Summations Only

This makes me wonder what Chuck's list would look like were its inaccuracies and errors corrected or removed. Here's my attempt:

10. You vigorously deny the existence of God. You don't blame Him for all the "evils" in the world, all the natural disasters, and everything else under the sun that is wrong in modern society, because you don't believe he exists.
    ​
9. You don't mind that creationists say that people were created in the image and likeness of God as long as they keep these beliefs out of science class. You accept the position of science that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.
   ​
8. You criticize fundamental Christians for believing the Bible is the literally inerrant word of God rather than a book written by men. To you the Bible is just another book, open to criticism just like all books, including those written by Darwin and Richard Dawkins.
   ​
7. You think that murder is murder, whether carried out by Muslims, Christians, Atheists or anyone else.
   ​
6. You say the Bible is full of fairytales and fables. You believe all life forms including plants, trees, insects, birds, fish, reptiles and mammals evolved from one species into another.
   ​
5. You are amused by those who believe the Supernatural is real. You accept scientific explanations of reality, including that life today evolved over billions of years through a process of random mutation and natural selection.
   ​
4. You accuse fundamentalist Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, which is true, but this often causes you to respond in intolerant, judgmental and hateful ways.
   ​
3. You accept the principle of cause and effect where evidence supports its application. Many of you understand the principles of thermodynamics and the differences between closed and open systems. You understand that our knowledge in all fields of science is necessarily incomplete and tentative.
   ​
2. You understand that there is no conclusive evidence for a Creator. You understand that absolute truth is an ideal. You understand that the theory of evolution is not a theory of the creation of the universe. You understand that morality is a human and not a scientific concept.
   ​
1. You understand that Atheism is not an explanation of any eternal, unchanging truths, and that Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance whatsoever. You believe that when we die that is the end, and that there is no ultimate purpose.

--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Incidentally, since you you didn't actually write this, I have to wonder how much of it you think you understand? The inane babblings about thermodynamics and "cause and effect", for example --- do they even mean anything to you? Or are you just reciting this nonsense as yet another meaningless religious ritual?

There is no such thing as a "typical" atheist. The only quality necessary to be considered an atheist is a "no" to the question: "do you believe in a god/s?". Sure, there are things a lot of atheists agree on, but since there is no central dogma to atheism, none of that matters as far as atheism is concerned. Could you rephrase this? It sounds as though you are saying a creator is the only logical "theory" for the beginning of this universe. Is this what you are saying?

I'm not saying that it is the only logical theory, but, rather, that it is no more illogical than any other theory.

Contrary to theist belief, logic is not in the eye of the beholder. You see, we have data on our side, whereas those who think a creator dun it have....belief? Faith? Occams Razor dictates yours to be rather illogical regardless if science says "we don't yet know". "I don't know" is a far shot more logical than positing a sky fairy did it, what with there not being a single spot of evidence for this "creator".Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

It all depends what one considers evidence to be.

quote:

---

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. evidenced, evidencing, evidences
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

---

As you can see, outward signs of emotion, based on real or imagined experience, constitute evidence...of something. Granted, we have nary a spot of evidence as to what that something is or was. Of the oral statements and "testimonies" of other humans, we individually and collectively decide which to accept and which to reject. Given that there are theists as well as atheists, as well as a myriad of other beliefs, the strict definition of evidence is far from conclusive either way concerning God, gods, and other ideas. My point, I suppose, is that theism is a satisfactory alternative belief over observable reality. Myth has its place, and we cannot rule out some truth being found amongst myths.

Yes, evidence that you have a functioning brain. While such things may be satisfactory evidence for yourself, they fail to be satisfactory evidence for anyone else that doesn't quite think as you do. This, I think, is a good qualification for evidence: does it stand up to scrutiny outside of your own imagination? So, the evidence you provide is a fair shade different from what I, and would dare say the scientific community, would consider evidence.For example: I was watching some forensic show last night with my fiance. There was a woman who was raped and they had found the "perp". She swore up and down he was the guy AND he fit the description. When they ran the DNA test, he was not a match. When she found this out, she STILL believed him to be guilty. So much so, that she admitted to purchasing a gun and waiting outside his house with intent to kill (why she didn't get jail time or something is beyond me). 10 years goes by and they found a guy who committed another, similar, crime. He was a DNA match for the first crime.What does this tell us about personal belief and testimony compared to scientific data? Personal testimony and belief is fucking worthless for anyone but the individual with said testimony and belief.

In your example, you have evidence against the suspect. In the case of a Creator, (or if you prefer, suspect) we basically have no evidence for or against. Unless I'm missing something......

