A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[uwot]

You picked up the ball and ran with it so it's a legitimate tackle.

Touché! My compliments, sir.

[thedoc]

there is a book by douglas axe that gets into the science of intelligent design.
Evolution has not found one transitional species and proven a link to human ancestry. It is inferred philosophically.
I myself know creationism is fallacy and this is not reason to believe in evolution.

Intelligent design is not science, it's religion pretending to be science.

Paleontologists have found thousands of transitional fossils, Creationist's/Intelligent Design's claims to the contrary are false. It's just a case that the fundamentalist's refuse to see the evidence.

[thedoc]

Anyone who thinks IC's tour de force of absurdity is reasonable, truthful or even remotely realistic would be well served by a lobotomy on both sides. Are there any reasonable or intelligent theists left or is your whole tribe now infected by dementia? Ironically it's the function of the theist to use God to make themselves stupid...an irony most of the Western World is aware of and in the process of culling.

Ahh, No True Scotsman, I've been labeled as a theist so I must believe what you think I believe, I can't possibly accept evolution because I'm a theist, and you are stupid.

[thedoc]

It appears that you are failing on that point.

But 'we're' not are we, as by most measures the world is a better place not that end-of-timers and their ilk would wish for or admit this.

Who are the "end-of-timers" I don't think I know any.

[thedoc]

Some of us are far too busy thinking about how we can make this world a better place for our fellow man.

It appears that you are failing on that point.

What? All of us? That's a rather sweeping statement, doc. Do you have any statistics to support that view?

Not everyone just those who are busy thinking about it, it would be better if you were to actually do something.

FYI, My wife and I already do something to help those who are not as well off as the rest of us, if you can bring those on the bottom up a little, you do more that by helping those on the top.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It appears that you are failing on that point.

What? All of us? That's a rather sweeping statement, doc. Do you have any statistics to support that view?

Not everyone just those who are busy thinking about it, it would be better if you were to actually do something.

FYI, My wife and I already do something to help those who are not as well off as the rest of us, if you can bring those on the bottom up a little, you do more that by helping those on the top.

Going in now with the full 'kristian guilt-trips and self-backpatting'. Next you will be telling us what a wonderful person you are because you give to charity. Btw, do you have any idea how much of what is given actually gets to the alleged recipients? Most of it goes on the mysterious 'administration' (often ALL of it).
The best thing anyone can do for humanity is to be considerate of others, be as educated as you can be, question everything, and not be a superstitious, mediaeval twat.

[Dubious]

So take both arguments, or take neither. But if you want to say we ought to believe Freud, you've got to take both.

Nothing to do with Freud who has been somewhat discredited. It's got to do with the age-old habit of wishing and hoping to have that wish fulfilled. Only that and nothing more.

My! You do make a striving lonely little wish trying to gratify itself an awfully complex procedure.

[Dubious]

Anyone who thinks IC's tour de force of absurdity is reasonable, truthful or even remotely realistic would be well served by a lobotomy on both sides. Are there any reasonable or intelligent theists left or is your whole tribe now infected by dementia? Ironically it's the function of the theist to use God to make themselves stupid...an irony most of the Western World is aware of and in the process of culling.

Ahh, No True Scotsman, I've been labeled as a theist so I must believe what you think I believe, I can't possibly accept evolution because I'm a theist, and you are stupid.

...that may be true on occasion but I always preferred the lessor evil. As a non-theist, I try to acknowledge limits which theists clearly don't subscribe to.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing to do with Freud who has been somewhat discredited. It's got to do with the age-old habit of wishing and hoping to have that wish fulfilled. Only that and nothing more.

Well, either way, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If belief in God could be thought to be mere "wish fulfillment," exactly the same can be said for Atheism -- it's the childish wish to get rid of a paternal figure. So Freud's or yours, you can see it's a silly, ad hominem argument.

It makes me wonder why you bothered to raise it. For of course it's possible for some people to be religious out of a wish. And of course it's possible for some people to choose Atheism out of nothing more than a wish. But what's all that to the point?

Ad hominem chips at people's supposed motives tell us nothing about whether or not the thing they're believing itself has any merits. The concept has to be defended on the integrity of the concept itself.

If Atheism has nothing more that can be said for it by way of a defense, then maybe it doesn't deserve to be defended.

[Immanuel Can]

Not everyone just those who are busy thinking about it, it would be better if you were to actually do something.

FYI, My wife and I already do something to help those who are not as well off as the rest of us, if you can bring those on the bottom up a little, you do more that by helping those on the top.

