Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do they really expect a billboard to make people atheists? Or even question their faith?

About as big a waste of money as those Christians who spend money erecting giant crosses.

Only as much as fanatics expect to convert atheists with billboards like this one:

atheist_billboard.jpg


Which, by the way, is exactly how American Atheists and its supporters justify their billboards:

"But they do it, too!"

It's childish, quite frankly. I don't see why we atheists should stoop to the fanatics' level...

I much prefer billboards that reach out to closeted atheists who feel isolated/alone, like this one:

ucor-large-image-view-82ac0cae685615b28fb77b8f68fcc402.png
 
How do you get anyone to give up their religion? It's easy for Americans to ignore facts of logic from others like evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Scientific debate is the only way I can think of besides proving the contradictions in the Bible. I bet they will continue to believe on though anyway.

I haven't met a Christian who doesn't adhere to the Big Bang theory. There's nothing about it that contradicts the idea of a God. In the same vein, about half the Christians I know not only believe in evolution, they see it as something that supports and deepens their understanding of God. Google "evolutionary theology" to see what I mean.

As for contradictions in the Bible, those have been gone over a thousand times by Biblical scholars who know a lot more about the original language and context than your average Joe.

Suffice to say, you can be a Christian without discarding reason. Did you know that theologians were responsible for developing the scientific method?
 
A lot of people were responsible for developing the scientific method, including pagans and muslims, and al-Haytham and Al-Rahwi were as responsible as theologians like Roger Bacon, Ockham, etc. Not to mention first. And those scholars have not ironed out the contradictions in the Bible -- if anything, many of these scholars have illuminated them further.
 
Last edited:
I haven't met a Christian who doesn't adhere to the Big Bang theory. There's nothing about it that contradicts the idea of a God. In the same vein, about half the Christians I know not only believe in evolution, they see it as something that supports and deepens their understanding of God. Google "evolutionary theology" to see what I mean.

As for contradictions in the Bible, those have been gone over a thousand times by Biblical scholars who know a lot more about the original language and context than your average Joe.

Suffice to say, you can be a Christian without discarding reason. Did you know that theologians were responsible for developing the scientific method?

That doesn't answer anything at all. And yes, theologians were great scientists until scientific discoveries started to contradict the Bible.
 
A lot of people were responsible for developing the scientific method, including pagans and muslims, and al-Haytham and Al-Rahwi were as responsible as theologians like Roger Bacon, Ockham, etc. Not to mention first. And those scholars have not ironed out the contradictions in the Bible -- if anything, many of these scholars have illuminated them further.

The opinions and findings of scholars are generally ignored by modern apologists and literalists who have no interest in what the Hebrews were thinking, only their own view of God, the Bible and how it gets them where they want to go.
 
Incorporating evolution into the religion is a smart move. They tried to resist Galileo, but look where that got them.

You know the saying, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Well, sort of.

Though there are still some groups out there who insist the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Actually I'm curious. Creationists, are you still geocentrists? Or have you accepted Mr. Copernicus' findings?
 
blabla.gif



My father used his trump card in one of our recent political debates. That is, he asked me why I did not just leave if I disliked America so much. This, of course, is a variant of the highly sophisticated ' America , love it or leave it' argument. How could I respond to such a well-reasoned attack on my anti-state views (or, as I like to call them, my pro-liberty views)? Maybe the better question was should I even bother to respond to such sixth grade logic.
Unfortunately, this argument is all too prevalent in discussions with state lovers. When the state lovers are backed into a corner with no other arguments to defend their views, just as my father, they often resort to the tried and true 'love it or leave it' argument. To refute this supposed untouchable statement, a thorough analysis of it is in order.
Let us start with the term America itself. What does America stand for anyway? Does it stand for the wide expanse of beautiful land located on the continent of North America , for the diverse people peacefully interacting on such land, and for the material prosperity provided by industrious entrepreneurs and manufacturers? If this is what one means by America , then I love it with all my heart. Thus the state lovers should not tell me to leave, because I have already met their required condition of love.
If, on the other hand, America stands for the United States federal government, which steals from people, tells them how to conduct their personal affairs, and incarcerates them for fictitious crimes, then, no, I do not love America . In fact, I hate it, just as anyone would hate the person who stole from him and threatened his life and liberty.
As an aside, this discussion regarding the definition of America applies equally to the 'anti-American' argument that is so prevalent today in the news media. It seems that anyone who apposes the Bush administration's foreign policies (or, for that matter, anyone who apposes any policies of the federal government) is labeled anti-American. If America refers to the people currently located in the geographic region known as the United States , then I am not anti-American. But if it refers to the federal government, and the policies of the Bush administration specifically, then I am rightly called anti-American. The news media should avoid this confusion, however, by properly labeling it anti-Bush instead of anti-American.
Returning to our main analysis, assume, then, that America does stand for the federal government. I do not love it, but why should I leave. Why shouldn't the federal government leave, or at least leave me alone? By stating that I should leave, the state lovers are telling me that I do not have a right to own property, and that I do not have a right to freedom from physical aggression.
If I have a right to own property, including real property (land), then I have a right to exclude others from such property. This right to exclude includes the right to exclude the federal government and it agents. If I truly own my land, then I have the right to tell the federal government to stick its laws where the sun doesn't shine, because the land is mine and I can conduct myself on it as I please. If anyone should be leaving, then, it should be the federal government. I am rightly located on my land, while it is a trespasser. When the state lovers tell me to leave, they must assume, then, that the federal government has a territorial monopoly on all of the property located within the United States . In their view, the federal government must own all of the property and is only leasing it to me as long as I obey its commands.
The state lovers must also assume that I do not have a right to be free from physical aggression and threats of physical aggression. If I had a right to freedom from such aggression, then I could tell the tax collector to go to hell anytime he came knocking at my door. This, of course, is not an option allowed by the state lovers. If I refuse to pay my taxes, the federal government will come to arrest me. If I resist arrest, government agents will shoot me. So the state lovers are telling me to love being robbed at gunpoint or leave. Nice guys, these state lovers.
In conclusion, the only way that the state lovers' 'love it or leave it' argument holds up is if they concede that (1) America stands for a tyrannical federal government, (2) that no one has the right to own property, and (3) that everyone must be subject to threats of physical aggression. Seems like a very bleak place to live if you ask me.
 
