Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving



"Alistair" <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:02389aef-ef98-4650-81ac-321cfda9c9af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 24 Jan, 23:57, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, open minded or not? I'm betting you will obfuscate, change the
subject or
otherwise avoid the issue. :-)

Anybody else want to take the challenge and demonstrate you are really
open,
and only waiting for evidence? How about you, Alistair? :-)

Are you asking atheists to suspend disbelief for all time? Pete has
already said that he spent many years studying religion and has not
found any evidence in support of any deity or belief system. Just how
many years must he suspend making a decision about how to live his
life before you accept his right to decide?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply trying to establish that
athiests
are faith based just as believers are faith based. Athiesm is a religion
to
athiests,

Nonsense. I don't call the faithful to prayer nor do I do missionary
work in darkest Manchester. There is no injunction upon me requiring
my spreading the word. How can atheism be a religion if I can not
prove this world exists?

just as Christianity is a religion to Christians. Athiests deny this
because they want to say "we believe in evidence while believers only
have faith."

That is such a load of bollocks it really isn't worth responding to,
however, I'll give it one last shot...

Judson, you haven't spent time around atheists, you haven't read any
literature by informed atheists, you really have no idea what atheists
"believe".

I'm an atheist. I DON'T say: "we believe in evidence while believers only
have faith."

Why don't I?

1. I am not looking for a contest between my belief system and anyone
else's. I leave that to Evangelists like yourself. I really don't care what
believers believe, or how or why they believe it. It is of passing interest
only, just as all beliefs and opinions can be of passing interest. My
interest level raises when I see what I consider to be "dangerous" in a
belief system, but beyond that I practice complete tolerance.

2. Of course I believe in evidence. And I use the intelligence our species
has evolved over three million years to evaluate that evidence and arrive at
a conclusion about it. Whether or not believers do this is of no consequence
to me whatsoever; it isn't a contest.

3. Whether I have "faith" or not is simply not relevant. I have arrived at
the conclusions I have, using the processes I have described here in other
posts. I certainly have "faith" in my own evaluation, but that is NOT the
same thing as religious "faith".

You may be qualified to speak about what atheists believe and the processes
we employ, after you have done a lot more research.

Get back to me after you've read "The God Delusion" by Professor Richard
Dawkins, for example. It won't change YOUR mind, but it MAY give you some
insight into MINE.

You simply are not currently qualified to present the atheist position, and
therefore fall back on the antagonistic devices I would expect from street
preachers who shoot their mouths off to the passing populace downtown on
Saturday night: "You are all wicked", "You'll all burn in the Lake of Fire",
"If you don't have religion you must have faith in 'no religion' ", "I
challenge you to accept Jesus as your Lord, right now!" Frankly, I expected
more...



OK, where is your evidence? The bible is a book. It contains
misspellings (see Red Sea for Reed Sea), false injunctions (see the
version that said THOU SHALT SIN), omissions (where is the gospel
according to Mary and why was it left out?). Face facts, it is a
poorly edited anthology of science fiction.

The fact is that both have faith in their belief systems, beyond
total objective fact based analysis.

You have consistently failed to show that as a "fact". Stating it doesn't
make it so.


My faith in science stems from the total failure of christianity,
mainstream religions and esoteric faiths to explain the world, provide
a suitable model of the universe or indeed even a decent morality
system. In my life I have only ever once come close to experiencing
any religious feelings, and that was at Karnak in Egypt. Amun rocks.


My faith in Science has nothing to do with the failure of other approaches,
although I can understand thinking people being repelled by religion and
looking for answers elsewhere.

My "faith" in Science is NOT the "faith" of a religious believer; it is the
faith that the scientific method, properly applied, gives correct answers. A
"faith" based on principles that are axiomatic. Simple as that.


If I'm wrong, you or Pete can easily prove it by accepting my challenge.

Your challenge is so yesterday. We both accepted it as children and
found it wanting. I have no interest in revisiting those uncertain
times as the continual self-doubt it engenders does nothing postivie
for me or the world.

Well said, Alistair. I agree.


Personally, I would rather worship Amun. Now
there is a deity that one can believe in.

Assuming one has not yet outgrown the need to HAVE a deity... :-) I like
personal responsibility; don't blame God (ANY God...) for your personal
shortcomings and inadequacies, take responsibility for your screw-ups and
work on fixing them. This process leads to growth, and that leads to wisdom
and contentment. (A valuable spin-off is that it also makes the world a
better place for all of us...)


The fact that you don't and won't proves my point,

You have no point. You have a pointless blast of rhetoric that signifies
nothing.

because if evidence
were the only factor,

Pete and I (I hope he forgives me

Excuse the mid-sentence interruptions, Alistair. I don't forgive you
because I see "forgiveness" as a supercilious action between a superior and
an inferior, not the action of equals. However, I have absolutely no problem
with the words you correctly placed in my mouth on this occasion... :-)

for putting words into his mouth as
his wrath is far-reaching and mightily strong)

(You got that right... :-))

have bothe been there,
seen it, done it, got the t-shirt.

Indeed.

clear undeniable proof would be decisive.

There is no clear undeniable proof. Every proof that you have provided
so far has been refuted by people better than myself.

Since it
isn't, then there must be something else - faith also. Q.E.D.

Anybody note all the squirming and side stepping? See? I told ya. :-)

Yes, I noted a fair bit.

The only side-stepping has been by you. You're still trying to sneak in Free
Will as the reason we are rotten, and completely side-stepped the issue that
this would mean God is NOT omniscient, just as ONE example (there are
many...)

I have been as direct as possible in my responses.

Readers can and will draw their own conclusions.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.


.

Relevant Pages