Wicked & Irresponsible
Offline Hello. I am newmodeltheist. I want to say a few words about your 'blasphemy challenge'
Your campaign is wicked and irresponsible. Young people find it relatively easy to rebel against the limits imposed on them by their parents or church, if they are of the mind to do so. Especially if they have mutual support from their own peers. What young people do not find so easy is to rebel against the limits imposed on them by jaded, predatory manufacturers of youth sub-cultures such as your own.
Go about your own beliefs and leave young people to find their own path in their own time as you had the privilage of doing (I get the impression that most of you had religion rammed down your throat). To target youngsters (proberbly much younger than yourselves) with mind-control of your own ("if you dont agree with us you're a stupid sheep" as opposed to "If you don't do as you're told you'll be punished"
is in some ways more abusive than than that dished out by authority figures. Why? Because by portraying yourselves as the plucky, free-thinking, anti-authoritarian hero, you're stealing from your victims the one mythology they need for themselves for their own personal empowerment.
I have no need to debate you on your own views. I went through all this myself and came out safely on the other side. Just please stop targeting young people and using them in your adolescent campaign against Christendom, the traditional faith of the west.
nmt
- Login to post comments
deludedgod no I am not high. I will take a look at the article you cited. Or if you wish you can make a few comments here as to what it says.
Deludedgod, please PLEASE I beg you. Stop making threats, DO IT, get your biological titans to demonstate the reality of evolution to me.
I'm sorry deludedgod but my sides have just split from laughing. please don't insult your intelligence by saying that the distinction between micro and macro is meaningless.
I'm a reasonable person. I will conceade to defeat in any argument if I realise that the other side is better. You never know, if the argument for evolution is good enough I may even become an atheist
Thanks!
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Now now, your duty as a 14 year old is to run amuck and give your parents grey hair. YOU MUST BE EVIL, YOU MUST JOIN THE DARK SIDE LUKE!
Oh wait, you just thought about the theist claims and didnt find them credible? OH DARN I was hoping for another goat sacraficing, kitten barbaquer minion spounge.
In all seriousness to anyone reading this. We dont want angst ridden people of any age "rebeling" just for the sake of expending energy in distructive ways.
An atheist should reject any claim on any issue for one simple reason "Lack of evidence".
As I stated in a previous thread, atheists are not out to create a facist dictatorship or a lawless society. Kids should focus on educating themselves and preparing themselves for the future.
So to the young ones reading this. We dont want you here if all you are doing is being "trendy" or "rebeling". We do want people both theist and atheist to THINK about the claims they make.
This is about being unafriad to question, not create a blood drinking cult. Atheists do get tired of the stereotypes that we have an "anything goes" attitude.
THINKING, QUESTIONING AND REASONING, thats what atheists are for.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
yellow number five.
You decided to post a comment and thats all you have to say? Well, thanks for your input. Coming from a 'core-member' your single syllable defence does make me feel justified in using the word 'irresponsible' considering that at least I gave reasons for my point of view.
deludedgod
This I take it is THE yellow No. 5. The one who is going to shred my arguments. Christ! He's good!!!!
I read it a couple of days ago (?)...very informative since I was "educated" by creationists.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yes, please do take what was meant as sarcasm for "official rebuttal" whenever it suits you.
Then, simply think of what brought you and countless other christians to this board. Could it have been that "wicked" promotion?
Did that "wicked" promotion get you to come here and engage with us? Did it promote discussion? Could it promote understanding from said discussion? Could such discussions change minds?
How can anything that promotes discussion be "wicked"? How can anything that simply gives people the opportunity to speak up and realize they are not alone be "wicked"?
Seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Y No. 5
Thankyou for your 'official' rebuttal. Re. 'wicked'. I use that word as much to provoke a response as anything. The effect of the BC is certainly bad but actually I don't think its promoters are deliberatly trying to be wicked themselves. I do stand by the word Irresponsible though.
Again my problem here is not with engaging in discussion or challenging false ideas. It is with the attitude combined with the method. I understand that atheists are concerned if they feel marginalised and even victimised by main-stream society. I also realize that the behaviour of christians for example may make you want to respond by sabotaging christian society. But you are in danger of turning yourselves into carbon copies of those you despise. Rise above your opponants.
