Dillon. You are a complete and utter moron. You have misquoted me and ignored many of the things that I have said on numerous occasions.
If you had ANY understanding of the bible or the Christian faith you would understand that the old testament's teachings were largely outlawed in the new testament. I find it incredibly frustrating trying to argue against a brick wall of a human being. You are a "pig-headed ignoramus", but not because you're an atheist. There are other atheists in this conversation who certainly aren't.
I may sound like a 6th form school kid but perhaps before slagging me off on the grounds of being remotely well read you should undertake to become so yourself. Maybe you should ask Robert Winston whether there is "such a group" as religious scientists. I'll save you the bother; there is. In fact they are in just as much abundance as atheistic scientists.
If you don't see that you are being completely ignorant when referring to "[my] reasoning" then you're even denser than the rest of your poor arguments, articulation etc would suggest. Any post can seem "pitiable" if one analyses it with the utmost stupidity.
By the way, you're clearly not aware of the actual and commonly accepted meaning of amoral. I suppose to understand the concept of amorality requires some remote form of intelligence which you are clearly lacking.
I am only human and can therefore be baited by senseless and offensive posts such as those from Dillon (whose rudeness you conveniently fail to pick up on). You have missed the point about amorality- it was an example to illustrate the idea that animals are amoral, raised in some earlier posts.
I have responded to many of Dr Tatham's points, if there are any others which you would like me to try and address feel free to specify.
Just because you have encountered a relatively small number of physicists in your university, does not mean that you can speak for them in wider terms. I was talking about theism, not religion.
I agree that many 'conversions' to faith by prisoners may well be insincere. I don't agree that by any means all of them are.
You're wrong, though, in your belief that religious people are no less likely to commit crimes. Many people are religious statistically speaking but not in any real sense. As I said earlier, if you think that sincere religion has no effect on behaviour (especially criminal behaviour), then you are very, very misguided.
Just for Mr Moffat (I hope I've responded to any points that you fealt I hadn't)...
"So that's how it works is it? You make a statement and if it cannot be disproved, then it must be right. Very scientific. Anyway, I'll bite...... When it comes to "evidence", proof for the non-existence of anything is impossible. This is pretty universally accepted. So let me start by saying that the total amount of evidence for the non-existence of God is ZERO. Yes, there is absolutely no proof that God doesn't exist. So unless you disagree with this, the only way your 50/50 statistic can be right is if you agree there is no evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you meant by 50/50?"
Of course I agree that there is no proof of the existence of God. However I would point out that the Bible, as a historical text, has been proven to be extremely reliable. Nevertheless I see the logic in your approach; just bear that in mind and look it up if you don't want to take my word for it.
I have already covered the point you made about my statements regarding research and religious-scientific compatibility.
"Doesn't the example of the catholic church saying that condoms don't protect from HIV transmission show how religion and science are incompatible?"
I would say that this in no way shows that religion and science are incompatible. It shows that if religious individuals choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner, then traditional (and largely discarded) religious beliefs can cause problems in the modern World.
"are you saying that the data should be rejected just because they are on a web-site whose philosophy you disagree with?"
Don't tell me that you wouldn't be sceptical if I produced some stats from a Christian website which `prove' that religion has reformed so many inmates or something like that.
"I don't see how my understanding of those statistics has any reflection on my being awarded it."
I am not questioning your ability to interpret statistics, but your ability to think laterally and apply some common sense to their real life implications.
Your definition of hope is fair enough. I would argue that there are different levels of hope, but for you as an atheist I understand that you only really consider one of these (that's not a criticism).
Oh dear!! Am I rattling your cage? Why are you getting so personal? Am I threatening your beliefs?
Outlawed by the new testament? So you're agreeing that it is a load of tosh then? God changed his mind, or maybe he didn't mean what was written after all? Or maybe you're not sure and you'll have to go back and check for confirmation?