Did you know that theologians were responsible for developing the scientific method?

Man's always had theology, but not the scientific method, which can be traced back to the Egyptians, Babylonians (allegedly the first to jump from astrology to astronomy), the Greeks (like Democritus, Anaximander, Herophilos, and Erasistratus). It further evolved from Aristotle, and boomed during the Islamic Golden Age, before being taken further by Enlightenment-era scientist-philosophers; usually in opposition to then-current theology. So yeah, the gods came first, and the scientific method afterwards; but to ascribe its creation and development purely to theologians is fallacious. I don't think that's what you were doing (the history of the scientific method is too complex to sum up in one declarative statement) but that's my piece.
 
http://now.msn.com/dr-pepper-anger-christians-with-evolution-based-print-ad

It's..it's just a ****ing ad...not only that, I thought it's proven our DNA is like 98.6% the same as apes or monkeys.

''I ain't no monkey''.

Monkeys can drink and smoke like we can...can walk upright..believe four fingers and a thumb on each hand..then the DNA.
We are apes. That anyone should be offended by such a simple and fundamental fact is preposterous. Their outrage is useless.
 
http://now.msn.com/dr-pepper-anger-christians-with-evolution-based-print-ad

It's..it's just a ****ing ad...not only that, I thought it's proven our DNA is like 98.6% the same as apes or monkeys.

''I ain't no monkey''.

Monkeys can drink and smoke like we can...can walk upright..believe four fingers and a thumb on each hand..then the DNA.

Well to be fair, a lot of animals can drink and smoke... Some hold their liquor better. Ever try drinking an elephant under the table? Thing just puts its trunk in a barrel.

But humans are closely related to most animals on this planet, since we're all distantly related. This is a concept a lot of creationists don't understand.

When you point out the genetic similarities between a human and another ape, they for example say that our genetics are also close to those of a pig. Which makes sense. Since we're both mammals.

So for all intents and purposes, to an alien (i.e. a being who evolved on another planet, in another solar system, and does not have DNA), we practically are pigs and monkeys.
 
Last edited:
So for all intents and purposes, to an alien (i.e. a being who evolved on another planet, in another solar system, and does not have DNA), we practically are pigs and monkeys.

[science nazi hat]I'm sorry, but only man-made machines don't have DNA. Any alien being that evolved anywhere would most certainly have DNA-like base... it will just be made up of very, very, very different materials and, as such, will not be very recognizable as DNA as we know it. It might still be a double-helix (maybe!), but that's where the similarities between our DNA and their "DNA" would end.[/science nazi hat]

So, thoughts on this?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...ght-be-the-choice-of-atheists-and-secularists


Secular Coalition of America gives Libertarian Gary Johnson a B, Democratic President Barack Obama a C, and Republican Mitt Romney a F. Green Party Dr. Jill Stein get a INC.


lol at INC.



Inc just means they couldn't find enough answers.

I have a serious issue with Johnson scoring an F on Education. Seeing as education is one the most important issues that we simply aren't talking about right now, that is worrisome enough to make me not want to vote for him.

Seriously.

Obama may be just as annoying as Romney when it comes to religion and faith, but at least Obama recognizes the issues with education in our country and doesn't think Creationism should be taught in Science classrooms. Not to mention the fact that Obama recognizes the non-believers as actual citizens of the US. He's the first president to do so, as far as I know.

On top of that... I've said it before and I'll say it again: voting third party is about as useful as voting for your favorite between Pepsi and Coke, and the latter vote may actually mean more in the long run. As long as our voting process is burdened by the electoral college, the only legitimate choice we have is Democrat or Republican. It's depressing, but it's the state of affairs. And worse... if you live in one of the swings states, and either don't vote or vote third party, you are actually helping the worst candidate. Bush was aided in 2000 by all the people who voted for Nader. Keep that in mind before you go off and vote for a third party candidate.

