Atheist kills mother whilst reciting Dawkins
- Thread starter Casey
- Start date
Ok, but without that knowledge the bomb would not have been invented. Or it would have been later if someone else were to have discovered it later on.
This is like the "do guns kill people or do people kill people?" argument. Literally, yes, it is the gun that shoots the bullet which does the killing. But then why does the person who shot them go to jail? Clearly society isn't that naive to simply blame the gun, despite the technicalities of what really did the killing, the gun or the person.
Similarly, is it the Bible that does the killing, or the person that misinterprets the Bible? Maybe this guy was bat-shit insane. So we're going to ignore the psychological, scientific aspect of the issue and just blame it on religion? Hmm, sounds just like the type of people atheists otherwise make fun of as Believers.
Plenty of literature has delved on how science can be as harmful as religion. A Brave New World immediately comes to mind.
This is like the "do guns kill people or do people kill people?" argument. Literally, yes, it is the gun that shoots the bullet which does the killing. But then why does the person who shot them go to jail? Clearly society isn't that naive to simply blame the gun, despite the technicalities of what really did the killing, the gun or the person.
Similarly, is it the Bible that does the killing, or the person that misinterprets the Bible? Maybe this guy was bat-shit insane. So we're going to ignore the psychological, scientific aspect of the issue and just blame it on religion? Hmm, sounds just like the type of people atheists otherwise make fun of as Believers.
Plenty of literature has delved on how science can be as harmful as religion. A Brave New World immediately comes to mind.
There are Republicans and then there is Sarah Palin. There are Democrats and then there's Nancy Pelosi.
No one can prove that there is a God or that there is no God. Therefore, the atheists that act like Christian extremists, only with opposing views, are prime examples of hypocrites. And it's funny and sad at the same time.
Sometimes I think atheism is so rampant only because of the internet. It seems like sites like Digg and Reddit and all those other social media sites have atheist undertones. And that makes being atheist "cool" and all arguments are recycled from those places. It's annoying.
No one can prove that there is a God or that there is no God. Therefore, the atheists that act like Christian extremists, only with opposing views, are prime examples of hypocrites. And it's funny and sad at the same time.
Sometimes I think atheism is so rampant only because of the internet. It seems like sites like Digg and Reddit and all those other social media sites have atheist undertones. And that makes being atheist "cool" and all arguments are recycled from those places. It's annoying.
No one can prove or disprove there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Or Zeus. Or Amon-Ra.
But when I say I believe in unicorns, the religious will call me crazy. Thats infinitely more hypocritical. There's nothing hypocritical about scolding a belief while having no unfounded beliefs of your own.
Lack of belief isn't a belief. It's not a school of thought, it's not a way of life.
One cannot practically give everything a chance of existence based purely on "I can't prove it isn't there".
Oh, I know that. I'm not arguing on behalf of Believers as much as I am merely pointing out how hypocritical it is to be atheist extremist and fight with a religious fanatic/extremist. Neither can prove they're right and they end up making their arguments on how the other person is wrong. What kind of debate is that? It needs to consist of that plus overwhelming evidence for your own argument as well.
It sounds like you're referring to Columbine, where the media blamed Marilyn Manson. Here's the thing. It was proven that the shooters were NOT Marilyn Manson fans. Rather, they actively DISLIKED him. That's why the media spreading that story was so unfair. Fuck the media. That slowed the momentum of his greatest album - "Mechanical Animals", the protests and pickets meant he had to cancel shows. And for what? Because some kids who DIDN'T like him shot some other kids and the media needed a scapegoat?
There's no comparison. This actor guy chased his mother around with a sword and ultimately murdered her whilst spouting all kinds of religious babble. Religion justified what he was doing, in his mind. Religion justifies the evil that every religious person does, because they bend, and twist, and modify what they've read to suit their own needs. Why shouldn't they, when the religious authorities and governments the world over do they exact same thing? What kind of example are they setting?
Again, I'll point back to the Crusades, endless Holy Wars across different eras and religions, and a million other examples. All have the same clear message - "My arbitrary interpretation of a religion tells me that what you are doing is wrong, and therefore I have the right to kill you because of it".
Furthermore, who knows if this guy is mentally ill? At this point - that's an assumption. They check him in to a psych ward because we assume that somebody who kills somebody whilst ranting and raving about religious bullshit is insane. In my opinion, ALL the religious people are insane, whether they kill someone else or not. Because everyone has a point where they'll flip. For most people, they'll never reach that point. But religion clearly helps people who DO reach that point to justify it in their own mind.
What if this guy was completely sane? What if he goes to court and defends himself with his religion? For all we know he may very well try and do that. Terrorists and extremists do it all the time - are they all mentally ill? Is every suicide bomber that believes allah is gonna give em 12 virgins or whatever, mentally ill? Or are they simply heavily indoctrinated and brainwashed by their religion to the point where they can't be objective? Because that isn't just limited to people who kill others.
There's no comparison. This actor guy chased his mother around with a sword and ultimately murdered her whilst spouting all kinds of religious babble. Religion justified what he was doing, in his mind. Religion justifies the evil that every religious person does, because they bend, and twist, and modify what they've read to suit their own needs. Why shouldn't they, when the religious authorities and governments the world over do they exact same thing? What kind of example are they setting?
Again, I'll point back to the Crusades, endless Holy Wars across different eras and religions, and a million other examples. All have the same clear message - "My arbitrary interpretation of a religion tells me that what you are doing is wrong, and therefore I have the right to kill you because of it".
Furthermore, who knows if this guy is mentally ill? At this point - that's an assumption. They check him in to a psych ward because we assume that somebody who kills somebody whilst ranting and raving about religious bullshit is insane. In my opinion, ALL the religious people are insane, whether they kill someone else or not. Because everyone has a point where they'll flip. For most people, they'll never reach that point. But religion clearly helps people who DO reach that point to justify it in their own mind.
What if this guy was completely sane? What if he goes to court and defends himself with his religion? For all we know he may very well try and do that. Terrorists and extremists do it all the time - are they all mentally ill? Is every suicide bomber that believes allah is gonna give em 12 virgins or whatever, mentally ill? Or are they simply heavily indoctrinated and brainwashed by their religion to the point where they can't be objective? Because that isn't just limited to people who kill others.
I like what some of this guy said: Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a supernatural being, creator, or deity. Briefly, it is a lack of belief in God.
It is one of the major opponents of the Christian Church and Christian beliefs. It has always been diretly related to materialism. Summed up, the more materialistic a society is, the less spiritual it becomes. The less spiritual it becomes, the stronger atheism affects that society.
Therefore, the more materialistic a society becomes, the more atheism strengthens over it.
Atheism relies mostly on logic, analysis, and science. They do not believe in faith, nor the miracles of the Bible.
Atheism, though has major flaws. At first glance, it seems atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position. Like so many things in this world, it looks good only on the outside, but actually is weak on the inside - a foundation built on sand.
Atheism has three major flaws:
Atheist Statement No. 1 - "Atheism declares it does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. Science does not rely on faith and therefore cannot be biased."
Christian answer: Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true.
Unless you can verify scientists' findings one by one for yourself, you will have to accept their "word" at face value. You will have to believe that what they're saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.
Look. In the past, we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. Errors such as scientific facts that were declared as truth but were later found out to be false or in doubt.
Among numerous examples, one example is found in medical science. For many years, scientists/researchers have always declared that damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before.
However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.
That science is not based on faith is totally false. Therefore, this refutes the first statement of atheism.
As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe."
Atheist Statement No. 2 - "Science is based only on purely objective facts, while religion is partially subjective and therefore cannot be purely objective. "
Christian answer: Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc.
Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline.
Therein lies the problem. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, BUT scientists still have to "interpret them. Since scientists are only human, the interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions and become "partially subjective". This cannot be avoided.
Scientists are human beings with different beliefs, religions, philosophies, and come from various countries and cultures throughout the globe.
Take for example the debate on the origin of the universe. This major debate has been going on for centuries, and has divided the scientific community into "creationist scientists" and "evolutionist scientists".
The creationist scientists believe that the universe has order, design, and was created by an intelligent, omnpiotent being, a god. God is the creator of the universe.
The evolutionist scientists believe otherwise. They state that the universe has no design, has no order and is random. They reject the idea of a god, a creator of our universe.
And it doesn't even matter who has more numbers on either side. The truth is never based on "majority wins".
Say for example, my friend and I hid a silver coin inside a box. Now, we make a survey and ask all people around the world if they believe a coin exists in the box or not.
Even if all people around the world said they don't believe a coin exists in the box, the truth is not affected by their numbers. My friend and I know the truth that a coin does exist because we hid it ourselves! So truth is not based on majority opinion.
