Originally posted by whodeyLike you care anyway. (Allow me to be the whiny cynic for a bit). I have directly presented to you several serious arguments over time on these boards and, guess what, you totally ignored them when you started your thread that purports to list the reasons that persons give in debates for their lack of belief in God. Somehow I seriously doubt that you have bothered to put the necessary research in for this little project of yours.
Serious arugments are not given here?
If you look at, for example, The Miracle of Theism by Mackie, he considers several arguments for/against God and gives more or less hundreds of pages that outline reasons that would serve to undergird critical atheism or at least what you call agnosticism. And you're going to successfully whittle down, to a couple lines, the reasons persons give in debates for their lack of belief in God. Well, I'll say this: you're good for a laugh if nothing else.
24 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyTough titty. I've put some research in on these topics. You can bother to do the same.
Don't just tell me I'm wrong without giving examples as to why. That gets old after a while. :'(
And I see that my earlier arguments on you have left no impression anyhow. So, whatever.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you are open to Intelligent design as long as the designer
Other options include:
1. finite time.
2. the universe came from something external to the universe (without intelligent oversight).
I am assuming here that by 'matter' you mean 'energy in any form'. If you mean the dictionary definition the matter came from energy in the big bang.
[b]And, no, that there is no God does not commit one to the idea tha ...[text shortened]... rits (intelligent entities external to the universe but not God) or even 'unknown causes'.
is not the God of the Holy Bible, right?
24 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor me the question of eugenics goes much deeper. We kill and eat animals and force them to help do our work but not people. Why? Without the ability to recognize human beings as something greater than a glorified ape then you will have people prone to treating them as such. You then have statists, like in China, who monitor how you procreate and you have people, like in Nazi Germany, who try to tell us what characteristics are desirable as they herd us around like livestock. But as we both seem to agree, science tells us that it would be beneficial for eugenics to be implemented much like it is used for livestock. We are then faced with those of reason, who base all their conclusions on science, battling the irrational moralists who declare that science and reason is not enough to convince them they are right. In fact, I suspect that many in science partially admire China for curbing their carbon footprints upon the earth although they would not admit to as much.
Again, I say, that eugenics would work is undoubtedly science - that we should pursue it, is a moral question - and not science.
I personally would be a supporter of eugenics if it wasn't for the following concerns:
1. the human right to procreate.
2. the problem of agreeing on what characteristics are desirable.
3. the fact that it would be misused.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never said I prefered stupidity. All I'm saying is that it appears from my vantage point that atheists tend to place a higher value on human beings based upon intelligence. In fact, this would have to be the case because atheists must embrace the fact that they are nothing more than a glorified animal who decides to kill and enslave those in the animal kingdom on the basis of being a different species, but most importantly, for having a lower intelligence.
You would prefer to be dumb? Do you seriously believe that only atheists wish for humans to be more intelligent? Do you also support the scraping of education systems so that we can all be uneducated too? Is this to promote your religion, or because you feel lonely?[/b]
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyMy glorious recasting of euler's alleged proof that 'God' (doesn't) exists hardly counts as don't care whodey ;]
So far, what I have been presented with are the following arguments.
1. God cannot be proved.
2. There is not sufficient evidence to sway me.
3. If God exists, the he would not have allowed "X" to happen.
4. I don't care.
I believe you did contribute to #2. Any others?
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyAnd one does not need to be a theist to recognise that, nor is it a foregone conclusion that atheists do not. In fact I think the vast majority of atheists on this forum recognise human rights - possibly to a greater extent than the theists.
Without the ability to recognize human beings as something greater than a glorified ape then you will have people prone to treating them as such.
You then have statists, like in China, who monitor how you procreate and you have people, like in Nazi Germany, who try to tell us what characteristics are desirable as they herd us around like livestock.
I actually support Chinas attempts at population control and believe more countries should consider similar ideas. This has nothing to do with being atheist.
We are then faced with those of reason, who base all their conclusions on science, battling the irrational moralists who declare that science and reason is not enough to convince them they are right. In fact, I suspect that many in science partially admire China for curbing their carbon footprints upon the earth although they would not admit to as much.
I admire China - and this has nothing to do with science.
But the issue that you are getting at is the claim that science can dictate morals. This is not so. And moralists can be rational (obviously not all of them are).
Before one chooses to carry out a Eugenics program, one must first establish whether the goal of an improved human race is morally desirable and to balance the desirability of it against any moral 'costs' that may be incurred in carrying it out (such as denying people the chance to procreate or worse, killing 'undesirable' people). The Nazis didn't bother trying to justify it morally they just went with 'might is right' or rather 'were going to do it, you just try and stop us'.
As far as I recall it was a theist on this forum that argued 'might is right' (and the Nazi's were theists too), and it was mostly atheists who argued against it. I certainly know of nothing in science that would justify such a claim.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI think we all do, to some extent, just like we are all a little racist / groupist / nationalist etc. But I think you will find that atheists are often just as good as theists (if not better) when it comes to fighting for equal rights and countering some of these natural tendencies.
I never said I prefered stupidity. All I'm saying is that it appears from my vantage point that atheists tend to place a higher value on human beings based upon intelligence.
In fact, this would have to be the case because atheists must embrace the fact that they are nothing more than a glorified animal who decides to kill and enslave those in the animal kingdom on the basis of being a different species, but most importantly, for having a lower intelligence.
I disagree.
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure they justified it in their twisted minds. Their reasoning was that racial purity would bring about a world utopia. They considered it a "good" thing to fight off the vermin Jews and the weak minded Slavs.
. The Nazis didn't bother trying to justify it morally they just went with 'might is right' or rather 'were going to do it, you just try and stop us'.
As far as I recall it was a theist on this forum that argued 'might is right' (and the Nazi's were theists too), and it was mostly atheists who argued against it. I certainly know of nothing in science that would justify such a claim.[/b]
Of course, the kicker is that everyone takes the position that might makes right as they try to seize power or try to influece such power to their liking. In the end, those with the most power will eventually rule over those that do not and make all the rules. This was what I was getting at in the might makes right thread. If the Nazis had the power to take over the world and subdue it, then they would have made the rules and subsequent morality for all to absorb. As for myself, I believe in a higher power that will eventually stop such wickedness. That higher power is the one that will have the final say.
25 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYou figure there is nothing wrong with a population of one BILLION? We have too many people in the US and it is one third of that. The resources of the entire planet now go majority to humans. There is not much more we can squeeze out of mother earth. There will come a time when the population will crash not due to your god calling in the chips but to humans being too stupid to deserve a jewel of a planet.
So you support a mandatory one child policy in China?
The saddest thing is, when we off ourselves we will take so many other species with us as we already are. Humans are causing the greatest extinction events since the dinosaurs got offed 65 million years ago.
And your supposed god is doing nothing about it. Your god, assuming for one second there is one, needs to do something about the killings of whole species by humans before it is too late.
Do you think your god would ok humans killing off entire species at the tremendous rate going on now? Or does that not fit into the biblical description of sin?
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyExcept that you argue that might makes right and therefore it is not wickedness.
As for myself, I believe in a higher power that will eventually stop such wickedness.
That higher power is the one that will have the final say.
Or rather that higher power will spread its own brand of wickedness.
But the point remains: it is you, the theist, who believes that might makes right and it is often theists who wish to enforce their religion / views on others (via statism) whereas atheists are more likely to be secularists. Yes, I know your party claims to believe that big government is bad, but it is also well known that your party is a bunch of hypocrites who actually do the opposite of what you preach.
25 Apr 12
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.