Documentary: The Unbelievers (Official Trailer)

[wurd2]

if my position were continually changing my saying you are full of shit would be meaningless. but seeing as you continually make this charge and have yet to QUOTE where I have changed my stated belief or adjusted my verse switches speaks loudly to just how full of unmittigated shit you are.

(sigh)

You've made it quite clear that you accept some parts of the bible as literal and some parts as figurative.

And here you are trying to argue that I need to provide an instance of you flipping a switch to accuse you of playing the apologist literal/figurative flip-flop game with respect to biblical verses.

Do you really expect me to believe that 150 years ago you would have been the one person to regard the biblical account of creation as figurative? Evolutionary theory was in its infancy stage at the time.

The state of your literal/figurative verse switches is dependent upon our scientific knowledge. You've already agreed here that our scientific knowledge is in motion. Therefore the state of your literal/figurative verse switches is in flux with respect to scientific discovery over time.

Your move genius.

.

 

[RDJ]

You never responded to my post regarding the mutual exclusivity of science and theism. If you don't wish to that is fine, I thought we were having a somewhat worthwhile discussion.
.

and I am not going to either. I keep forgeting that you can't discuss this stuff with close minded people. and yes, both you and yout e-twin in athieism are closed minded.

 

[TheCPE]

lol. I honestly don't see how it's any worse than telling our children that they have evolved from a primordial soup, into a fish, into a monkey, into a human.

That isn't precisely what evolution claims, however, we actually do have evidence of evolution as was covered by previous posts in this thread. Thus, I don't feel they are at all equal, one is teaching something based upon empirical evidence the other is teaching based upon clearly erroneous information from bronze age men.

Especially when you teach it to them as fact, when in reality it's just the leading theory and is subject to change as science progresses.

There may eventually be more discoveries regarding evolution however it is highly unlikely that it will ever be entirely overturned. That is the thing, science is perfectly fine with theories becoming more resolved.

It's sobering to see the amount of kids and young adults who accept that Evolution is fact and not debatable. It's pretty insulting and degrading to our children, as well as non-progressive and redundant.

Any person that thinks they have a better explanation is more than capable of providing their theory and evidence. I'm sure at a minimum a nobel prize will be awarded.

I'm not sure how it is degrading or non-progressive or redundant...

 

[TheCPE]

and I am not going to either. I keep forgeting that you can't discuss this stuff with close minded people. and yes, both you and yout e-twin in athieism are closed minded.

Well I surely don't see how I am close minded about this and I thought I was being more than respectful while disagreeing with you. :shrug:

The day there is empirical evidence of a god I assure you I'll follow where the findings lead, until then I unfortunately am not a person of faith, I prefer to base my beliefs on observation through my senses.

 

[wurd2]

This thread had potential but when you invoke the name of Richard Dawkins and start talking about the THEORY of evolution and the Big Bang...then you are on the same level playing field as the 'Bible Thumper.'

Get back to me when you show me a video of the Big Bang and how I morphed from an ape to a human. Then and only then do you have the upper hand! Until then, you are just another pompous twit holding up a book like me.

if my position were continually changing my saying you are full of shit would be meaningless. but seeing as you continually make this charge and have yet to QUOTE where I have changed my stated belief or adjusted my verse switches speaks loudly to just how full of unmittigated shit you are.

you also continue to say that I have said they are "compatible" when that is not what I have said at all. the fact that you are unable to tell the difference between "they are compatible" and "they are not mutually exclusive" is saying more about your lack oof intelligence than anything else.

For two members who believe their souls will be preserved for eternity in the kingdom of heaven, you two sure speak with a great deal of vile.



.

 

[wurd2]

I keep forgeting that you can't discuss this stuff with close minded people. and yes, both you and yout e-twin in athieism are closed minded.

For the 2nd time now:

.

 

[Rainmaker]

Thus, I don't feel they are at all equal, one is teaching something based upon empirical evidence the other is teaching based upon clearly erroneous information from bronze age men.

Do you have proof that the Bible is erroneous, or is that just your opinion?

op:

There may eventually be more discoveries regarding evolution however it is highly unlikely that it will ever be entirely overturned. That is the thing, science is perfectly fine with theories becoming more resolved.

That's a pretty bold and naive statement considering what 'science' was just 200 years ago. Imagine what we will know in another 200 years.

I'm not sure how it is degrading or non-progressive or redundant...

It is incredibly degrading, non-progressive and redundant to teach our children that there is no meaningful purpose for their life, and that their existence is one of pure, unlikely coincidence. How you fail to see this is puzzling.

And the fact that you consider it 'child-abuse' to teach them on the cont rare that there is a God who formed them, designed them with a purpose and who loves them. I guess you hold a very subjective view of what child abuse really means.