I am not a christian.
I did come to this site to engage with you and voice my concerns.
You may not have read other posts to this thread but someone holds you in high regard. You are the man to talk to if one wants to find out why evolution can be taken as fact.
I would be seriously interested to hear your point of view.
Deludedgod. I haven't located the article you mentioned. It's probably me being stupid and not knowing where or how to look. WHere abouts is it?
Pot, meet kettle. 'nuff said.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
This one's easy. How about, because you didnt present ONE rational, logical reason to back your argument. Or, dare I say, piece of evidence.
There is no argument to "assimilate." If it seems as though we're on auto-pilot, it's only because we read this baseless, illogical drivel on almost a daily basis. We're only responding to you to kill a few minutes at work.
By that logic, you can say anything you want to challenge evolution. And no one with half a brain should waste their time listening to it.
Again, you must not understand the meaning of the word 'proof.' Here's Merriam Webster's definition for you:
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6 a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic print made from a negative
7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
Because you say it is undeniable does NOT make it so. Yawwwwwnnnnnnnnnn.
At this point it's obvious that your argument is the equivalent of a child stating, "I'm better than you," putting his hands over his ears, and yelling out "I can't hear you" over and over again.
You mean, you're not going to give us a specific, concrete definition of the supernatural? I wonder why that is??????
So then, by your logic, there is more than one god? Or more than one supernatural being? You're a polytheist?
This is a broken record...this is a broken record...this is a broken record.
You are completely devoid of any understanding of scientific theory. Stop posting, you're out of your league.
Can't wait, I'm sure it will be full of fresh perspectives and rational insight.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Thankyou Yellow, however I don't feel I need helping out. I have made a few comments on the subject and deludedgod said you could shred my arguments (obviously he was speaking for you so I will not hold you to this challenge).
I would rather defend my views here than go your your forum and oppose yours if you get my meaning. Again, you may not wish to discuss on this thread, I will understand... but if you do, perhaps you would have a look at relevant posts of mine. Frankly I am curious as to why they provoked the response from deludedgod that they did. Perhaps you could answer that.
Roisin Dubh
I ask you in all seriousness. Did you actually mean what you wrote or is this some sort of sick joke. You are not doing yourself any favours and frankly I'm embarrassed for you. The one thing in your favour at the moment is that you say your at work and so you're proberbly skim reading and not not actually taking on board what I am saying.
I will not post a long response here for that reason as I suspect it will not be worth the effort.
What's more I don't think that I'll actually be responding to a serious critism, but going over what I've already said for the sake of someone with either their mind on their work, or someone with a pad-locked mind, or even someone with an inferior mind.
Out of my league. I can't believe you said that.
P.S. The bit about criticizing evolution. Read what I say, have a good think and if you still don't get it then write more than a one-line sound-bite that is more deserving of my time and I'll try and explain more fully. Go on Love, you can do it.
deludedgod no I am not high. I will take a look at the article you cited. Or if you wish you can make a few comments here as to what it says.
The hight thing was a joke, relax man.
Deludedgod, please PLEASE I beg you. Stop making threats, DO IT, get your biological titans to demonstate the reality of evolution to me.
I didnt make any threats. I dont see how threatening to rip someone's argument apart could possibly be construed as anything more than an overconfident metaphor. It was a joke.
I'm sorry deludedgod but my sides have just split from laughing. please don't insult your intelligence by saying that the distinction between micro and macro is meaningless.
My friend, everyone who claims there is a definition for the words micro and macroevolution does not understand the topic. The line between them is blurred to the point of nonexistence.
I'm a reasonable person. I will conceade to defeat in any argument if I realise that the other side is better. You never know, if the argument for evolution is good enough I may even become an atheist
Always nice to be open minded
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Roisin Dubh
P.P.S. I was using the word 'proof' as in the first definition.
deludedgod
I understand how you intended your comments, mine likewise
As I have already said. The distinction between micro and macro is qualitative, not quantitative. In other words two essentially different concepts. One involves the divergence of species by natural selection from elements already in a gene-pool. The other invokes random mutation and natural selection to supposedly explain new genetic information itself.
