free will, we can select our own purpose and imbue our lives with meaning. Each person has the right and the responsibility to steer their own course through life.Through the use of reason and conscience, we can perceive morality, defined as the principles of behavior which produce the greatest happiness and the least suffering both now and in the future. Morality is not dependent on personal opinion or societal prejudice, but is objective and universal and is accessible to every intelligent being. We should, to the best of our ability, obey these principles and be good to each other...................."
Or This one said to be an academic paper, put together by a U.K. professor of philosophy:
"I believe that the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. I believe that no other reality, divine or otherwise, exists. There is no life after death, no meaning to life apart from life, and no events or experiences, individuals or scriptures by which any supra- natural reality can be revealed. The cosmos forms the boundary of our experience. I believe that human life has no meaning apart from itself: that while there is purpose in life, there is no purpose to life. There is no ultimate justice, no final act of grace and no salvation. This is not a providential universe. I believe that not everything is permissible. For while that which increases happiness is not always a good, that which increases misery is always an evil. I believe that by the deployment of human reason and the acquisition of knowledge, by the development of moral law and the cultivation of compassion, the suffering of humanity can be alleviated and the condition of our lives improved. I believe that the path to individual and collective happiness lies in being educated to reality, and in being thus released from the irresponsible and pernicious illusion of religion, for which there is neither evidence nor need."
You can fool yourself that you are about nothing at all but the facts of your own actions and those of your mindset prove otherwise.
"Just google your creed"
The only creed is "I don't believe in a god". That's all.
"“What cause? There is none. Atheism, remember. No crede, no religion.”
Yes there is:"
No there isn't.
"No there isn’t."
Then you make this claim only for yourself and not your peers.
Which atheist are you?
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
The Classless leftist strike again.
GQ’s “F*** Ben Carson” article backfires
http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/10/08/gqs-fck-ben-carson-article-backf…
Well. YES.
This may be another issue you CANNOT CONCEIVE of. There ARE NO PEERS in atheism. Because atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god. There is no priesthood, no heirachy, command structure, because everyone has their own ideas, they only share a lack of belief, and that isn't a binding, except insofar as the religious persecution of atheists have made them combine into loose agglomerations of people for support against it.
There are atheists who don't like or listen to Dawkins.
There are atheists who don't like or listen to Harris (but listen to Dawkins).
The link you gave to "my creed" was to someone I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE.
Why? BECAUSE THAT WAS HIS CREED.
And it was his creed as a person, not his creed as told to him by someone else.
Why? Because as an atheist, he doesn't HAVE the interpretations of stone age myths or a power structure indoctrination to tell him what his creed must be. So he can make his own he abides by.
I may listen to his ideas and accept or reject them, in whole or in part, because I too have nobody to demand I obey a creed not my own.
Atheists only share a lack of belief, and if it were not for the persecution of the credulous and the "intelligensia" who find such credulity "quaint custom" to be defended at all costs, they would never form a group because nothing binds them apart FROM their moron-delivered abuses.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god.
And I can prove it is correct, as well:
Not ONE religious group, apparently following the "one true god" has EVER won every single battle they undertook believing god was on their side.
It's not as if the One True God (if it existed) had to engage in the battle, either, it could just have told them "Hey, lay off that, I'm not supporting you here!".
Ergo, EVERY SINGLE FAITH is wrong.
"The Classless leftist strike again."
The moronic right don't know what they're on about.
Still.
"And I can prove it is correct, as well:
Not ONE religious group, apparently following the “one true god” has EVER won every single battle they undertook believing god was on their side."
You're "proof" is man-centered way of looking at the world.
Not from God's perspective. God is all about his glory not man's.
"It’s not as if the One True God (if it existed) had to engage in the battle, either, it could just have told them “Hey, lay off that, I’m not supporting you here!”.
Ergo, EVERY SINGLE FAITH is wrong."
We (humans) are the one's battling God. You do know what the name of Israel means don't you?
Dennis Prager says it pretty well:
"Years ago, a Muslim woman called my radio show and asked me why I was not a Muslim. She asked this question with complete sincerity, and I answered her with equal sincerity.