While we are at it, we should also stop punishing people for murder, rape, incest, cannibalism, etc, etc. After all, we are all just animals doing what is natural with no instinctive moral compass (that science can't account for). Atheists hold a double standard that is comical.

"There are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there's nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you're a male. You can't move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice."

- Sam Harris (ABC Radio National-The Religion Report, "Science Fatwah? Part 2: Sam Harris," December 20, 2006)

 

[wurd2]

Do you have proof that the Bible is erroneous...?

Here's a visual diagram of 437 contradictions in the bible that conclusively demonstrate it's fallible:


Note: Click for a full picture of reality.

With respect to contradiction line item #4:

1 Samuel 22:20
And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

1 Samuel 23:6
And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.

2 Samuel 8:17
And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe;

1 Chronicles 18:16
And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Shavsha was scribe;

1 Chronicles 24:6
And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the fathers of the priests and Levites: one principal household being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar.

Was Abiathar the son or the father of Ahimelech?

:shrug:

.

 

[wurd2]

That's a pretty bold and naive statement considering what 'science' was just 200 years ago. Imagine what we will know in another 200 years.

The odds of evolutionary theory—having survived over 150 years of systematic and rigorous scrutiny on the part of millions of collaborating scientists all eager to make a name for themselves—being discarded by a failed prediction about the natural world are astronomically improbable.

The only way to discount a scientific theory is to make a counter observation with respect to something it predicts.

All it takes is one.

It is incredibly degrading, non-progressive and redundant to teach our children that there is no meaningful purpose for their life, and that their existence is one of pure, unlikely coincidence. How you fail to see this is puzzling.

You say this as if there's nothing wrong with teaching children they will suffer for eternity in hell unless they believe in the divinity Jesus Christ, for which there is zero evidence.

That all meaning of life is removed by the reality we may have come about by an extensive series of non-randomly selected random accidents is an opinion which I, and several others, do not share.

And the fact that you consider it 'child-abuse' to teach them on the cont rare that there is a God who formed them, designed them with a purpose and who loves them. I guess you hold a very subjective view of what child abuse really means.

Children have no choice but to grow up and face the world for what it really is. Teaching them the truth, as it is determined by logic, reason, and evidence, will best prepare them for their enduring journey.

You can teach your children that God designed them and has a plan for their futures if you want to.

Odds are this will circumvent their future participation on the frontier of scientific discovery, especially in the arena of biology.

Have you ever bothered to imagine a world without science?

The fastest means of transportation would be a horse.

...we are all just animals doing what is natural with no instinctive moral compass (that science can't account for).

It isn't that science cannot account for our moral compass; it's that *YOUR KNOWLEDGE* of science cannot account for it.

We have mountains of observational evidence for morality in the wild. We call it reciprocal altruism. I can provide an example if you wish.

Atheists hold a double standard that is comical.

"There are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there's nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you're a male. You can't move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice."
- Sam Harris (ABC Radio National-The Religion Report, "Science Fatwah? Part 2: Sam Harris," December 20, 2006)

The primary definition of the term natural means occurs in nature.

Do you want to be so silly as to argue that supernovas aren't natural because they destroy solar systems when such wonton destruction is obviously very, very bad?

.

 

[TheCPE]

Do you have proof that the Bible is erroneous, or is that just your opinion?

Well just going off of the "4th grade science quiz", the earth is billions of years old, dinosaurs did live millions of years ago and not at the same time as humans. We have scientific evidence that refutes this all too the point that as covered in previous posts in this thread, even believers typically don't refute the scientific truths vs the biblical claims. There are some creationist but they are not the majority of believers.

That's a pretty bold and naive statement considering what 'science' was just 200 years ago. Imagine what we will know in another 200 years.

How many scientific theories based upon empiricism are you aware of that weren't just refined but that were entirely overturned? The way science works is perfectly fine with new discoveries, obviously as we learn more our theories will become more resolute.

It is incredibly degrading, non-progressive and redundant to teach our children that there is no meaningful purpose for their life, and that their existence is one of pure, unlikely coincidence. How you fail to see this is puzzling.

Who said there is no purpose to someone's life? If you require a god to exist for you to see purpose in your life than I feel sorry for you. I derive purpose in life not based upon some authority commanding me but on my own ambitions and my own desires.

And the fact that you consider it 'child-abuse' to teach them on the cont rare that there is a God who formed them, designed them with a purpose and who loves them. I guess you hold a very subjective view of what child abuse really means.

What is an abuse of the natural intellectual authority adults have over children is teaching blatantly erroneous ideas based upon dogma. That is called indoctrination and is very sad. Further, regarding the idea that this is teaching children that some being created them with purpose and loves them doesn't hold up... What is being taught is that they should obey perceived authority without question and that morality is not based upon reason but upon doing what you are told because god says so. That is precisely the way psychopathic people abuse and control other people.

While we are at it, we should also stop punishing people for murder, rape, incest, cannibalism, etc, etc. After all, we are all just animals doing what is natural with no instinctive moral compass (that science can't account for). Atheists hold a double standard that is comical.

This isn't accurate. Atheism first of all has nothing to do with morality. Atheism shouldn't even be a term that exists in the first place. There isn't a term for people that don't believe in unicorns. All an atheist is is a NON-theist.

Further, there is no reason that an objective morale code cannot exist without the existence of a god. Ideas regarding objective morality predates the Abrahamic religions.


Regarding your quote of Sam Harris and rape, I'm not sure if you misunderstood it or what point you are making after all he clearly states that we REPUDIATE the act morally whether it is argued as natural or not. This follows completely with the idea of an objective moral code of doing no harm to others you wouldn't want done to you.

 

[carrrnuttt]

and I am not going to either. I keep forgeting that you can't discuss this stuff with close minded people. and yes, both you and yout e-twin in athieism are closed minded.

I grew up in religion. Baptized THREE times. Once as an infant (Catholic), as a young teen (Born Again), and lastly as a young Airman at 19 (Baptist).

Would you call ME "closed-minded?"

Would you at least agree with me:

• That one camp is based on what is observable and mathematically calculable and therefore relatively predictable [eg., The Big Bang and the ever-expanding Universe]
• The other camp is based on taking the word written by Bronze Age men who'd more than likely A) fall on their knees and worship you or B) kill you for being the devil if you showed up in front of them with a working smartphone

Can we at least start with that, or am I too "closed-minded" to talk to as well?

 

[Myzticsnake]

lol. I honestly don't see how it's any worse than telling our children that they have evolved from a primordial soup, into a fish, into a monkey, into a human.

Especially when you teach it to them as fact, when in reality it's just the leading theory and is subject to change as science progresses.

It's sobering to see the amount of kids and young adults who accept that Evolution is fact and not debatable. It's pretty insulting and degrading to our children, as well as non-progressive and redundant.

People like you in this world (and let alone have influence over our future society) scare the absolute piss out of me. Even with all of the other nonsense I've read just in this thread, your words struck me the most.

I would absolutely beg you to please keep a truly open mind, and do the same with children (yours or anyone else's). Rational thought is THE absolute cornerstone to expanding the wonders of the universe and not putting bounds on any aspect of life. Rational thought is not eating up "facts" from science, anyone who says a theory is a "fact" is a charlatan and should be immediately discredited. Rational thought is using any and all evidence to make a determination of what the most likely solution is, but always remaining open to being proven false. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just what it says it is, a theory, because it can at anytime be proven wrong based on the discovery of contradicting evidence.

In my opinion Dawkins' work in this arena is pure child's play compared to the likes of Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins, to me, is nowhere near as thought out, or far along enough with his ideas to really be able to drive his views home. I think this video really hits upon everyone's views they have shown here and Hitchens does his absolute best to really show what "faith" is.

[youtube_browser]DwHR0cle_9M[/youtube_browser]

 

[wurd2]

Myzticsnake, thank you for your post.

It is refreshing to see that I am not alone in subscribing to the amazing work and voice of our dear late Christopher Hitchens, may God preserve his soul forever.

In my opinion Dawkins' work in this arena is pure child's play compared to the likes of Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins, to me, is nowhere near as thought out, or far along enough with his ideas to really be able to drive his views home.

As much as I respect professor Dawkins, I have to agree with you that on the critique of religion, and its relationship to all other subjects, including life itself, the work of Christopher Hitchens is entirely unparalleled. The next runner up, in my opinion, would be Sam Harris.

Dawkins described Christopher Hitchens as an orator of the mind.

He truly was.

I salute you Mr. Hitchens. Regarding the good fight, we'll take it from here.

On a side note, I am betting the documentary this thread references will include Christopher Hitchens. He's far too important a figure to leave him out. Come to think of it, I can't wait to watch a documentary on Hitchens himself.

.

 

[wurd2]

lol. I honestly don't see how it's any worse than telling our children that they have evolved from a primordial soup, into a fish, into a monkey, into a human.

Especially when you teach it to them as fact, when in reality it's just the leading theory and is subject to change as science progresses.

It's sobering to see the amount of kids and young adults who accept that Evolution is fact and not debatable. It's pretty insulting and degrading to our children, as well as non-progressive and redundant.

The only reason the *reality* of evolution comes to you as degrading is because your ego is far too inflated. Given that you believe the universe was designed with you in mind, despite the fact that it is doing everything in its power to kill you, your position is understandable, though not the least bit respectable.

That all life on earth is genetically unified is a beautiful and elegant explanation for the complexity and diversity of living organisms.

Evolutionary theory is the foundation of biology and medicine. It is here to stay.

Learn to accept reality for what it is.

.

 

[Teal Terminator]

Never heard of this so thanks for sharing. Definitely interested.