Those poor, poor Christians! After all, this 16 year old girl insulted them terribly, by making sure that her school followed the law. What an evil thing for this intolerant atheist girl to do!
I’m sure that the Christians in the community who were found to be breaking the law, were perfectly justified in writing about 16 year old girl:
“this girl honestly needs to be punched in the face.”
“your home address posted online i cant wait to hear about you getting curb stomped you *ing worthless c.”
“definelty laying it down on this athiest tomorrow anyone else?”
Christianity in action.
The are being egged on by a Christian radio station and at least one state representative. It’s no wonder a lot of them are using their real names.
Anyone want to provide a cite showing atheists doing the equivalent?
I heard Glen Beck on the radio the other day calling her a “buffoon” and a “spoiled little brat” going on about, “oh, she has to see a prayer, oh how horrible; all she has to do is not look at it.”
A real champion of the constitution, he.
WTF kind of insult is “pawn star”?
Have you ever seen that show? Proof that God is dead.
Dude, the OP of this very thread! One atheist said of Tebow that he’s “dividing his fan-base”!!! He probably said it all militantly, too, like with a Russian tank parade running being him.
There is so much wrong with that.
Well, I’m sorry to tell you this, but you’re a theist.
An atheist would never apologize.
Eh, I’ll give this thread whirl.
How so? Under Judeo-Christian theology, God loves all his children, albeit occasionally in a co-dependent manner. Christianity was a great leveler of rulers who claimed to be gods, though the doctrine of the divine right of kings shows that this concept was fairly tenatious.
Er, ah, well Theo might just be taken at his word – shrugging at a message board pile-on.
God’s existence has been conclusively established by Cecil. And Spinoza. Of course there are a few minor loose strings to tie up here and there, some of them involving the question of the His sentience. But we haven’t adequately modeled consciousness yet, so speculation of this is sort of like discussing the grippe in the days before the germ theory of disease. There is evidence that consciousness is disassociated from dead brains, but that doesn’t tell us what sort of active structures can generate it and which can’t. So a nature-based or emergent sentience can’t be ruled out yet.
Ouija boards make falsifiable predictions. Also the other kind.[sup]1[/sup]
I have difficulty parsing your irritation over the past 2 pages.
JS Mill tacked on his own proof of God: He exists because if He doesn’t all hell will break loose: He is needed to restrain people from evil deeds. The underlying argument is a sound one, even if it is encoded and made indirectly. But it’s been mostly falsified. In contrast with religious fanatics, militant atheists are even less prone to violence than the freaking Sea Shepherds. Yeah, there’s Stalin and Mao, but they were mostly advancing a Communist state apparatus: atheism was more of a sideline. It’s a little odd. You would think that promises of eternal torture would restrain people. I have to believe that there is some partly robust evidence that the religious are less prone to violate Christian standards of kindness and brotherliness, but I haven’t come across it.
[sup]1[/sup]The ideomotor effect can plausibly explain dousing. But Ouija boards? You’re saying that a planchette can amplify muscular microtremors with sufficient precision so as to spell out full sentences? I’m highly dubious. I might believe it if we’re discussing Yes vs. No vs. Maybe – but more detailed messages are routinely spelled out. Science has yet to explain the mystery of the Ouija board -a powerful device more than 100 years old, with registration at the US patent office- with the ideomotor effect. Luckily there are other methodologies, grounded upon a blase yet cynical frame of mind.
I’m pleased you brought this up as it gives a perfect way to show how the scientific method works and gives others a chance to clarify your understanding.
The planchette amplifies nothing, the other humans amplify the microtremors they feel until a coherent direction emerges. Each person contributes to the overall movement by an amount barely detectable to our own senses but in combination, enough to move the glass/planchette/whatever. If that is the mechanism then it doesn’t matter whether the message is simple yes/no or more detailed. It emerges in the same way. It only takes one of the participants to have an idea of what they think is trying to be said and so for their microtremors to be slightly more than the others…a coherent message follows.
If we hypothesise that the planchette works independently of human input then we can easily build a test for that. Blindfold the participants and perhaps randomise the letters and then see whether we get coherent answers, gibberish or nothing.
Of course further blinding and other controls are required but in essence that is how we go about it.
here is a video with Prof. Chris French saying that yes, indeed, the ideomotor effect is at work. It is part of a neat sequence of videos dealing with the paranormal in general and Chris French is a highly respected expert in this field. Highly experienced in setting up and running double-blind experiments of all manner of phenomenon.
Now all of that may seem OT but it isn’t really. Those with an interest and belief in the paranormal get quite annoyed when others put forward natural explanations for their favourite phenomenon. We can just as easily get labelled with that “intolerant” tag under those circumstances.
Exactly the same is true with religion. A supernatural claim is made, a more parsimonious natural explanation is given and angry finger pointing ensues.
In real life I mostly leave people to their beliefs (as long as they harm no-one else) but here on this message board…of all places! I think we owe it to ourselves to address ignorance. And ignorance it often is. Not a pejorative, merely an observation. Many people simply aren’t aware of other possible explanations for religious belief and perceived phenomena. Pretty much every thing that the religious put forward as evidence of the supernatural has a more plausible explanation grounded in the natural world.
I understand why people prefer the magical alternatives but it is not intolerant to point out how and why such explanations are lacking.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs ]
No, it’s ridiculously arrogant and presumptuous, regardless of how you try to spin it.
[/QUOTE]
How so? Under Judeo-Christian theology, God loves all his children, albeit occasionally in a co-dependent manner.
[/quote]
The fact that it’s a common part of their theology makes it no less arrogant and presumptuous to claim that not only do they know that there is a creator, not only do they know how he feels (and is anthropomorphic to have human comprehensible emotions), but he conveniently loves them. And then on top of that make a point of talking about humble and liberated you are. Pure egomaniacal wish fulfillment.
I have no idea what you are talking about; no one has demonstrated that a god is even possible, much less real. The lightspeed limit on information transfer makes any sort of universal mind impossible. And if something isn’t sentient, it isn’t God. The word & concept “God” isn’t based on facts; it is a human wish fulfillment fantasy. If a hypothetical or a real being doesn’t fit that fantasy then it isn’t God, any more than a hornless six legged critter with scales would qualify as a unicorn.
Believers themselves very seldom take such “gods” seriously; they turn up almost exclusively in arguments like this one as a counter to skeptics. As soon as the skeptics stop talking, out comes the classic anthropomorphic God with a hangup on sex.
As far as I know, the limited evidence available generally shows the opposite; that’s probably why you almost never see any studies on the subject. Since most people are believers, very few people want to compare believers and unbelievers if they think the believers will look worse.
Like how something like the history of astronomy just isn’t known by most people. And even when you post a link to sources and shit that show them how they are wrong, or were wrong, they just can’t fucking stand to be wrong about anything. So some mental switch flips and it just doesn’t get through.
Like in this case. I don’t know who is an atheist or isn’t, because I don’t give a shit. But the larger issue of intolerance, which is based on ignorance, that fucked up position isn’t just the uncomfortable ass licking of the deist alone.
You can see it right here in dis thread here.
Thank you. The 1920’s would just be when it was proven to be true then.
:rolleyes:
Kneel before Zod!
It is a rather nebulous difference.