Why hasn't this wonderful god of your beliefs struck me down yet? Or any other god that's floating around out there. Surely I deserve it? Or is it better to strike down the ones that love him? Leave the likes of me for later? Yes, take the little children and the weak and the fragile and leave all the non-believers, murderers and child molesters etc 'til later. That's the best way! Christian faith? Christian hedonism more like!
I've given Bob Winston a call but, he was negotiating a contract with the BBC, apparently about a programme with a working title, 'Tozerisms and their role in making oneself look utterly stupid'.
I am not an atheist, I am an anti-theist. There is a difference, maybe you should look it up.
I certainly don't mind embarrassing myself. And as you constantly prove, you don't either. Hey! Ho!
And, like I've already suggested, stop taking yourself so seriously!
Where do you derive your morals from? Humanity or purely from religion? Don't worry it was a rhetorical question and I know the answer.
If you had any form of power you could be a very dangerous person and I'd have to shoot you.
The bible is extremely reliable is it? So is Madame Rosie down at the travelling fair. Shall we worship her? Are we talking about the old or new testaments or maybe the book of revelation, or maybe old moores almanac?
'I am only human and can therefore be baited by senseless and offensive posts such as those from Dillon'
Senseless and offensive? You should broaden your horizons Tozer if you think my posts are offensive!!
Senseless and offensive = Dillon doesn't agree with me = I am intelligent and Dillon isn't.
Animals are amoral, they are not moral or immoral therefore they have no morals. If a dog attacks a child, it does so amorally because it has no morals. Therefore god can't do anything about it because he didn't give animals any morals, because it was a Friday afternoon when he created them and he couldn't be arsed. So animals are amoral, but, if god was really in existence he'd see the errors of his ways and give them morals. But the animals told god to naff off as they needed an excuse to bite others without feeling guilty.
I'm not taking myself seriously, idiot. In what way am I embarassing myself? I've not made an incredible number of errors in my post both in terms of basic language and in my understanding of certain issues.
That is, actually, the best way, as Christians don't see life on Earth as particularly important. I know the difference between an atheist and an an anti-theist (it's pretty self explanatory), but you're still an atheist. You're just a slightly more pathetic and moronic breed of atheist. I'm a Christian...but that doesn't mean I'm not a theist.
As far as the old testament is concerned, it didn't come from God. If you knew anything about what you're attacking then you'd know that. A significant- and the most important- part of the new testament came from Jesus (and therefore God) and so as far as Christians are concerned its teachings are far more important.
The new testament, for a book of its age, is incredibly reliable according to many researchers, archaeologists etc. Nevertheless I'm sure that, as usual, you know best.
I think I'm right, you think you're right. You'd struggle to find many people who think that their beliefs are wrong. I don't doubt your intelligence on the grounds of our disagreement; other atheistic posters in this conversation and even individuals such as Dawkins are highly intelligent and I recognise that.
The point about animals was merely an example; nothing more. Animals do not have such a developed sense of morals as humans do, but lets not get into an argument over the existence of 'doggy heaven' even though it would suit your debating ability better.
I derive my morals both from religion and from the intuitive sense of morality that I think most people have. I just find it strange how we got it. Maybe it's because we have evolved to be compassionate, sympathetic, guilt-feeling individuals (just like all other animals!)...it's probably because they are the best facets a survival-orientated organism can have isn't it!!!
Any 'faith believing, god fearing individual' would not get upset by my remarks. They would understand that I have my views and they have theirs and may even be sympathetic towards how I felt about religions and even get to a point of agreeing to disagree.
But you! Insult after insult! I'm idiotic, moronic, immoral, amoral, pathetic, even beastiality is mentioned! And that's only a small section of the insults!
The fact that I may have a number of errors in basic language? Sorry, I didn't realise it was an English Language debate! What a 'head stuck up my own ass' prig you are Tozer. What does that have to do do with beliefs? You berk!
I opened a trap door for you Tozer and you walked straight through it! I dangled the bait and you took it hook line and sinker! Now everyone here can see what an immoral and offensive 'religious geek' you really are!! It was mentioned earlier, where is the 'Love thy neighbour attitude'? To christians like you it is interpreted as 'love thy neighbour, so long as they are fellow christian believers. Everyone else can go to hell'!