The name of her religion, I told her, is Islam, which in Arabic means submission (to God). The name of the Jewish people is Israel, which in Hebrew means struggle with God. I’d rather struggle with God, I said, than only submit to God.
She thanked me and hung up. The answer apparently satisfied her.
Arguing/struggling with God is not only Jewishly permitted, it is central to the Torah and later Judaism. In this regard, as in others, the Torah is unique. In no other foundational religious text of which I am aware is arguing with God a religious expectation. The very first Jew, Abraham, argues with God, as does the greatest Jew, Moses. (It is worth noting that though Muslims consider Abraham their father as well, arguing with God has no place in the Quran or in normative Islam.)"
Now contrast those two.
"You’re “proof” is man-centered way of looking at the world."
Rather odd complaint since your god is supposed to be interested in solely mankind on this planet.
Are you telling me there is a religion that doesn't think that god gives two shits about this planet or the humans on it, and that you're their only follower???
So all that bullshit about "Jesus died!!!!" was just some BS you concocted that you don't believe in at all.
"We (humans) are the one’s battling God. "
I'm not.
And this is IRRELEVANT BS anyway. Every religion has said god was on their side, and not one of them saying so has won every time. Proving their religion was wrong else they wouldn't have lost.
Start Point: Test
"Are you telling me there is a religion that doesn’t think that god gives two shits about this planet or the humans on it, and that you’re their only follower???"
Where the fuck all did you get that from?
Woozie, be square with me. What religious upbringing did you have?
TEST End Point
OK Wowzer, ignore the "test" points I added. I am transitioning my home data system, to all data stream so there are glitches I am running into.
From this (from you):
You’re “proof” is man-centered way of looking at the world.
"You’re “proof” is man-centered way of looking at the world."
Because when you make a statement like this:
" Every religion has said god was on their side, and not one of them saying so has won every time. Proving their religion was wrong else they wouldn’t have lost."
You are doing so from a perspective of the group claiming such, Not from God's point of view.
MANY, MANY Times we see with the history of Israel, God leads them to victory when they are faithful and he turns away and allows them to fail when they turn from him.
Look at the 6 days war for example, It was God who brought about victory for the nation of Israel for his own purpose not because they simply claim to be God's chosen people.
"You are doing so from a perspective of the group claiming such, Not from God’s point of view."
But those people say that their god is with them. This PROVES they are wrong.
So EVERY religion is wrong and my atheism is proven correct: NOT ONE of the religions has it right.
If they did, then they would never lose.Because either
a) Their god would have let them know he's not on their side for this
b) Or their god IS on their side (and obviously not on their opponents' side) and they would win
This has never happened, therefore EVERY SINGLE RELIGION has it wrong.
"But those people say that their god is with them."
And God also turned away from them as well.
You act as though because they lost a battle or were persecuted God is not real as if he is some sort of Super hero who always chooses to support what ever decision humans make. It don't work like that.
"If they did, then they would never lose.Because either
a) Their god would have let them know he’s not on their side for this
b) Or their god IS on their side (and obviously not on their opponents’ side) and they would win"
A is the correct answer, The Prophets warned the Israelite's many times to turn away from their rebellious ways.
Idolatry really pisses God off and the Jews suffered much because of their Idolatry.
For Fuck sake this is basic Sunday school knowledge, How the fuck old are you, is there no more Sunday school classes in the UK anymore?
Is everyone in the UK and Europe unversed in basic biblical knowledge?
Sad, no wonder you idiots are rolling over for the muzzies.
Better start brushing up on the Koran. I can only bitch at you for your lack of wisdom, they will chop off a body part.
haha
Consequences for disobedience to Gods will runs all through out the Bible.
You do know that Moses never stepped foot into the promise land because of his disobedience don't you?
"“But those people say that their god is with them.”
And God also turned away from them as well."
Nope, they still claim god is with them. So their god doesn't exist.
And every other godbotherer claim has the same problem: claims god is on their side, proven not to be, proven not to be a god that is real.
