People Trying to Convert you

Post Reply New Topic

Of course, this is possible; do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?

Even if humans manage to wipe out every vertebrate on the planet (including ourselves), the biosphere would continue. Even if greenhouse warming raises the average temperature of the earth to 100 C, extremophile bacteria would survive in pockets here and there. Life, once established, tends to be rather tenacious.

Or maybe you mean something else by 'nature'? It's a pretty wishy-washy term.

wrt. 'out' atheists, at least they don't tell you that you're going to hell if you disagree with them.

I believe that strong atheists, make a leap of faith into a belief system that assure the unexistence of gods, I wouldn't say to be a religion, but a faith and belief system.

until anything is conclusively proven it takes a leap of faith to believe anything. i think it takes less of a leap of faith to say "there is no god" than to say "there is a god" because there is no scientific evidence of one, but yes it still does take a bit of faith.

Do you think this could be because ahteists have more to lose in a society that is getting less and less secular, also are you confusing confidence backed up with logic with being pushy. Another problem with religious debate it gets very frustrating when theists refuse to acknowledge scientific explainations and continue to think in the dark ages

less and less secular? i thought the opposite was true, at least outside of the united states.

anyways, it could be frustration, i know i get frustrated a lot during religious debates for that exact reason, which is why i avoid them. i just think he could see them as being more annoying because of this.

I don't know if I would say his ideas are entirely the "basis." Don't get me wrong, Darwin was important, and he really got the ball rolling in this field, but with how far it's advanced since his time, it seems over-simplistic to give him so much credit for the modern understanding of evolutionary biology. Today, the study of genetics is probably as important (if not more important) than natural selection in evolutionary research, and Darwin knew nothing of genetics.

No, because atheists like yourself are obnoxious as hell, and arrogant to boot. Also, you try to lay claim to things like reason, logic, and science without having a very just claim to those attributes.

umm..no. The criterion for demarcation for science is falsifiability. Anything beyond that necessarily is subject to non-scientific investigation. I recommend no standard for belief; only that applying scientific criteria is inherently ridiculous.

Yes, pretty easily. Most theologians in the proper sense of the word have some training in philosophy. Philosophy deals with things "too deep for science", therefore, theologians have a good expertise to answer these questions. I'll be honest, if Dawkins is making a claim like that, I sort of have to wonder if the man has read or even heard of a theologian before given that some of the greatest and most fundamental thinkers in Western history have been theologians or delved deeply into the topic.


Theology is not about the denial of science, and the perspectives that a theologian may have towards science can be very different from theologian to theologian, so to say such a thing seems false. The ones who deny science all day are "creation scientists" and often they are not the best theologians nor the best scientists. Theologians do require logical thought, do require deep thought, and certainly engage in debate on very deep concepts as a matter of self-correction. Science is not the end of all knowledge, especially given that even proper science recognizes areas beyond it's realm.

Where does the "we" come in? Other people will accept what they will regardless of what you say, a lesson that other missionaries should find it best to know as well.

Sure, go right ahead, believe in Russell's teapot, read the comic too if you want(not a big fan of the art myself).

Creationism isn't a falsifiable hypothesis, so it cannot be unfalsified by it's nature. The reason why ID emerged is because conservative Christians are hyper-paranoiac about any possible alternative to creationism, not because it has been or could ever be falsified. Given Russell's own thought experiment of the earth being created in 5 minutes and given how the creationist hypothesis is given to change, I think he would also agree that it is unfalsifiable.

Well, the probability based upon our evidence, true. Do you think that you will be able to dispel the human inclination to religion though? Not all people want to be rationalists.


I think about a third or a fourth of modern philosophers are theists, most of them Christians and a number of journals and other material are used to express theistic thoughts. Philosophy is a field that studies reason and logic, if a significant number of philosophers are theists then it seems false that reason and logic are too challenging for theists.

I agree. I admit I've seen it more persistently from the religious crowd, but nothing is quite as obnoxious as being harassed by a fifteen-year-old atheist misquoting Bertrand Russel and blathering the word "sheeple" twice every sentence.

Also, I've found that in most cases, you can simply tell a religious missionary "No thanks, I am not interested in your church, please leave me alone" and that will be the end of it. Atheist missionaries are more prone to harassing and ridiculing people who disagree with them.

We = the multitudes that do not believe in religion



'read the comic too'. That is Russells point, you dont seem to get it. So here is his tea pot parable

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove recieved dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the earth and mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an eliptical orbit, noboby would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful enough to add that the tea pot is too small to be revealed by even our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable assumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought of to be talking nonsense. If, however the existence of the teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the pyschiatrist in an enlightened age or of the inquisitor in an earlier time.



To quote from the Tea Pot
'I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable assumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought of to be talking nonsense'



Nothing like picking random figures from mid air to prove strength in numbers.

So... you are protesting that others are making choices you do not like? Maybe you should form an Inquisition.


My point is that neither side has to prove anything, which is why I said "Sure, go right ahead". There is a comic in the atheist community called "Russell's teapot", which is where that comment comes from.


I never said that atheists weren't free to be atheists.


Random figures? Well, to be honest I found them here:

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/metaphilosophy ... ralism.htm (first few paragraphs)

And they are atheist philosopher Quentin Smith's random figures, and the issue of there being journals in philosophy on religion is something rather easily verifiable, and the existence of theistic philosophers is also easily apparent from the existence of figures such as Alvin Plantinga and numerous others. I think that Dr. Smith's figures are backed by some research by William Craig Lane(or was it JP Moreland?), but I don't have the book where I know that is stated.

You guys just dont get it, the reason I get so pissed off with religion is because of the negative effects it has upon people that I love.
Look, Orwell you seem to be a decent christian that does not want to adversly affect the lives of others, so really my arguement is not with you or those that think like you. I would support you to the ends of the earth if you took on the bastrds that make so many peoples lives a misery. If people followed the teaching of Jesus this world would be a fantastic place. I would happily agree to accept that we all believe different things and leave it at that.

Trouble is this is not the case, a great many people push their religious beliefs onto the lives of others causing a great deal of distress, these people I detest. So unfortunatley whilst countries become less and less secular I will become more and more vocal in my dislike for what is happening.
This is why I asked the question can you really be a conservative christian, because I do not believe Jesus would have approved of right wing fundies, and from what I can gather neither do you.
To put my position simply. I do not fight religion because I think it is delusional, I fight religion because of the effect it has on people that do not fit its criteria.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 15 Aug 2008, 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is a very easy solution to your problem: stop loving people. If you do that, then all will be well.