'Maybe it's because we have evolved to be compassionate, sympathetic, guilt-feeling individuals.' I'm assuming that you're not counting yourself in that statement! Because you sure ain't one of those!
According to you I'm immoral! You have never met me, what gives you the right to say that?.
If I am a moron and immoral and all the other insults that you threw my way then I could get away with insulting you, because I don't know any better do I? But a good christian like youself, insulting someone is really a poor show old chap.
You are an evil immoral person Tozer! Stop hiding behind that christianity mask!
You asked. 'In what way am I embarassing myself?' There you have it Tozer. I rest my case.
Hahahaha you're such a tool it's really quite unbelievable. I can't actually believe you mistook my comment about 'doggy heaven' for me calling you a beastialitist! I never said that you're immoral, or amoral. You're a moron. That's it. You're unintelligent but that's not a problem in itself. The problem is your complete ignorance and failure to understand or even try to understand countless points and concepts.
I have demonstrated that I can fully respect non believers with my other posts. I can't believe that I have managed to find the biggest idiot on the planet through starting this thread...its quite incredible.
I'll admit I have many flaws. I'm vein, I perhaps believe too strongly in my own opinions and I am fairly easily drawn into arguments. At least I accept these unlike you. You're just a complete cretin.
Sorry, but it's you who is the fool. Still you openly insult me, for no other reason than you can't handle my views/opinions!
You do not 'argue', you insult anyone you can't reason with. In fact you don't even attempt to try and reason.
I have poor arguments? There is no evidence or proof that god exists, therefore I don't believe in any gods. That makes me a cretin does it? Whereby, you believe god may or may not exist. That makes you the intelligent one eh? Dream on Tozer! No doubt 'your god' will be male and have pale skin won't he? Or perhaps god morphs at any given time? But then no-one has seen god, apart from the odd looney that is, so yes, let's stereotype the non-existing blighter!
' I'll admit I have many flaws. I'm vein.' And you advise me of my basic language flaws! Maybe you were trying to locate one, as you were typing your reply. I do understand, you would need to be high to believe in such crap that you believe in!
Biggest idiot on the planet, eh? I think you'll find it's closer to home than you realised Tozer!
Why would I even want to try and understand the biggest load of unproven crap, that has ever existed! I leave that to 'intelligent people' like youself!
'I have demonstrated that I can fully respect non believers with my other posts.' I think you'll find that it's called 'selective respect'. Especially if someone sticks a Dr in front of their name.
Just a moot point. If you don't have time for people like me. Why do you keep responding with your obscene posts towards me? Don't get me wrong, I don't really mind your use of abusive language, in fact I sit here laughing at you. I'm just worried that it may bring about a coronary for you. I would hate to think my opinions brought that on!
Anyway, thanks for your reply. I have noted your points and I'm very grateful for your advice. Unfortunately, I don't have any need for it.
Actually, the point is that as there is no evidence whatsoever to support a "god", even if only conceptually, then as with fairies, goblins, unicorns etc... , its not even possible for a rational human being to believe. The reason atheists are standing up for their logic based on accepted scientific reasoning is because they are sick and tired of paying taxes that support religious practices and sick and tired of the unjustified influence religion has on politics, the law, education and society in general. Personally, I am fed up with the arrogance of "believers" that for some reason, if they count up enough loons that do believe, from whatever walk of life, that this is some sort of argument to support their delusions. If not for a freak meteor millions of years ago that wiped out the dinosours, who were far more succesful than humans as a species, we wouldnt even be having this discussion. Fact, not religious fiction! Or perhaps the believers will say that their god sent that one at earth. Give me a break! Perhaps all believers have a hereditry psychological mutation that just cant be treated. Mind you, for most, they had no choice in the first place.
Be careful what you say! Tozer will come out of hiding and bore you senseless, as well as insulting you and your views of course!