In point of fact, the number of charitable institutions based in Judeo-Christian origins far exceeds the number that came into being by any other means...in science, education, health, public safety, workers rights, women's rights, immigration, foreign aid, substance-abuse treatment, welfare relief,...and on, and on, and on. In fact, here's a good article, written by an Atheist.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 044345.ece

Veggie despises all such things as charity; but then, Veggie evidently doesn't know anything about charities. If he did, he would know the books of tax-exempt charities are, in many countries, open to the public; so he could easily tell what percentage of their revenues go to the field and how much to upkeep. But he's being lazy, and doesn't want to find out, clearly. He just doesn't want to have to care or give, I guess.

But thanks for doing your bit.

Meanwhile, why don't we sit down and enumerate all the institutions for public good that were started by the cause of Atheism....

[Harbal]

Veggie evidently doesn't know anything about charities. If he did, he would know the books of tax-exempt charities are, in many countries, open to the public

Mr. snooty pants Can evidently doesn't know anything about VT. If he did he would know that he is a she.

Meanwhile, why don't we sit down and enumerate all the institutions for public good that were started by the cause of Atheism....

Okay, you make a start and the rest of us will join in when we have time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not everyone just those who are busy thinking about it, it would be better if you were to actually do something.

FYI, My wife and I already do something to help those who are not as well off as the rest of us, if you can bring those on the bottom up a little, you do more that by helping those on the top.

In point of fact, the number of charitable institutions based in Judeo-Christian origins far exceeds the number that came into being by any other means...in science, education, health, public safety, workers rights, women's rights, immigration, foreign aid, substance-abuse treatment, welfare relief,...and on, and on, and on. In fact, here's a good article, written by an Atheist.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 044345.ece

Veggie despises all such things as charity; but then, Veggie evidently doesn't know anything about charities. If he did, he would know the books of tax-exempt charities are, in many countries, open to the public; so he could easily tell what percentage of their revenues go to the field and how much to upkeep. But he's being lazy, and doesn't want to find out, clearly. He just doesn't want to have to care or give, I guess.

But thanks for doing your bit.

Meanwhile, why don't we sit down and enumerate all the institutions for public good that were started by the cause of Atheism....

There are a lot of kristian charities because kristians are the biggest thieves and scammers, and they exploit kristian guilt and desire for brown-points.
Money that's hidden in foreign bank accounts isn't going to show up, idiot. The Salvation Army is a multi-billion dollar corporation. A few soup kitchens and 'charity' shops (that incidentally make a hell of a lot of money) aren't going to make a dent in the interest, let alone net profit.

[thedoc]

Btw, do you have any idea how much of what is given actually gets to the alleged recipients?

In this case the recipients get all of it, that's just the nature of what we contribute to the organization, which is mostly run by volunteers, with only a few paid employees. And the books are open for anyone to see, who wants to.

[thedoc]

Mr. snooty pants Can evidently doesn't know anything about VT. If he did he would know that he is a she.

Yes, that much is evident though only a few females are capable of spewing so much venom and vitriol, much more than any male I know. Crooked Hillary is another that comes to mind.

[Dubious]

Nothing to do with Freud who has been somewhat discredited. It's got to do with the age-old habit of wishing and hoping to have that wish fulfilled. Only that and nothing more.

Well, either way, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If belief in God could be thought to be mere "wish fulfillment," exactly the same can be said for Atheism -- it's the childish wish to get rid of a paternal figure. So Freud's or yours, you can see it's a silly, ad hominem argument.

It makes me wonder why you bothered to raise it. For of course it's possible for some people to be religious out of a wish. And of course it's possible for some people to choose Atheism out of nothing more than a wish. But what's all that to the point?

Ad hominem chips at people's supposed motives tell us nothing about whether or not the thing they're believing itself has any merits. The concept has to be defended on the integrity of the concept itself.

If Atheism has nothing more that can be said for it by way of a defense, then maybe it doesn't deserve to be defended.

The extreme distortions you post re atheism, makes me wonder whether ad hominems are even possible against theists.

All I said was "It's got to do with the age-old habit of wishing and hoping to have that wish fulfilled. Only that and nothing more. What's Ad hominem about that?

BTW, who's the "paternal figure"? There has never been the slightest manifestation of such in the entire history of the planet. The only ones for show are those "improvised or synthesized" much later in history as the most potent means to monopolize power. The human lust for power is overriding and god is the most potent sperm to create the infrastructure. The main requirement is to ritualize it within texts, rules and ceremonies which only the most intelligent are able to produce and mental plebs eager to follow.

Truth is if you theists wouldn't make such uber-absurd statements re the evils of atheism - itself wishful thinking in terms of "Schadenfreude"- there would be less incentive to trivialize your horse & carriage theology. Eventually it will burn itself out. Moreover, if your insane statements on atheism were only half true, civilizations could not even exist.