EVERY
SINGLE
ONE
"Nope, they still claim god is with them. So their god doesn’t exist."
Your just talking out of your ass and wasting keystrokes.
Ben Carson Shuts Down Hostile Interviewer: An Armed Citizenry Keeps Government Constrained
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/11/ben-carson-shuts-hos…
"Ben Carson Shuts Down Hostile Interviewer"
Ah, right. Free speech, but only if you rightwingers like it. "Hard men" who get really pissed off if you ask them non-softball (not even hardball) questions. What a bunch of pussies.
"“Nope, they still claim god is with them. So their god doesn’t exist.”
Your just talking out of your ass and wasting keystrokes."
Nope. Just talking out your ass yourself? Or really don't like the absolute conclusions of proof, because they indicate atheism is entirely proven true of EVERY SINGLE GOD EVER ENTERTAINED. Including (and this torques you no end) yours.
"Ah, right. Free speech, but only if you rightwingers like it"
Seems that ‘gagging law’ past over there last year had Liberal DemoRAT votes.hmmmm
" Or really don’t like the absolute conclusions of proof, because they indicate atheism is entirely proven true ."
No It's not (Quantum indeterminacy). I'll let the Yorkshire man speak:
"Hardline atheism isn't a higher, more rational belief system than theism, it is the other side of the fundamentalist coin. Theists take a leap of faith to believe in their specific version of what God is, whilst the militant anti-theist takes the same kind of leap of faith to believe in the nonexistence of any kind of God, no matter what the definition. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, it stands to reason that the only properly rational position for a non-believer to take would be some kind of sceptical agnosticism.
The problem is though, that these shouty atheist ranter types are too stupid to even understand the nuances of the debate. They don't care about reason or logic, they just like displaying the badge of rationality without the baggage of actually using it. "
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/obnoxious-atheism-faceb…
"Seems that ‘gagging law’ past over there last year"
Seems like you forgot who brought in these "free speech" zones.
Of course, this is because you really REALLY don't want to hold the politicians you follow up to a moral standard,just lambast your "enemies" for not doing so.
"No It’s not (Quantum indeterminacy). I’ll let the Yorkshire man speak:"
Who? As an atheist that Yorkie will speak for himself, not for atheism.
“Hardline atheism isn’t a higher, more rational belief system than theism, it is the other side of the fundamentalist coin. "
Yeah, right. Except he defines to be so it and never proves there's anyone in that set. Or even can exist.
Sorry, bringing up apologist BS isn't going to prove anything other than you prefer to believe whatever makes you feel nice and superior to others.
You know, like you, uniquely among all people, know the REAL god. Who just happens to agree with you on everything, and speaks in your head where nobody else can hear it.
You never answered my question as to which flavor of atheism you espouse.
From your actions, I surmise your are a unfriendly militant atheist. Am I correct?
"You never answered my question as to which flavor of atheism you espouse."
The one where I don't have any belief in god.
As I said before.
Which is the definition of atheism.
As I've said many, MANY times.
Oh and that moron has the definitions mixed up and all wrong.
a) Starts with "hardline atheists".
b) Then calls the people he's creating a strawman of ***ANTI-THEISTS***. Not Atheists.
c) Then calls the fiction he wants everyone else to follow, agnotcic. AGNOSTICISM IS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEVE. Only KNOWLEDGE.
Theist or atheist, they have a belief or a lack of belief.
Gnostic or agnostic, have knowledge or a lack of knowledge.
Someone who believes, but knows they don't KNOW are agnostic christians. Someone who believes and KNOW their god exists is a gnostic christian. Someone who doesn't believe and KNOWS there isn't a god is an gnostic atheist, and someone who doesn't believe but doesn't know it doesn't exist is an agnostic atheist.
I know that every single god proposed by a religion has had it wrong. As explained before, with evidence.
You're spelling is terrible.
And I bet you didn't see what I did there.
But correcting for your spelling, no, you're wrong, I'm making sense you don't want to understand, so you pretend it's worthless instead.
"But correcting for your spelling"
Thanks for the correction, that's white of you.