His view is that 'Christians don't see life on Earth as particularly important.' So why is he, Tozer, hanging around boring everyone else then? The christian objective is not life now as we know it, but the afterlife and all it's glory of meeting people that don't exist and having a better quality of life (or should that be death).
I agree with your particular views, but expecting arrogant tozers like Tozer to accept your viewpoint is asking a little too much. Anyway you maybe OK as he doesn't post anything until his straight-jacket has been loosened which is infrequently.
Dillon, Dillon, Dillon. You are a complete joke. You're embittered about something I can tell that much. I wouldn't be bitter about the Church though; it does a lot of good even if cretins like yourself can't see it. Christianity is no more "unproven crap" than atheism. If the arguments for and against were so lopsided do you think taht 2000 years on the debate would still be going strong?
My respect doesn't just go out to those with 'dr' in front of their name, but to anyone who shows a scrap of humility, understanding or intelligence. You don't have any of those qualities unfortunately. You are, however, highly hypocritical complaining that my posts are offensive.
Don't worry, I can derive just as much humour from your posts as you can from mine when managing not to be angered by your sheer stupidity. I get the feeling, though, that you could probably sit there laughing and clapping like a big, dense seal at any viewpoint that your vast and infallible mind had failed to consider.
When will atheists learn that they aren't, by default, intellectual. It's just one belief which has no more academic merit than any other. There are exceptions though e.g. P 'the arbiter' Dillon. Just for the record (I don't know if they teach this in 'special' primary schools, but when using the word "its" as in "its glory", you don't use an apostrophe.
Just to quote a considerably more intelligent individual than yourself or anyone else in this conversation..."My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself (or herself) in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." (Einstein). By the way don't even try to come back with any of this rubbish that he was actually an atheist; it's already been covered. Sorry Mr Waldron, I'm sure you could teach him a thing or two if he was still around.
I'm embittered about something? Just look at the garbage you just posted! Bitter and twisted and some!!
'but when using the word "its" as in "its glory", you don't use an apostrophe.'
You really are a sad git!! At least I can spell vain in the sense that you called yourself vein! Oh, and by the way, shouldn't you have put 'that 2000 years on... etc and not, 'taht 2000 years on....'!! Ha! Ha! And you call me pathetic! If you stand in front a mirror and called me all these wonderful names (you're a moron, you're a cretin, you know the one's) that you think I am, it may begin to make more sense to you. Go on try it, it will, believe me!
But as you stated in your post 'I don't know if they teach this in 'special' primary schools' I suggest you pay more attention then! You really do take the biscuit Tozer!
'I get the feeling, though, that you could probably sit there laughing and clapping like a big, dense seal at any viewpoint that your vast and infallible mind had failed to consider.' Yes, you could be right there! Only I know the answer to that one. But I thought a smart person like you would have better things to voyeur about.
You never answered my query about why you keep responding to my posts. You certainly can't derive any humour from my posts. You don't have a sense of humour! Every little bit of bait that I dangle, you swallow it, you pillock!
Anyhow you're such a total boringly, boring bore that I have no further use of you. Take advice from the bible: Go forth and multiply, you silly little person!
You two should get together, I'd pay to see that just for the comedy element. But seriously, intellect doesnt even come into it ... and you have taken Einstein out of context. He was a staunch atheist as it happens. I consider myself a human and despise being categorised in relation to something I have no evidence for. I am an open minded individual who accepts that whilst there are universal laws, such as you will find in mathematics, science is ever evolving and we can only draw our conclusions from the facts in front of us. Using 2000 years of believing in something that has no evidence to support it is the lamest argument I have ever heard and is an insult to anyone's intelligence. However, if science ever proves there is a god and that heaven and hell (man-made ideas) exist, then I'm sure I would consider your opinions as valid. But I'm sorry, whilst these religious books written by men are of some historical interest, that is the start and the end of it. After all, over the centuries, they have been butchered and manipulated by successive political tyrants who had no concern for humanity but who saw political opportunity in them. Why should I have any respect for any of it given its lack of basis and motivation. And I do understand why atheists are so worked up. After all, everyone still pays taxes (except for churches) to support religion and our lives are constantly interferred with by religious loons who put their "unsocial rights" above secular laws that people sacrificed their lives for to make a better society for all to live in (not just men).
