Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

why be an atheist?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 589 posts in this discussion
Posted on 18 May 2013 07:17:15 BDT
MarmiteMan says:
... and the Great Green Arkleseizure!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 01:13:33 BDT
I can't be an atheist since I believe in many gods such as Odin, Thor and quite a few other deities. I don't though believe in the God of the Hebrews as the idea of a god that lays down laws to live by and tells you its a jealous God in the same breath sort of cancels out his 'laws' that it expects you to live by. So I don't go along with that idea of a god since I think it was manufactured by Jews to Control Jews and eventually came to control Gentiles too!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 22:18:15 BDT
Ian says:
And that's why you'll never be a scientist Spin; for all your pretence of being an intellectual student of philosophy all you really want is simple answers. Unfortunately the truth is rarely simple (I'm automatically suspicious of anyone offering simple answers to complex questions, whether they're selling me a miracle cure, offering me eternal salvation or asking for my vote) and this is no exception; it's possible that the earliest beings of the genus Homo evolved not in Africa but in Asia (and then migrated back to Africa where there more primitive ancestors had evolved). Alternatively they may have evolved in Africa after all.

The caution in the way the article is written is, it seems, more than warranted by the fact that it is a popular science magazine read by many non-scientists such as yourself seeking over-simplistic answers.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 16:25:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 May 2013 20:50:39 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Why am I in a thread titled "why be an Atheist"? Why don't you take a minute and see if you can work it out. Is it some innate sense of embarrassment over believing in bronze age myths and superstitions that drives some theists to continually tout this lie of "Atheistic beliefs"? Or is it just DB's inability to grasp basic English, or muster even a small thread of cogent logic? So to sum up your post, theists are entitled to talk about their theism as and when they choose, but Atheists are not permitted to talk about their Atheism, okey dokey.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 16:12:00 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 16:04:32 BDT
Bellatori says:
Does it really?

"Wood stresses that the evidence from Flores and Dmanisi is compatible with these radical new ideas rather than strongly supporting them."

Fortunately as much as scientists love the cut and thrust of new ideas (it took 30 years for out of Africa and out of Asia has only been going ten) we tend not to jump to conclusions like you do Spin. All the article actually says is that 'out of Asia' is an alternative possibility and we are in for interesting times.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 15:48:59 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 14:49:49 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Ah, that explains why I was confused, I missed his OP.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 10:10:34 BDT
Ian says:
And thanks also to Spin for pointing out an interesting article, even though it doesn't say what he seems to think it does.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 09:38:05 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Many thanks I.N.

Posted on 17 May 2013 09:31:34 BDT
Ian says:
For anyone who would like to read it and doesn't have access to New Scientist (in all good newsagents and public libraries), you can read it for free on New Scientist's website here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829162.200-out-of-asia-our-surprising-origins.html?full=true

You'll need to create an account which is free and will give you access to the article for 10 days.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 00:22:53 BDT
AJ Murray says:
It is also true that Spin doesn't appear to have read the article very closely:

"But could they have been right about Eurasia after all? Recently, some prominent researchers have come round to the idea that hominins may have left their African cradle much earlier than we thought and undergone critical evolutionary transitions further north."

The earliest remains are still those found in Africa for both Australopithicus and Homo sapiens (as Spin was informed) so what we are looking at is debate over the placing of Homo floresiensis in the picture of human evolution, and whether Australopithicus reached Asia and evolved there also.

Interesting read, i have to admit to not being aware that up until the early 20th century the leading candidate for human evolutionary development had been Asia and not Africa.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:57:54 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
DB - 'What you are doing now is active atheism, or you wouldn't bother to be here. It is sometimes more commonly known as militant atheism. It is working to a goal.'

Well well, you learn something new......

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:54:30 BDT
Ian says:
So is ordinary Chrisitianity believing in God and there it ends?

And telling others about your belief in the existence of God is militant Christianity?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:51:32 BDT
Ian says:
If you'd like to read what Bellatori said again:

"assuming that we eliminate flying and who gives a toss as rather non-scientific."

How do you interpret that to mean he doesn't give a toss?
The implication, surely was that those who don't give a toss about the evolutionary origins of Homo sapiens aren't interested in science?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:44:45 BDT
Bellatori says:
I gave you a very complete answer, including the important example question of 'Have you stopped beating your husband yet?' with an explanation of why it is a loaded question. Once again you are selectively misquoting which is not an attribute likely to bring you much credit and certainly lines you up for a dose of contumely for a wilful misdemeanour.

Where did I say that *I* did not give a toss?

I will save you the trouble of extra reading by simply saying that I did not...

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:42:02 BDT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:36:03 BDT
O.Binladen says:
DB says: your 'active atheism'.

How many times are you going to tout this lie?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:35:46 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:27:48 BDT
Ian says:
Wow! There's scientific proof of your assertion that "I cannot envisage a world that was empty of developing life except for what is now called "Africa"."? Amazing!

If you ever meet anyone who can envisage a world that was empty of life except for Africa please introduce me; it's a fascinating hypothesis which I've never heard anybody postulate ever.

Are there any other non-existent hypotheses which you don't believe and have scientific proof are incorrect?

As I said before; you have no clue what you are talking about, but you think you do.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:06:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 May 2013 23:06:33 BDT
"They all wanted a form of attempted mind control, called behaviourism and its associated Idealist Utopia."

The funny thing about a sweeping generalisation is how quickly it tells the reader to ignore the second-rate mind that issued it.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 23:02:23 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 22:59:35 BDT
DP Laing says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 22:59:28 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 May 2013 22:56:14 BDT
Ian says:
Here's an example of the rubbish you spouted:

"I am sceptical about the "out of Africa" theory. I cannot envisage a world that was empty of developing life except for what is now called "Africa". "
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  589
Initial post:  30 Apr 2013
Latest post:  18 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions