Are you an atheist?

[Uncle Gizmo]

Are you an atheist? Are you an atheist?

My sister gave my daughter a Christian religious book for Christmas.

Not a bad thing as the Christian teachings on how you should live your life are, in the main very good examples.

The book obviously prompted religious thoughts in my daughter and she asked me if I believed in God.

This is what I said:-

Some men got together (it's nearly always men) and they said that God had spoke to them and everyone else should do what they say because they could speak to god and if they didn't do what they say then god would send them to hell.

I said it's like this just imagine you brought home a boyfriend who had studs in his nose, lips, ears, who was arrogant and disrespectful, and I said you are NOT seeing THAT boy.

And then imagine you said to me:- but Dad Father Christmas said it's ok. What do you thinks going to happen?

Anyway a few days later this boyfriend turned up with studs in his nose and lips and ears and I said to him do You Believe in Father Christmas? He said no so I told him to f off...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have already posted I thing the legless lizard is a dead end. I also think monitor lizards are dead ends.

The problem is that we cannot tell the difference between a dead-end (in the sense you are using it) and something at the top of its local food pyramid that has no NEED to evolve. The effect would be the same, yet the cause would be radically different.

Consider, for example, alligators and crocodiles, which have not significantly evolved in hundreds of thousands or even for millions of years based on fossil evidence. They have not changed for a long time even though it usually takes less than 20,000 years for evolution by controlled breeding or other forces to take effect. See, for example, dogs and cats, both of which evolved from some common critters: dogs bred from wolves, cats spontaneously bred from small wild cats, both starting in Neolithic times. There are also the finches on the various South Pacific islands, mostly the Galapagos, where Darwin first developed his theories. They have spontaneously differentiated since the Darwin visits.

The only TRUE evolutionary dead-end is the species that dies out because it can no longer compete. The dodo and the greater auk (sp?) fall into this category. The early hominids that were crowded out by the Australopithecines and Neanderthals fall into this category. So does Homo neanderthalis, for that matter.

Speaking of the Everglades and their 'gator population and the balance of nature...

The Louisiana Alligators were in some danger of dying off, to the point of becoming an endangered species. That would have put a lot of Cajuns at risk for losing income due to the potential loss of 'gator trapping as a profession. Due to anti-fur animal rights activism, there was a resurgence in the population of nutria, which by odd circumstance happens to be the perfect bite-sized morsel for medium to large 'gators.

Nature rebalanced itself because the animal-huggers objected to folks killing an animal that (1) wasn't native to Louisiana anyway - it was imported from South America where it is called the coypu; (2) breeds on a par with rabbits; (3) denudes areas of all vegetation (worse than goats), thus risking erosion or soil collapse when plants and root systems die; (4) actually has nice fur usable for functional jackets, because it has the two-layer coarse/fine fur layout; (5) burrows into embankments, which become weaker and eventually give way, causing flooding of homes in areas that would not have flooded if the nutria hadn't done their plant activity. But of course, the hippie animal-rights activists won't operate on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, nature took care of the problem by letting the nutria become the savior of the 'gator species. Now the only creature above the 'gator in the food chain is the South Louisiana Cajun - and that species will eat just about ANYTHING.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Nature rebalanced itself because the animal-huggers objected to folks killing an animal that (1) wasn't native to Louisiana anyway - it was imported from South America where it is called the coypu; (2) breeds on a par with rabbits; (3) denudes areas of all vegetation (worse than goats), thus risking erosion or soil collapse when plants and root systems die; (4) actually has nice fur usable for functional jackets, because it has the two-layer coarse/fine fur layout; (5) burrows into embankments, which become weaker and eventually give way, causing flooding of homes in areas that would not have flooded if the nutria hadn't done their plant activity. But of course, the hippie animal-rights activists won't operate on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, nature took care of the problem by letting the nutria become the savior of the 'gator species. Now the only creature above the 'gator in the food chain is the South Louisiana Cajun - and that species will eat just about ANYTHING.

Hey, Doc, your opinions are showing!

BTW:

It may surprise some to know that I'm NOT one of those 'save the cute critters' animal-rights activists, ESPECIALLY when the critter in question is a non-native threat to the local environment. (See for reference the topic of rabbits in Australia and the sheer amount of damage they've caused.)

 

[Alc]

It may surprise some to know that I'm NOT one of those 'save the cute critters' animal-rights activists, ESPECIALLY when the critter in question is a non-native threat to the local environment.

I can see certain people drawing a comparison between that and the influx of non-Christian and/or non-white people to the UK and US (but I agree with you about the animals).

 

[Frothingslosh]

Interesting (if basic and short) contrast and comparison of animal rights activism vs environmentalism: http://animalrights.about.com/od/an...Animal-Rights-And-Environmental-Movements.htm

Personally, I think the 'no fur, no meat, no animal products, no animals must be affected by humanity in any way, shape or form' types are both naive as hell and freaking insane.

I can see certain people drawing a comparison between that and the influx of non-Christian and/or non-white people to the UK and US (but I agree with you about the animals).

I can think of at least one. After all, Murderboy has called me the single most extreme Liberal he has ever heard of in his life. (Yeah, he's apparently led quite the sheltered life, but still... .)

 

[AccessBlaster]

.. After all, Murderboy has called me the single most extreme Liberal he has ever heard of in his life. (Yeah, he's apparently led quite the sheltered life, but still... .)

Basically anyone who disagrees with him is a flaming liberal. You could be a NRA member, thump your Old Testament twice on Sunday. But if your from California, you are a pink tutu wearing commie fag who doesn't deserve to be saved.

 

[Libre]

I don't think it's right or fair to be lambasting a forum member who is not present. It's one thing to engage someone directly, but making up names (other than the made-up names the person made up for themselves), representing their philosophy in your own way, putting words in their mouth - it's not right. And I'm directing my comments to both Access Blaster and Frothingslosh. I get that some of us are atheists and some are devout. Some are liberals and some are John Birchers. We come here to express our thoughts and engage in discussion. I think that we could show some more tolerance for those who think differently than we, who believe in different things than we, and who want to interpret the meaning of the Bible in their own way. Live and let live. We're not all the same. I never got the slightest feeling from Bladerunner's posts that he wants children murdered. You can quote some passage from some post somewhere, but if that's the complaint, then why not address it with Bladerunner himself? Let him, in his own words, say what he thinks - if he chooses. He can change and correct himself if he wants to, or he can try to correct your interpretation of what he meant - or he can double down on his original statements. But let it come from him.
I don't want to see this forum become a cliquish coffee klatch (that's a real tongue-twister).
I'm only supporting the idea of free expression without reprisals. Attack the idea, not the person who proposed it. That's all.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I have called him that since shortly after he made his comment that murdering children was completely acceptable as long as their parents were either non-Christian or sinners, and have done so without exception, including when speaking directly to him.

Be offended if you wish, but I am hardly speaking behind his back.

Here is the original post in its entirety:

One other point I forgot to make. The children that were killed in Egypt went to a place for the OT called paradise to await their entry into heaven automatically...At the beginning of the 'Age of the Grace' (Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection), they were transferred to heaven (Eph 4:7-9) Depriving the children of this life is a good way to get them away from nay sayers and sinners and all the bad examples. Besides , they are all in a better place than either you or I.

Blade

Please pay careful attention to that second-to-last sentence.

Note that the very next post is me calling him out on it. My referring to him as Murderboy, both when speaking to him and when referring to him, instead of using his chosen moniker started shortly afterward, and will continue until such time as he retracts his statement that the murder of children for ideological reasons is a good thing.

 

[Libre]

The children killed in Egypt were killed by the (so called) Lord's Angel of Death. They were not murdered by people. It's hardly accurate, based on the quote, to claim that Bladerunner is advocating the murder of children, today, in our society. He was referring to biblical times and killing by God's agent.
I think the whole story is hideous - yet millions of "my people" (we Jews) celebrate this event every year, twice. I don't think it would be fair to say that Jews advocate murdering children, yet it's exactly the same thing. We celebrate the plagues, of which the slaying of the Egyptian first born was the 10th and final. As an atheist/agnostic myself, I find the whole thing horrible, yet it's a joyous time; the family and friends all get together, and we take turns reading from the Passover Haggadah, sing Di Anu, and have a good time.
And I didn't say I was (nor am I) offended.
I'm advocating tolerance and to refrain from attacks against forum members.
But you will do as you wish - I'm only saying what I think is right and wrong.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And I'm saying that stating that "Depriving the children of this life is a good way to get them away from nay sayers and sinners and all the bad examples." was in no way, shape, or form meant as JUST being applicable to Egypt only; if he had meant that, he'd have said WAS, the way he did with the rest of his post.

He had ample chances to change his tune before he went on hiatus again; he chose not to. In fact, he doubled down a few posts later and stated that that's what the Bible says, so that's what is correct.

As I said, he will remain Murderboy every time I reference him until such time as he retracts that statement, which he refused to do. Seeing as I call him that when directly conversing with him, I have no issue with using that same name when speaking ABOUT him (which I normally try to avoid). I am, after all, hardly doing it behind his back.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Its not like he is in exile or banished from the forum. He is welcome back anytime to defend himself.

I like him personally, but when he mixes his politics with his religion its a really distorted view of reality.

And yes my comments were a little exaggerated.

 

[aziz rasul]

15. “O mankind (nas), you are the ones who are in need of Allaah, while Allaah is the Self-Sufficient, Worthy of all Praise.

16. If He Wills, he could do away with you and bring forth a new creation.

17. And that is not hard for Allaah.”

Qur’an – Surah Fatir (The Creator) 35:15-17
See also 4:133, 14:19-20 and 79:27

Verse 16 suggests that if God can create a new mankind, maybe He did so in the past.

 

[Alc]

The book is true because the book says so.
Bible, Torah or Qu'ran, doesn't matter.

People of a more scientific or logical bent want to see evidence to back the books up.
People who are more willing to take something as truth as long as they're told it's true say that the books are proof in themselves.

We're not likely to make any new headway here.

 

[aziz rasul]

The book is true because the book says so.

Wrong. The book is true if there are no contradictions in it and verses relating to provable stuff e.g. science match i.e. there should be no conflict between Science and True Scripture as Monsignor George Henri Lemaitre said many decades ago.

People of a more scientific or logical bent want to see evidence to back the books up.

That’s what I was trying to do, but you have simply ignored that fact.

We're not likely to make any new headway here.

You probably won’t, I agree. A closed mind never does.

 

[Alc]

Wrong. The book is true if there are no contradictions in it and verses relating to provable stuff e.g. science match i.e. there should be no conflict between Science and True Scripture as Monsignor George Henri Lemaitre said many decades ago.


That’s what I was trying to do, but you have simply ignored that fact.

Ok, database process is taking time anyway so *sigh* here we go again:

15. “O mankind (nas), you are the ones who are in need of Allaah, while Allaah is the Self-Sufficient, Worthy of all Praise.
This verse, passage or whatever it's called proves nothing. Nothing at all. Zip, nada, nothing. It makes grammatical sense, up to a point, but that's it.

16. If He Wills, he could do away with you and bring forth a new creation.
See the above response. This PROVES nothing. You are saying a being that you cannot prove exists can do something. Okay, by the same token, Superman can fly and lift an aircraft carrier. I've written that, so now it's true. See the difference between PROOF and just having something written down?

17. And that is not hard for Allaah.”
If he, she or it is real, correct.
If he, she or it is fictional, also correct (hell, look at what Harry Potter can do!)
The tough bit is PROVING that Allaah is real.

Qur’an – Surah Fatir (The Creator) 35:15-17
See also 4:133, 14:19-20 and 79:27
Verse 16 suggests that if God can create a new mankind, maybe He did so in the past.
'Suggests' and 'maybe' are not proof words. When applied to a being whose existence is far from proven, they become even more doubtful.

You probably won’t, I agree. A closed mind never does.
A closed mind never agrees. I that a Muslim saying, then? I'd have thought any religion relies and depends on it, yours included. As soon as people start questioning things for themselves, that's when we get scientific progress, sexual equality, and the like, and story books have less impact on people's day-to-day lives. Far better for you that people remain close minded and only accept what's written in the book, surely?

 

[aziz rasul]

This verse, passage or whatever it's called proves nothing. Nothing at all. Zip, nada, nothing. It makes grammatical sense, up to a point, but that's it.

As a non-believer, that is predictable.

See the above response. This PROVES nothing. You are saying a being that you cannot prove exists can do something. Okay, by the same token, Superman can fly and lift an aircraft carrier. I've written that, so now it's true. See the difference between PROOF and just having something written down?

Who says that God’s existence cannot be proven? You may not be able to, it doesn’t mean that others can’t. The fact that verse suggests that God can do away with mankind and create a new one is to me interesting. The fossil evidence of previous mankind would fit with this concept of doing away with previous mankind and creating a new one. After all God is the Creator. See 59:24 below.

He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names; whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

You can write whatever you want, but the main difference is that what you wrote is nonsense and everyone except young children know it. You can’t COMPARE God’s words with yours.

The tough bit is PROVING that Allaah is real.

Not really. If you are truly seeking the TRUTH and seeking whether God is real and exists, then you will find Him, otherwise it will always allude you because your stance is to ridicule.

'Suggests' and 'maybe' are not proof words. When applied to a being whose existence is far from proven, they become even more doubtful.

If God is the Creator then He must have created the earlier species of man.

A closed mind never agrees. I that a Muslim saying, then? I'd have thought any religion relies and depends on it, yours included. As soon as people start questioning things for themselves, that's when we get scientific progress, sexual equality, and the like, and story books have less impact on people's day-to-day lives. Far better for you that people remain close minded and only accept what's written in the book, surely?

OK remain close minded. God in the Qur’an asks us to reason, think, listen, reflect, etc. If you wish I can provide the verses but you will only ridicule them anyway. You, incorrectly assume that all adherents of faith blindly follow their faith. Well not all of us do. Many, unfortunately do, which is not in keeping with the Qur’an.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

FINALLY! An Islamic poster.

Aziz, let me introduce you to Bladerunner, I think you two may be the only ones who actually understand each other, though you might hate each other. Know your enemy and all that.

So the Koran doesn't contradict itself and that's your proof? Oh wait, is this because of the concept of abrogation - aka the Koran so blatantly contradicted itself that Islam came up with a specific theology to address contradictions. Yeah, that makes sense...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The book is true if there are no contradictions in it and verses relating to provable stuff e.g. science match

By this standard, the stories told in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are true. Professor Tolkien was EXTREMELY meticulous in his writing. For that matter, the Harry Potter stories have no provable falsehoods because the wizards actively hide all evidence of the existence of ongoing magic and magical creatures. So the Harry Potter stories must also be true - by your stated standard.

Who says that God’s existence cannot be proven? You may not be able to, it doesn’t mean that others can’t.

By strict interpretation of the language, you are correct. However, it is significant that in more than 2000 years, nobody has successfully done so in a way that can be documented outside of the scriptures themselves. And a self-referential (i.e. circular) proof is no proof at all. It is worth the shape that it resembles - a big, fat zero.

Aziz, I fully and completely acknowledge your right to believe something. However, what constitutes proof for you does not constitute proof for me. Do you NOT acknowledge my right to believe other than you do - and thus disagree with you?

As to the "proof" point, I must admit that I don't know a certain specific thing about Islamic beliefs, but in Christian beliefs I know this for a fact: IF you can prove the existence of God, the god (little-g) you proved to exist isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph - because "only through faith" can we come to know God.

Does Islam have the equivalent of an "only through faith" disclaimer? If it does, that is a fatal flaw in ANY argument about proof of God's (or Allah's) existence.

 

[Alc]

Aziz, let me introduce you to Bladerunner, I think you two may be the only ones who actually understand each other, though you might hate each other. Know your enemy and all that.

Compare the posts. It wouldn't be the first time someone created another username for themselves on here, in order to post agreement with something they already said.

Not making accusations. It just seems coincidental that both can't argue a point without posting references to a book.

 

[Vassago]

Compare the posts. It wouldn't be the first time someone created another username for themselves on here, in order to post agreement with something they already said.

Not making accusations. It just seems coincidental that both can't argue a point without posting references to a book.

Not really much of a coincidence there. That's a very common tactic for any almost all religious fanatics. I can pretty much confirm they are not the same person. Aziz just hasn't been around in a long time.