I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Actually, no, I do not get called an ass very often. And for those instances it does occur, I generally do not feel offended, but rather confirmed in my world view. For what it matters, I really do not care about your belief, and I sure as hell will express my views about it.
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good
>>Beware of the spaghetti monster. It is coming to get us all real soon now. Repent while you still can and get some tomato sauce with that if you please.
You know that Dawkins made the argument that religion doesn't really change the way we act? Therefore, eating all the pasta I can won't make me fat. I love being a spaghetti monster atheist!
His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
>>His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!
Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without
"Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without the Abrahamic God, and also how culture change after missionaries enter their culture. It's a fascinating study, and one that is at complete odds with his theory."
Yup. Abrahamic societies generally become more hateful. Just look at Africa.
So the Roman/Greek/Persian/Aztek/Chinese empires are just my imagination? Humans seems to historically been very good at cooperating with eachother regardless of their religion.
"Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!"
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the argument works. The general idea is that over time evolution will favor traits that gr
The Aztec empire is not just your imagination, and is a case in point, actually, of a developed society that wasn't based on Judeo-Christian values.
Believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with the evolutionary argument for cooperation. You're missing my point: that you can sort of argue anything from evolution. It's like modern-day magic. You could argue that Religion is just the result of some "God Gene" that we have (I think it was Dawkins who argued this, but Collins did a pretty good job disproving it)
Hmm, I'm not sure if I've heard a god gene argument but I've heard it argued that religion is a coping mechanism to deal with the unknown and unknowable which would explain why Secularism is becoming so much more popular now when we're exploring more and more of the universe through science. You no longer need to turn to religion to get answers to basic questions like "Where does rain come from? What is that shiny object in the sky?"
Ofcourse science can't help you with questions like "What happens after we
Still doing that? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them,
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
No, no, we do not think all of you are fundamentalists, However, we do think you are all delusional.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evo
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Actually, no, I do not get called an ass very often. And for those instances it does occur, I generally do not feel offended, but rather confirmed in my world view. For what it matters, I really do not care about your belief, and I sure as hell will express my views about it.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Beware of the spaghetti monster. It is coming to get us all real soon now. Repent while you still can and get some tomato sauce with that if you please.
You know that Dawkins made the argument that religion doesn't really change the way we act? Therefore, eating all the pasta I can won't make me fat. I love being a spaghetti monster atheist!
Re:Still doing that? (Score:2)
His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
>>His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!
Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without the Abrahamic God, and also how culture change after missionaries enter their culture. It's a fascinating study, and one that is at complete odds with his theory."
Yup. Abrahamic societies generally become more hateful. Just look at Africa.
Or at Renaissance.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Roman/Greek/Persian/Aztek/Chinese empires are just my imagination? Humans seems to historically been very good at cooperating with eachother regardless of their religion.
"Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!"
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the argument works. The general idea is that over time evolution will favor traits that gr
Re: (Score:2)
The Aztec empire is not just your imagination, and is a case in point, actually, of a developed society that wasn't based on Judeo-Christian values.
Believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with the evolutionary argument for cooperation. You're missing my point: that you can sort of argue anything from evolution. It's like modern-day magic. You could argue that Religion is just the result of some "God Gene" that we have (I think it was Dawkins who argued this, but Collins did a pretty good job disproving it)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I'm not sure if I've heard a god gene argument but I've heard it argued that religion is a coping mechanism to deal with the unknown and unknowable which would explain why Secularism is becoming so much more popular now when we're exploring more and more of the universe through science. You no longer need to turn to religion to get answers to basic questions like "Where does rain come from? What is that shiny object in the sky?"
Ofcourse science can't help you with questions like "What happens after we
Re: (Score:2)
wait, which side are you campaigning for?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like rather a good example of evolution in action.