I utterly share your points of view Mr Waldron and I'd put them across the board so to speak. They apply to ALL religions and not just christianity. Just look at the title of this thread, 'Atheism vs Christianity'. Obviously started by some silly tozer, who believes that other peoples beliefs are ridiculous and should be ignored.
Christians such as Tozer, believe that this planet has only been around for 6000 years. It seems like he also believes that this Jesus guy went around slagging off all non-believers, calling them cretins and morons, all with gods will! Although I can't find that in the bible, although there is a Jesus persona that appears in the qu'ran. Perhaps he's been reading the qu'ran and has got himself a little mixed up.
I'd wish Tozer would wrap his super-intelligent brain around such issues as:
Homosexuals: Women in general: Women within the church: Muslims and any other religious followers (apart from the obvious of course!): The Qu'ran: Ethnic Minorities:
Those sort of issues and give us his oh, so superior views!
This has been one of the most fantastic threads I have ever read. Opinion and Conjecture, Theory and Mystery. All of these things with such passion behind them.
I myself, am an atheist, as is everyone else on the planet. Even a monotheist by definition does not believe in other gods. This makes them both theist and atheist.
If we take the King James version of the Ten Commandments (bearing in mind even this old version had been through various languages on route to this translation) includes Number 3: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
Surely an acknowledgment that there are or were other Gods. The Israelites were fighting for their survival and their eventual supremacy in the region. Their God was going to help them, but only if they stayed loyal. The same as any other ruler in history has expected of their subjects.
Perhaps, for me, the sheer arrogance of accepting a faith and believing the rest of the world to be wrong to the tune of some 5 billion or more people, really sums things up. I do not see someone who subscribes to a new testament view of the world could be happy to live with the majority of the world NOT sharing the beliefs of the one true religion.
This problem can be responsible for conflict. Conflict that is the very route of why religious belief has and always been bad for the world.
I look forward to any attacks on what I have posted. Like many have posted, without a faith to be shaken everytime someone posts an awkward question, I will not be upset at these attacks. Every attack proves the point that these differences of opinion provoke conflict. Unneccesary conflict.
It is time for a New Enlightenment.
(Not a return to the Light of the Lord, but a light to see that there is nothing to be looking for.)
My original post was basically a 'soundbite'. But because it was made with neither eloquence or correct grammer, I get pilliored! It just reeks of, "If you can't get to grips with simple grammar and punctuation, then your point of view is totally invalid. Yes I am aware that there is no proof of god. More importantly, you can't phrase your sentences correctly, so I'm not going to take any notice of you, even if you're right." Quite ludicrous really.
Why would I want to waste my time eloquently de-constructing something that has never existed or been proven? It would be sort of a non-sequitur!
No matter what you say, the christian fundamentalists here will never agree with your viewpoint no matter how eloquent you are! They think that they are the intelligent ones! Where on earth do they get that from?
Because they are scared stiff that it could mean that their beliefs are in tatters and they won't know where to turn!! They'll become a miserable wreck of a human being. Oh, yes, I forgot, they already are!
Yes, I think we may have some sense of agreement. I particularly like the last comment. I must admit feeling sympathy for the delusional believers of the world - not sure I would want the pressure of following and committing myself to a load of religious nonsense.
You're all so smug! To be honest I don't care what you all think; there are just as many intelligent people out there who do believe in God as there are who don't. If it makes you happy to live in a soulless world then so be it; as far as I'm concerned it's your loss.
I believe in God, Jesus and a lot of other things which you may not believe in. It doesn't, however, (despite some people's misunderstanding of this) follow that I therefore believe in genesis or all of the various biblical miracles. It's been established by a number of people with a far better understanding of the Christian faith than me or any of you that I don't have to believe in these things to be a Christian. I don't think the World is 6000 years old, but let's be honest, I doubt any of you have any in depth understanding of how old the world is, how it was made etc. It's beyond most people; I just accept what I am told by science (as do most Christians).
