I didn’t know my post sounded like whining, and I apologize if it did. But I did learn something. If I don’t claim any evidence of what I say it’s ok, you won’t have to call me anymore names. Got it.
I am trying hard to see this as simple lack of comprehension.
First, I will note that I have not called you any names, so you can retire that false claim right away.
Next, the only point on which you have been corrected (aside from your many errors of fact) has been your specific claim that had been factually debunked on numerous occasions that “science” opposed spiritual beliefs and that “scientists” were trying to stamp out belief or spiritual recognition. The evidence presented to and ignored by you was a series of references in which scientists defended religious beliefs along with your complete failure to present an actual scientific paper that supported your claims. Your persistence in posting those falsehoods continually threatened to derail other threads on a myriad of topics and you were told to stop.
In contrast, Der Trihs (for example) posts his own personal beliefs about religion, but when called on to defend his beliefs, does point to the evidence of history (in the form of historical events prompted by religious doctrine or carried out to implement the beliefs of religious people) to demonstrate why he holds his beliefs. When you have been called upon to defend your assertions of fact, you have frequently either falsely claimed that you had already done so, replied that “everybody knew” that what you were saying was true, or pointed to references that failed to support (or even contradicted) your claims.
I think that Der Trihs is every bit as closed minded in his belief system as you are or as a fire-breathing Fundamentalist might be, but you are the one who fails to support your claims. Witnessing is permitted, here, and I have never once challenged you on your personal beliefs. However, outside witnessing, the normal mode of argumentation in this Forum is to support one’s claims with facts and logic. The only time that you have been chastised has been when you have falsely ascribed beliefs to others or when you misstated facts in an attempt to bolster you claims for your beliefs.
Your have called me a liar or dishonest numerous times, I could go back and count them.
Is this what you mean when you say science and scientists are not opposed to religion. I copied only a few of those available. Please let me know what you are talking about so I can correct my posts.
That isn’t science attacking religion, those are people who happen to be scientists attacking religion, see the difference?
Please do. (The time you expend will be well worth it.)
I have pointed out your dishonesty on several occasions. I have, on a couple of occasions, pointed out specific lies. I have not called you a liar. I have not called you any other names–which was your actual claim. I have already addressed your claims, earlier, yet here you are repeating them.
Individual scientists are free to share their personal beliefs, just as anyone else. This is exactly why you have been called to task in the past. Sagan, Dawkins, and others have, in their private writings, made claims that there is no god or that the spiritual does not exist. I have readily acknowledged that on many occasions. Where youy have erred, repeatedly, is in conflating the personal views of individual scientists (that is contradicted by the individual views of other scientists) with some vague claim for “science” or “(all) scientists.” We have had this discussion, before, as well, and the fact that you choose not to recall this exchange (and correct your behavior) is what has led to your being chastised for posting false information.
As for the following, you make my case:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov.htm A description of areas in which some believers do not accept the testimony of some scientific inquiry even though many believers accept the same points made by the scientists.
Religious and Nonreligious Belief Systems The story of some religious leaders attacking a philosopher (not a scientist) for the beliefs he held.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/scopes.monkey.trial/ The story of religious attacks on science, not the other way around.
Science » Internet Infidels A series of essays in which theists and atheists square off on philosophophical grounds with no assertion by “Science” that religion is false.
In other words, you continually assert things that your own “evidence” fails to support.
OK, I understand now that I will never understand your logic. No point in trying.
I think when they are taking it into schools as in England it speaks for itself. I will just wait and see who wins.
Given that you do not try, it is not difficult to understand why you fail. As long as you refrain from deliberate hijacks, personal attacks, and mischaracterizations of other posters’ submissions, you are free to post whatever belief you choose.
And once again, lekatt disrupts yet another thread, to make it All. About. Him.
Which, if true, you are supporting.
Take the personal observations to the Pit.
Eh, I’m late to this debate. It’s already starting to devolve into page-3-shouting-match territory. I don’t even have anything new to say, but I’m compelled to post.