" I’m making sense you don’t want to understand,"
I understand it all right. You need sky daddy because he gives you purpose. sky daddy allows you to chase sky daddy children all around the web as if "you're" on "your" own crusade.
Sky daddy actually brings meaning to your life. You can try and hide behind the simplistic mantra of " I don’t have any belief in god."
However, that "lack" of belief stirs your soul to chase sky daddy's kids where ever they be found. You live to play "whack a sky daddy kid".
You need Sky daddy to give your life purpose in being the "anti sky daddy warrior".
You get your serotonin rocks off chasing sky daddy children...
AND put it all in ONE POST you self absorbed human botherer who loves seeing their name up in lights (recent comment).
"I understand it all right."
Really? I highly doubt it. You're not constitutionally capable of doing so.
"You need sky daddy because he gives you purpose. "
No, I don't need one. Nobody NEEDS one. People such as you construct one.
"sky daddy allows you to chase sky daddy children all around the web as if “you’re” on “your” own crusade."
Since I don't have a sky daddy, this is clearly impossible. Since I don't believe in one, you must have created this fiction, just like you did your own sky fairy and assigned one to me, so that you can feel I'm just as bad as you are. Oddly enough, you don't seem to feel any problems with being a bad person so long as everyone else is just as bad too.
Which is probably why you believe in a sky fairy that gives you original sin: EVEYRONE is bad, therefore your own toxic nature and moral failings are acceptable because you were cursed before you were born.
But in any case, it really doesn't appear that you understand at all.
AND put it all in ONE POST you self absorbed human botherer who loves seeing their name up in lights (recent comment).
"But in any case, it really doesn’t appear that you understand at all."
Ahhh grasshopper, but it is you who no comprende.
But in the spirit of fairness, you can't understand. In fact, you know not what you do when you persecute the Lord.
"Since I don’t have a sky daddy"
You do have a fear of him though. even if it is misguided.
"you must have created this fiction, just like you did your own sky fairy and assigned one to me, so that you can feel I’m just as bad as you are"
You are bad, look how you persecute people of faith. You are no better than the one's you accuse and in fact you are worse because you have an agenda against all even though not all have one against you.
You are imprisoned by your own ideology that compels you to bark and attack even when there is no threat.
If the sky fairy is not real, then why chase him away? perhaps it is your own internal demons you are really at war with.
"Which is probably why you believe in a sky fairy that gives you original sin: EVEYRONE is bad, therefore your own toxic nature and moral failings are acceptable because you were cursed before you were born."
"Everyone" is bad AND struggles with spelling (notice I corrected your spelling?) Please review Matthew 7:3
"But in any case, it really doesn’t appear that you understand at all."
I understand that we fall short of Gods glory and that there is nothing we can do on our own to attain any sort of righteousness. It is the grace of God that we are redeemed.
Even you atheist have your "crosses to bear" Elevator gate ya know...
"Rebecca Watson post Elevatorgate wrote at Slate about atheist conferences:
“ [W]omen started telling me stories about sexism at skeptic events, experiences that made them uncomfortable enough to never return. At first, I wasn’t able to fully understand their feelings as I had never had a problem existing in male-dominated spaces. But after a few years of blogging, podcasting, and speaking at skeptics’ conferences, I began to get emails from strangers who detailed their sexual fantasies about me. I was occasionally grabbed and groped without consent at events.
I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were “my people,” and they were the worst."
Ben Carson Is Right About Nazi Gun Control
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/12/ben-carson-is-right-about-nazi-gun-…
Yep, the Jews in the ghettos and camps had multiple uprisings and odds are they world have fared better the more weapons they had.
"“But in any case, it really doesn’t appear that you understand at all.”
Ahhh grasshopper, but it is you who no comprende."
No, it isn't.
"“Since I don’t have a sky daddy”
You do have a fear of him though. even if it is misguided."
No I don't.
"You are bad, look how you persecute people of faith. "
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/georgia-children-humiliated-not-part…
"I understand that we fall short of Gods glory "
How can we fall short of a fictional character?
Moreover one that is homicidal to the nth degree, with no morality, no restraint and not enough brains to make a bee fart?