Is Obama a good choice?

No.

No he's not.

But as far as I'm concerned, he is the only choice; not because I like Obama (I don't... he's too conservative for me), but because no power on this earth could make me vote Republican... ever. So it's not that I'm voting for Obama... it's that I'm voting against Romney.

I apologize for derailing this thread with a political rant... please feel free to ignore me and continue with the atheism discussion if you want...
 
Last edited:
DNA-like still isn't DNA though. And then there's RNA... What if the aliens have something RNA-like rather than DNA-like?
 
[science nazi hat]I'm sorry, but only man-made machines don't have DNA. Any alien being that evolved anywhere would most certainly have DNA-like base... it will just be made up of very, very, very different materials and, as such, will not be very recognizable as DNA as we know it. It might still be a double-helix (maybe!), but that's where the similarities between our DNA and their "DNA" would end.[/science nazi hat]



Inc just means they couldn't find enough answers.

I have a serious issue with Johnson scoring an F on Education. Seeing as education is one the most important issues that we simply aren't talking about right now, that is worrisome enough to make me not want to vote for him.

Seriously.

Obama may be just as annoying as Romney when it comes to religion and faith, but at least Obama recognizes the issues with education in our country and doesn't think Creationism should be taught in Science classrooms. Not to mention the fact that Obama recognizes the non-believers as actual citizens of the US. He's the first president to do so, as far as I know.

On top of that... I've said it before and I'll say it again: voting third party is about as useful as voting for your favorite between Pepsi and Coke, and the latter vote may actually mean more in the long run. As long as our voting process is burdened by the electoral college, the only legitimate choice we have is Democrat or Republican. It's depressing, but it's the state of affairs. And worse... if you live in one of the swings states, and either don't vote or vote third party, you are actually helping the worst candidate. Bush was aided in 2000 by all the people who voted for Nader. Keep that in mind before you go off and vote for a third party candidate.

Is Obama a good choice?

No.

No he's not.

But as far as I'm concerned, he is the only choice; not because I like Obama (I don't... he's too conservative for me), but because no power on this earth could make me vote Republican... ever. So it's not that I'm voting for Obama... it's that I'm voting against Romney.

I apologize for derailing this thread with a political rant... please feel free to ignore me and continue with the atheism discussion if you want...


Johnson wants to get rid of the Dept of Education and give the power back to the teachers and parents. I read he also wants the states to have a say in it. Um, State gets 11 cents back from every dollar with 16 cents attached in um, strings attached. Considering the Dept of Education has been horrible since it's inception since the late 70's, I think we should let states, teachers, parents decide.

I'm actually a volunteer for the Gary Johnson 2012 campaign.I mostly do social media. I post stories to my Facebook and Twitter profiles, participate in the Twitter bombs for him, I've put up quite a few yard signs for him in the area. Have two shirts and his new book. Actually got made content creator for my county's Libertarian Party Facebook page this week. Very, very small, but hopefully it will grow. Yes, it's a long up hill battle. But I rather help grow a 3rd party than stick with R or D.

And I don't see a problem, the new link I posted is related to this thread.

What is RNA, Thunder?
 
DNA-like still isn't DNA though. And then there's RNA... What if the aliens have something RNA-like rather than DNA-like?
RNA is incredibly DNA-like. The only differences are:

1) RNA has one more oxygen on the ribose molecule in the DNA backbone (D = deoxyribose, R = ribose).

2) RNA is less stable and shorter-lived.

3) RNA is single-stranded.

4) RNA uses Uracil in place of Thymine (3/4 of the ribonucleotide bases are identical, and Uracil is only slightly different from Thymine).

5) RNA can have enzymatic function.

These are largely superficial differences. They're almost the same thing, really, with very few biochemical differences.
 
Only as much as fanatics expect to convert atheists with billboards like this one:

atheist_billboard.jpg


Which, by the way, is exactly how American Atheists and its supporters justify their billboards:

"But they do it, too!"

It's childish, quite frankly. I don't see why we atheists should stoop to the fanatics' level...

I much prefer billboards that reach out to closeted atheists who feel isolated/alone, like this one:

ucor-large-image-view-82ac0cae685615b28fb77b8f68fcc402.png
Billboards from either side are idiotic. Although dumb, it says in the Bible to try and convert people to save them. What I don't get is why some atheist groups feel the need to do the same...
 
The atheist billboard shown in that post isn't about converting people. It's about providing support for people who already are atheist. There's a huge anti-atheist sentiment in this country, and it can be hard for some people. That billboard is great.
 
Billboards from either side are idiotic. Although dumb, it says in the Bible to try and convert people to save them. What I don't get is why some atheist groups feel the need to do the same...

Aside from being unnecessary (from the atheist's perspective), many atheists see religion as something potentially harmful.

Though I don't see these billboards converting anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,299
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"