You’re an atheist, so you’ve figured out the one universal truth: life sucks, and then you die. We are chemical von Neumann machines that evolved on this planet to compete for resources and reproduce. Our self-awareness is merely a curious little byproduct of brains designed for hunting and toolmaking. We will likely die without a trace when the sun goes nova, if not much sooner. Even Da Vinci and Einstein will be forgotten. All our “accomplishments” will be reduced to dust.
This “good” and “bad” that you talk about, is meaningless. These are constructs of human society and don’t apply very well to reality. The universe doesn’t know good from evil. Things just are.
This can be really, really painful to accept, especially for those who grew up in religious households, those who’ve been promised an eternity of happiness after death, a wise and benevolent god who has a Plan, and justice for those who commit atrocities. When you learn that the universe is a fucked-up, unfair, meaningless place, it’s hard not to have a bit of a philosophical crisis. If you wanted to start believing in the sky-god again, I wouldn’t blame you. Nobody ever said the truth was pleasant. If I could turn off the critical, truth-seeking part of my brain and be blissfully ignorant again, I’d probably do it.
I try not to mull over this too much. You can dig yourself into a pretty dark hole by mulling over the unfair things you can’t control. I try to enjoy the idea that my life has been relatively free of suffering so far, and that I probably won’t have to suffer too much in the future. I give a bit to charity to alleviate some of that liberal guilt that any person with a conscience should experience every once in awhile. It’s shitty that kids in Africa have to starve, and I really can do a small part to make things better. Similarly, I try to keep politically aware and (not often enough) active, because I can make a bit of difference too if I think some piece of legislation is causing injustice, or the president’s policy is causing needless suffering in Iraq. I can’t change the world – I’m just one guy out of billions, but I can do something. God sure as hell isn’t going to do anything.
There are other fringe benefits to being an atheist. Say I do something “bad” today, like sleep with another man or smoke a joint. I don’t have to feel too guilty about it (as long as nobody got hurt), because god isn’t going to judge me for it. My actions are only as significant as the effects they have on others, and my thoughts are only as meaningful as the effect they have on my actions. That’s really empowering, if you think about it. Religion has some pretty rigid and outdated interpretations of “right” and “wrong”.
I think there is hope for mankind too. I think we have a long and interesting future ahead of us. The world will never be a perfect place, but maybe the society of 2100 will be a little more fair and peaceful than the current mess. Maybe science will cause a new enlightenment someday – a completely new way of living that eliminates most of the unfairness and suffering we see today. After all, the world is a lot better place to live today than in the Dark Ages. Can you imagine a world with pervasive nanotechnology? Fast, cheap spaceflight? Genuine AI? Limitless energy with minimal environmental impact? Anti-aging technology? Teleportation? Replicators? Some of these things are far-fetched, but not necessarily impossible. Any one of these advancements would completely revolutionize human society. It could easily happen in my lifetime. That’s one reason to be happy.
That reminds me – you talk of being happy. Forget it. Happiness is elusive and rare. Nobody is happy. Settle for being content or at least distracted, and every once in awhile, when you’re not thinking about it, you’ll actually experience a moment or two of happiness. Happiness is not a way of life, and sadness is not (usually) a disease. Clear your mind of this pop psychology nonsense and you’ll enjoy life a lot more.
That’s not quite true. I’m amazingly happy. Great life, wonderful wife, and this in the Third World.
Look out for No 1 and help some others along the way IF possible. Otherwise, not much sense brooding morbidly over The Evil In The World. That’s certainly nothing new. And Phantom Dennis is right: I’d rather be living now than back in the Dark Ages.
You should’ve stopped there. You nailed reality up until there, and then you spend the next few paragraphs copping out by saying ‘well, I do insignificant amounts of charity, even though it won’t make any difference’ and ‘mankind might be less crappy far in the future’ and ‘just distract yourself, kid.’