As to Watson, so what?
"Ben Carson Is Right About Nazi Gun Control"
Except for being completely wrong on it.
"Moreover one that is homicidal to the nth degree, with no morality, no restraint and not enough brains to make a bee fart?"
You do know that religion and more specific "Christian" religion is directly responsible for the rise of western civilization don't you?
AND in fact "Science" itself has it's roots in Christianity,
The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator.
NOT "one that is homicidal to the nth degree, with no morality, no restraint and not enough brains to make a bee fart?"
As far as that article goes, how has that removing God from the classroom worked out so far? Disrespectful little brats running rampant with ZERO respect for authority.
That's FORWARD PROGRESS alright.. You atheopath nut job.
"Except for being completely wrong on it."
Edumicate yourself knuckle head, More Guns= less death for your team:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005407
"You do know that religion and more specific “Christian” religion is directly responsible for the rise of western civilization don’t you?"
I beg to differ... Greek and Roman empire are responsible for western civilization. long before Jesus was even born... let alone long before Christianity became what it was/is.
"AND in fact “Science” itself has it’s roots in Christianity,"
Nope... has it's roots in philosophy, astrology and all other "natural" disciplines of that time or era where it applied. Those same disciplines that got you burned in front of delusional crowds once Christianity became dominant...
I don't mind you and Wow arguing... but do mind you changing history..
"I beg to differ… Greek and Roman empire are responsible for western civilization"
Try again Sinisa, but first read this:
"How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610170857?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh…
"Compare Shakespeare's tragedies with those of the ancient Greeks" (p 119) For example, Oedipus is at the mercy of a blind, unfeeling fate. The ancient gods were without virtue; they were petty, vengeful, and vain.
But Christianity imbued western culture with a belief in conscience. "It created a tendency for people not to be resigned to things as they are but rather to attempt to make the situation better" (119). It also meant an absolute truth existed, and could be rationally sought.
Christianity pushed society to abolish slavery, that economic pillar of the ancient world. Even though the west had inherited a civilization from ancient Rome that was based on slavery, by the end of the eighth century Charlemagne opposed slavery, as did the pope. Within a century it was generally agreed upon Christian principle that slavery was against divine law."
"You do know that religion and more specific “Christian” religion is directly responsible for the rise of western civilization don’t you?"
You DO know that's a load of cobblers, don't you?
"“AND in fact “Science” itself has it’s roots in Christianity,”
Nope… has it’s roots in philosophy, astrology and all other “natural” disciplines of that time or era where it applied."
Indeed its roots are far more embedded in both Arabic and Indic societies. Though we call them Arabic Numerals,they were from the Indian continent, the Arabs got it from them, we got it from the Arabs.
"But Christianity imbued western culture with a belief in conscience."
No it didn't. It gave excuse to rape and pillage of other cultures for having the "wrong" mythology.
"As far as that article goes, how has that removing God from the classroom worked out so far?"
It's worked out as persecution of atheists.
Which apparently you like.
Even if it DOES make all the sheeplike believer kids pretending to be teachers "Disrespectful little brats running rampant with ZERO respect for authority.".
After all, the highest law in the land, the constitution, precludes the imposition of any religion in the classroom, but these disrespectul little brats are running rampant in their little cult commune with ZERO respect for the authority that they SWORE AN OATH to uphold.
"Nope… has it’s roots in philosophy, astrology and all other “natural” disciplines of that time or era where it applied.”
Perhaps roots was a tad bit of an overstatement on my part,. However, from more modern (last 1000 years) there is no denying people of faith's contributions to science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technol…
"However, from more modern (last 1000 years)"
However, from the more modern (last 100 years), almost none of it has been because of secularism, and almost all of the impediments have been from the religious communities.
And most of your "last 1000 years" had no science at all in it, so really doesn't count.
@Denier #27 wrote on September 24, 2015
What a crazy election this is. I've never seen anything like it. I'm still pulling for him because he's still an underdog but considering the Clinton political machine this could be the most hilariously vicious General Election the US has seen in at least half a century.