Again I feel I am going over the same thing here and no-one is actually hearing me. Without being rude, your comments about this, three I think, are the same in all cases and show that it is in fact you who does not understand the subject.
I did skim the thread, I did not see any argument on your part, just some scattered misconceptions. I'm not going to take the time to distill it. If there is a specific question you wish to ask, feel free.
As to why your comments may have provoked that response, I guess I'm sort of the science geek around here. People come to me with those sort of questions. There are actually quite a few folks around this board who tend to know what they are talking about on such subjects, I humbly include myself in that lot and I tend to talk a bit and have been doing this sort of thing for a bit now as well.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Read my essay on genetic evolution and see how you feel. you made a lot of incorrect statements:
1) What do you mean new genetic information?? The first rule of genetics is that new genes always arise from old ones. That is how they reproduce. Templated Polymerization. As for genetic mutation...The precise mechanisms are detailed in my essay.
2) Speciative divergence is definitely not the definition of macroevolution. The correct definition is given in the essay.
3) Micro and macro both involve the guiding of random mutation, there are only two evolutionary mechanisms. Darwinism and genetic innovation. Both are required.
But don't bash this post if you dont like it! Read the essay first...and see how you feel.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Yellow No. 5
Thankyou, yes I do have a question. The question is this. Please will you give at least one example of my misconceptions? Come on guys...this is getting silly now...It is precisely refutations of what I say that I want. deludedgod has done so to a limited degree with his comments and I have given my answer in return, that it how it works.
Think about how you feel when you talk to christians. That is how I'm begining to feel now. I thought you guys would be different. Only up to a point huh?!!
You should be embarrassed alright.
Your redundant blathering came through loud and clear.
That's nothing more than a transparent way of saying you having nothing on which to base your arguments.
It's because you cant. You're ill-equipped, and....
That's surprising, given what you do profess to believe.
I read it, others have read it, nobody thinks you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
deludedgod!! Brilliant, more of this sort of thing please. Yes I will read your essay first. Please tell me how to locate it. I may be being dumb but I looked for it before a didn'y find it. I'm not esspecially web literate though.
Thanks though
OK, I just added a redundant post to that thread which moved it up to the top of the list of threads.
It is called, to get attention: ATTENTION ALL THEISTS: The fundamental axioms of evolution.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Roisin Dubh!!
OK my Love, more pointless sound bytes. I understand. I'm obviously not dealing with atheism's finest here.
this is my last post to you if this is all you have to give.
Thankyou deludedgod. I will read your essay and get back to you in time.
"I accept fully that if living systems can reasonably have been shown to have come about but naturalistic means and by the effects of genetic mutation then I will accept the evolutionists argument. "
You've equated evoloution with abiogenesis, which tells me flat out that you don't even understand the concept you are critiquing.
Yes, it is, and you're the one fostering such.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
You provide more than baseless assertions, and I'll provide more than impatient jabs at your arrogant ignorance.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
deludedgod. I have submitted a post on your essay thread.
Word.
Yet another theist with nothing but assertions and no proof.
At least newmodeltheist can spell and put together a coherent--though logically insufficient--sentence. So could StMichael, but his posts never went anywhere. :| I hope this isn't a recap.
StMichael probably holds the record as the most prolific poster on this site and every word was crap.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I am now having a discussion with other atheists on another thread. The discussion is more constructive, One side presents argument, they other side says "Yes but what about..." or "No that is incorrect..." etc etc
I post this so as to wind up my presence on this thread. I regard myself as making a worthy argument and some simply write "Baseless" as if they have got their fingers stuck to the Ctrl-C-V keys of their keyboard. They don't specify what they particually think is incorrect or why. They are just parrots.
If I may commend deludedgod here. Most of you could learn a lot from how he conducts himself in a debate.
goodbye from me on this thread
nmt
My parrot could give better arguments than you have in this thread.
Gee, maybe I should have called your posts "wicked and irresponsible." Maybe then I could have earned your respect.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.