A question for atheists..

[Occam's Spork]

Slarti brought up a point about wanting to 'help' theists..

But if evolution is a directionless process, as was earlier confirmed by himself and Earl grey, then 'helping' is a relative term. And I am free to reject that their 'help' improves anything.

Additionally, if they wish to be rigid on their belief in evolution, then what is the point of 'helping' us in the first place? Hypothetically, I arrived at being a theist due to a natural process, just as they became atheist due to theirs.

Evolution is an deterministic, directionless, process. Which means I am a theist precisely because nature determined it must be so.

So why spend so much time trying to turn me from a determined path nature intended for me to begin with?

[pim]

Some wonderful stuff has come out of this "superstitious rubbish". John Taverner's music from the time of Henry 8 springs to mind. Hildegard von Bingen from the middle ages; Josquin des Prés and Palestrina from the Renaissance, Johann Sebastian Bach from the Baroque through to Ralph Vaughan Williams and Benjamin Britten in modern times. And I guess to that list you could add David Fanshawe with his African Sanctus which is an eclectic mix of Roman Catholic and Muslim liturgies.

And that's just the music. There's also the art, the poetry, the philosophy ...

I'd anticipate at this point the paleo atheists would say "what about all the horrors like the Inquisition?"

To which I'd say "Sure! It's called totalitarianism. In order to break with Rome, Henry 8 turned 'Merrie England' into a totalitarian hell which lasted all through the Tudor period as well as the Stuarts and only ended with the Hanoverians when the Protestant Ascendancy finally stabilised." But those are straw men - both the point about the Inquisition and the answer. The point was made earlier that all religion is "superstitious nonsense". In my own personal point of view Matt dabbles in "superstitious nonsense". But Fat doesn't. The paleo-fundamentalists of US televangelism deal with"superstitious nonsense" and so does their political expression which is the Tea Party. Mind you the "superstitious nonsense" of the US televangelists is also a highly successful and lucrative business model. But it's still voodoo bullshit. But I have books on my shelves written by very thoughtful Americans such as Karen Armstrong's The Case for God (a very cerebral reply to Richard Dawkins) and A History of God which is a most interesting, informative and illuminating historical survey and discussion of the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don't think Karen Armstrong deals in "superstitious rubbish".

[garfield]

Jan 3, 2013 14:07:46 GMT 10 @buzzock said:

soon your zombie worship cult will e a thing of the past.

Naah, people are getting stupider apparently so religion should be around for a while yet, same as the labor party. ;D

[pim]

Nah! You guys need a Labor Party which shoots itself in the foot often enough to make even the Ludicrous Liberals look good.

It's basically Tweedledum vs Tweedledee.

I've always said that the Labor Party is a conservative party, utterly committed to preserving, defending and extending capitalism.

Gets me into no end of trouble with Premier and Jockstrap when I say that. They view statements like that as the grossest heresy and pronounce their anathemas accordingly ...

[pim]

But that's the Catholics!! Ask Matt! He reckons the Catholic Church is one vast paedophile conspiracy. And they're not just joining the Liberal Party, they're leading the Liberal Party!!

Tony Abbott

Joe Hockey

Malcolm Turnbull etc etc

Catholic Libs storm frontbench en masse

THE CATHOLIC Church, traditionally a staunch Labor heartland, is fast colonising the Liberal Party, with as many Catholics on the federal Opposition frontbench as there are on its Labor counterpart. An Age poll of federal cabinet and shadow cabinet members found there are six Catholics in the cabinet and six on the Opposition frontbench, amounting to about 30 per cent of both cabinets - a slightly higher percentage than in the Australian population. In contrast, there is no one from a non-Christian faith on either side of the political divide. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is a staunch Catholic and studied for the priesthood as a young man. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey is also Catholic and recently gave a Sydney Institute talk entitled ''In Defence of God''. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was raised a Catholic but now attends Anglican services every Sunday. When Mr Rudd was recently photographed by media leaving the Catholic Mary MacKillop Chapel in North Sydney, Mr Abbott accused him of ''exploiting'' his religious beliefs to score political points.

And it's rare that I agree with Tony Abbott but on the Mary MacKillop thing I'm with him 100%. Rudd is a religious dilletante. I can respect an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs even if I don't share them. Atheism and agnosticism, as thought through considered positions, are respectable positions to hold. But for a lapsed Catholic like Rudd to go religious "shopping" and have photo ops at an Anglican church on Sunday and then, on a whim, invoking his own Catholic background, to take communion from the Pope at the tomb of Mary MacKillop at a ceremony to mark her canonisation as a saint (whatever you think of that sort of stuff!) would be deeply offensive to a committed and steadfast Catholic like Tony Abbott. I can appreciate that and, on this point, can sympathise with Tony Abbott.

The debate over religion in politics comes as a Nielsen poll for The Agefound 84% of people agreed with the statement ''Religion and politics should be separate'', 78% of whom identified as Christian. Thirteen per cent of respondents disagreed. Of the 20 members of the shadow cabinet, 18 identified as Christian and two did not comment. The Labor cabinet was slightly more diverse. Two Labor frontbenchers - Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon and Innovation and Industry Minister Kim Carr - were happy to describe themselves as ''not religious'', but no Opposition frontbenchers said they were non-believers.


www.theage.com.au/national/catholic-libs-storm-frontbench-en-masse-20091225-lf33.html#ixzz2GssqLBDm

Interesting that nowhere in that 2009 piece is Julia's atheism mentioned. She would have been asked. If she'd responded, it would have been reported.

[slartibartfast]

Back to the topic:

Explain how bacteria have developed resistance to anti-bodies.
Explain why we have 95% common genes with Chimps.
Explain the universal genetic DNA code.
Explain why most embryos look alike.
Explain why the most simple of fossils are found in the oldest rocks.

[slartibartfast]

PS: I do not believe the path is per-determined by anyone or anything. It changes according to need. Which is why sharks have hardly changed at all, they don't need to.

[Occam's Spork]

Jan 4, 2013 7:33:22 GMT 10 slartibartfast said:

Back to the topic:

Explain how bacteria have developed resistance to anti-bodies.
Explain why we have 95% common genes with Chimps.
Explain the universal genetic DNA code.
Explain why most embryos look alike.
Explain why the most simple of fossils are found in the oldest rocks.

I'd be happy to address this, on another thread.
But that wasn't the topic at all.

My question was: How can you recon you are 'Helping' when you have no defined perimeters of what 'helping' could mean, in a directionless process?

[Occam's Spork]

Bill Nye.
Children's Entertainer.
Yep. He's an expert.

[Occam's Spork]

You resort to children's entertainers for your data.

I'll stick with accredited scholars.

[Occam's Spork]

...And now you are being abusive to the mentally challenged.

Classy.

And I find your distortions amusing.

[jody]

Well that didn't take long at all. :/