My point was that she still believed him to be the perp even with evidence to the contrary. Theists still believe in this creator with no evidence either way. As I said before, Occams Razor dictates the creator to be an unnecessary entity.

But it would be a sign of a sophisticated debater who can both deny the existence of God while also being able to point out that one of the consequences of the existence of God would be its moral culpability in the creation and perpetuation of evil. I've never come across such a creature. Furthermore, I see nothing that is either insulting or dehumanizing about being a human that is descended from non-humans. Yep that would be foolish, but I have yet to see an atheist that believes in the infallibility of the written word of Darwin or Dawkins. I would say that it would be a sign of a foolish Christian who supposes that a fundamentalist Muslim believes killing innocents is justified. I know some fundamentalist Muslims and they are adamant that killing innocent people is not only unjustified but a grotesque sin that will result in the burning in hell of the transgressor.There are extremist Muslims that believe it is justified to kill people that I, as a humanist, consider innocent (but they themselves believe are suitably guilty). But then, there are extremist Christians who have murdered, or supported murder and torture of people that as a humanist, I consider to be innocent (but who they consider to be murderers (such as doctors that perform abortions), or heathens (such as with the Inquisition)). I don't think that the Bible constitutes a fairy tale, though some aspects of it are clearly in the same form as fables (talking animals and moral points to make through metaphor, allusion and analogy etc). Evolution isn't a fairy tale, it contains no princesses, no supernatural elements and no fairies. It is also not a fable since it has no moral point to make and has no animals speaking human languages or any other hallmarks of fairytales and fables.I would say that calling an observed and evidentially supported process a work of fiction designed to impart some moral statement or teach some other important life lesson would be the work of a foolish theist. Scientists have calculated no such thing. Since we have yet to learn exactly how life originated, it is impossible to calculate the probability of that event occurring.I have not met an atheist that thought there was nothing wrong with billions of years of random mutations resulting in the impossible. I have met many atheists who agree that mutations along with selection pressures can result in the improbable over long time scales. I fail to see what is foolish about getting upset that some subset of people are generally intolerant, judgemental and hateful. Surely we should be upset that there are such people. At best you might succeed in a charge of hypocrisy here, though I don't think it is hateful or intolerant to say someone is hateful and intolerant. Cause and effect is a philosophical concept (called determinism), not a scientific one. I've never met an atheist that ignores determinism. From the rest of the rant, it appears you might be upset that some atheists draw a distinction between observations of things within the universe applying to the universe itself. I don't think that making this distinction implies a person is foolish.But I've long since given up trying to understand anti-evolutionists when they bring upthermodynamics since it almost universally foolish, and this point does not seem to be an exception to this rule. The evidence/logic/reasoning does not point to a Creator. That would be the position of an atheist, not just our hypothetical foolish atheist.Atheists are very vocal in trying to tell people that the theory of evolution is nothing to do with the creation of the universe and it is foolish theists that see this as being somehow problematic. Though evolution (along with its mathematical cousin, Game Theory) has successfully explained why good and evil exists. Start a thread, I'll be happy to educate on the matter. I'm not sure why this is a sign of someone being a foolish atheist, it seems to be a criticism of atheism in general.Anyway, atheism not only fails to explain the 'existence of eternal, unchanging truths' it also fails to explain the 'existence of temporal, changing truths'. It does this because atheism is not an explanation of anything. It is the lack of belief in deities, for whatever reason.Atheism doesn't offer meaning or morality, but neither does theism.Atheistic philosophies can provide those things, just as theistic philosophies can. But simply theism tells us nothing about meaning or morality or significance or purpose.

Edited by Tangle, : Wrong reply button

This has all the hallmarks of a drive-by posting.

Hilarious.But why did you start a new thread, instead of posting in humor.Come to think of it, that's what's hilarious - that you actually thought this was serious enough to warrant a new thread.

I find it sad and deserving only of pity that Chuck77 would post something so obviously false and sophomoric.

I have yet to see an Atheist call any natural disaster an "Act of God" I leave that to the Fundies. Since an Atheist believes in no gods, how can one be "created in the likeness of one.?" I question anything that does not have ample evidence to back it up be it the Bible , Darwin or anything else. Since the Koran is not the word of Mohammad and the Bible is not the word of Christ, the point is moot. The bible is a bunch of fables, allegories, myths, legends and historical fiction. No physical evidence, whereas evolution does have physical evidence to back it up. Unless the odds are 1 to 0, it is possible. If the shoe fits, wear it. Nothing in science is set in stone, we leave that for religious fanatics. Show me this evidence Atheism doesn't attempt to explain anything, Atheism is simply a belief in no deities. And what is an unchanging truth?