Einstein was NOT an atheist. He was a theist.
"They'll become a miserable wreck of a human being. Oh, yes, I forgot, they already are!"
Unfortunately for you, Dillon, God will never be disproved, and millions of religious people rendered "miserable wrecks". The whole nature of 'faith' is that it regards something that can't be proven either way.
By the way...I don't think you're thick to be honest and I'm sorry for insulting you; I'm only seventeen and can sometimes lack maturity if someone rubs me up the wrong way (hence the insults). I hope you'll accept my apology and the fact that any ad hominem attacks were pretty hollow.
The whole point of this thread was NOT to rubbish atheist beliefs. It was a response to the common 'anti-theist' view that religion and science are conflicting and incompatible things. This is something that, when publicised, annoys me greatly because they aren't. If any of you find the time perhaps you could read some books like those by Francis Collins who can illustrate and explain this point far better than I can.
I respect the fact that you don't believe in God and would simply like you to respect the fact that I do (and not take it that because I do I am therefore an idiot).
But, if you take your first printed words, 'You're all so smug! To be honest I don't care what you all think.' Then I'm afraid it's taken with a large pinch of salt. In fact I think you're just a little bit too patronising for my taste. Personally I don't care whether you're 17 or 71!
If you are lacking maturity, then I suggest you wait a few more years before accepting such ridiculous beliefs. let your brain develop. You haven't even had a chance to look at life never mind judge other people. No doubt you were probably forced fed all the religious crap by your parents and schoolmasters and I feel great sorrow for you.
As for living in a soulless world? I'm afraid that's what religious beliefs have caused and I, am certainly not a soulless person!
Religion and science ARE incompatable things whether you agree to it or not. Just the same as Einstein WAS an Athiest whether you agree or not. Science has proven that a 'supernatural being' god who created everything is an impossibility but theists don't WANT to believe it! If god is the ultimate creator, who the frig created him? And please don't quote any more crap that you read in a book and that you really believe in. It doesn't annoy me, it just makes me wonder how you so-called believers get by in REAL life!
Francis Collins? Do you mean this book? 'The Language of God: A Scientist who's now Insane, Presents Evidence for Belief'? Vast intelligence and insanity, now they are compatable!!
The whole nature of 'faith' is that it regards something that can't be proven either way? I think that's more a case of desperation, not 'faith'!!
I am certainly not questioning anyones intelligence, I'll leave that to you, I'm questioning their perception of common sense.
By all means believe what you believe, it's your choice after all. I have no problem with that. But I just wish you religious folk would keep it to yourselves unless you can provide conclusive proof that there is an almighty. I've had such baloney shoved in my face for far too long. Now that the boot is on the other foot, so to speak, you now know what it feels like!
I don't mind you insulting me, I find it very funny actually!
And yes, I do know what 'ad hominem' means:
"It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."
Is that why you are apologising, because someone has pointed out your 'faux pas'?
What I really can't abide, is the mental child abuse that you and your kind, carry out on young childrens minds (and that's ANY religious freaks, whether they be christians, muslims, ufologists, all of them)!! It's despicable to say the least! I think that you just may be one of their victims!
Well you probably do know what it means if you look it up...
Look I hate to disappoint you, but Einstein was categorically not an atheist (I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this from) and God has DEFINITELY, 100%, no two ways about it NOT BEEN DISPROVED by science. I'm really surprised that anyone would stick their neck out to that extent because that is simply not true; look at Dr Tatham's posts whcih state that even Dawkins (the world's leading antitheist) sayd that he CANNOT rule out the possibility of God. You have to understand that.
Also, I have never had religion rammed down my throat. I have made a positive and independent decision to be a Christian. You really should find out more about the people and the religions that you attack.
You may be right about my apology, but at least I have apologised. You perpetuate your previous insults even after I've apologised by calling me a 'freak'!