Instead, after the sentence ‘I’d probably do it’, you should’ve said, ‘given how horrible the reality I just described is, I too am hoping our species goes extinct asap, drews. Let’s both cross our fingers.’ 
You know what I think, I don’t think you are really as hopelessly unhappy as you claim to be, if you were you probably would have blown your brains out by now.
So because you are having a bad time, the other billions of people on the planet need to die?
No, b/c of the tragic suffering of millions of good people. If I just wanted to end my own suffering, I would indeed commit suicide. But I want the suffering of the good to end as well.
Did you read the OP?
Yep I did read it. Well suffering is a part of life, but you know what thats ok and all those millions of suffering people don’t want to be dead otherwise they would have killed themselves, so why do you want the entire human race extinct?
I’ve heard that ‘they don’t kill themselves’ argument, and here’s some things you might not have thought of:
a.) they don’t know it’s an option
b.) they stay alive so that their loved ones won’t suffer emotional despair/financial burden that they would if they killed themselves
c.) most good people will put up with terrible horrible suffering for years and decades b/c the only other option, death, is too damn scary to bring themselves to do. Imagine if you were buried alive in a coffin, and you knew it would be days until you died, and there was no escape- but, you have a cyanide pill. I bet most of us would lay there and suffer until we died instead of taking the easy way out. Easy way out is too scary, and suicide is very hard for a non-depressed person (like someone buried alive) to do.
d.) they might think they will go to hell if they commit suicide
e.) they might put up with all the suffering b/c they tragically believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife. They’re miserable and tragic now, but they continue on b/c of a false hope.
I’d be a mercy killer, killing all those who fit the above descriptions. And I’d do it if I could.
ps: don’t worry, i’m not gonna kill anyone. I’m not a sicko murderer, you know.
a. How can you not know suicide is an option?
b. So they have found a purpose for which to live.
c. If you have the means to kill yourself but don’t at least attempt it, that means you don’t truly want to die in my opinion.
d. and e. fit together in my view
So that come back to my point these people have accepted their suffering so why can’t you? Can you honestly not think of a way to help others who suffer, other than killing them? You wouldn’t be a mercy-killer in these cases you would be a murderer because these people don’t want to die, otherwise if they really wanted to they would have killed themselves. But you didn’t even say you just wanted to kill the people in these cases, you said you wanted the entire race to become extinct. EVERYONE SUFFERS, some throughout their whole lives other only sporadically. But most people also have happy times in their life too. But the majority that suffer are choosing to live with their suffering and you would rather they didn’t have that choice, who are you to determine that everyone should die? A lot of parents suffer, just hoping that their children’s live will be without as much suffering as their own. They have found a purpose that works for them. Maybe you should be more worried about your own purpose.
I’m beginning to wonder if you even read what you wrote.
My it seems your feelings on the subject changed rather quickly:
[QUOTE]
I’d be a mercy killer, killing all those who fit the above descriptions. **And I’d do it if I could.[/**QUOTE]
So because your little Candy Land fantasy will never come to fruition, you do a complete 180 and want to become the Destroyer of the Human Race, which might you know cause some suffering along the way? Hmmmmm
I think you just did one of those mischaracterizations of me. You hijacked the thread by attacking me, and I have never personally attacked anyone. I provided you with links that show activist scientists crusading against religion even in schools. How is it that my links are not exactly what I was talking about. Put all the links I provided together and you will find it is widespread. Why would the fundamentalists be fighting back. You needn’t have furnished links, there is no argument about Christians fighting back. I have never failed to back up claims with evidence, but like the links I provided here, they were often explained away with opinion, not evidence, which don’t count, . I am an honest person, I am not a liar, and you did call me unnecessary insulting names. There is a war going on between the proponents of religion and the proponents of science. You need not look any further than this board to find it. It’s in the newspapers, magazines, and on the Internet. I don’t believe you had any reason to attack me at all. Now, I know the rules of this board and I follow them. If I am allowed to continue posting after this post, I will change nothing because I have done nothing wrong. I have a right to believe what I do without being harrassed all the time.