Atheist statement number 2 is therefore false.
Atheist Statement No. 3) "Science is better than religion because it relies on an objective method - the scientific method. This method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentations, logic, etc. Religion does not use an objective method and is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof", on "miracles" in the Holy Bible."
Christian answer: Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?
I mean you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simpy because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."
By what authority?
How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?
The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.
"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."
Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."
Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.
I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.
You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the "scientific method"! The logic is circular.
And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist (God-believing) scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using modern scientific methods. Watch "Secrets of the Bible" at Cable TV's "Discovery Channel".
At a different cable channel, underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics -particularly a large "chariot wheel" deep beneath the Red Sea. When traced back, the design of the wheel was identical to the chariots used in Egypt at around the time Moses' parting of the Red Sea occurred!
God has been so gracious as to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to believers and non-believers alike.
Atheist statement number 3 is therefore false.
Seeker of Truth: Why Atheism Is Wrong
Still, nothing definitive. Which is why I don't see how one can say there is or is no divine being.
It is one of the major opponents of the Christian Church and Christian beliefs. It has always been diretly related to materialism. Summed up, the more materialistic a society is, the less spiritual it becomes. The less spiritual it becomes, the stronger atheism affects that society.
Therefore, the more materialistic a society becomes, the more atheism strengthens over it.
Atheism relies mostly on logic, analysis, and science. They do not believe in faith, nor the miracles of the Bible.
Atheism, though has major flaws. At first glance, it seems atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position. Like so many things in this world, it looks good only on the outside, but actually is weak on the inside - a foundation built on sand.
Atheism has three major flaws:
Atheist Statement No. 1 - "Atheism declares it does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. Science does not rely on faith and therefore cannot be biased."
Christian answer: Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true.
Unless you can verify scientists' findings one by one for yourself, you will have to accept their "word" at face value. You will have to believe that what they're saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.
Look. In the past, we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. Errors such as scientific facts that were declared as truth but were later found out to be false or in doubt.
Among numerous examples, one example is found in medical science. For many years, scientists/researchers have always declared that damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before.
However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.
That science is not based on faith is totally false. Therefore, this refutes the first statement of atheism.
As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe."
Atheist Statement No. 2 - "Science is based only on purely objective facts, while religion is partially subjective and therefore cannot be purely objective. "
Christian answer: Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc.
Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline.
Therein lies the problem. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, BUT scientists still have to "interpret them. Since scientists are only human, the interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions and become "partially subjective". This cannot be avoided.
Scientists are human beings with different beliefs, religions, philosophies, and come from various countries and cultures throughout the globe.
Take for example the debate on the origin of the universe. This major debate has been going on for centuries, and has divided the scientific community into "creationist scientists" and "evolutionist scientists".
The creationist scientists believe that the universe has order, design, and was created by an intelligent, omnpiotent being, a god. God is the creator of the universe.
The evolutionist scientists believe otherwise. They state that the universe has no design, has no order and is random. They reject the idea of a god, a creator of our universe.
And it doesn't even matter who has more numbers on either side. The truth is never based on "majority wins".
Say for example, my friend and I hid a silver coin inside a box. Now, we make a survey and ask all people around the world if they believe a coin exists in the box or not.
Even if all people around the world said they don't believe a coin exists in the box, the truth is not affected by their numbers. My friend and I know the truth that a coin does exist because we hid it ourselves! So truth is not based on majority opinion.
Atheist statement number 2 is therefore false.
Atheist Statement No. 3) "Science is better than religion because it relies on an objective method - the scientific method. This method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentations, logic, etc. Religion does not use an objective method and is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof", on "miracles" in the Holy Bible."
Christian answer: Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?
I mean you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simpy because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."
By what authority?
How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?
The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.
"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."
Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."
Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.
I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.
You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the "scientific method"! The logic is circular.
And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist (God-believing) scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using modern scientific methods. Watch "Secrets of the Bible" at Cable TV's "Discovery Channel".
At a different cable channel, underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics -particularly a large "chariot wheel" deep beneath the Red Sea. When traced back, the design of the wheel was identical to the chariots used in Egypt at around the time Moses' parting of the Red Sea occurred!
God has been so gracious as to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to believers and non-believers alike.
Atheist statement number 3 is therefore false.
Seeker of Truth: Why Atheism Is Wrong
Still, nothing definitive. Which is why I don't see how one can say there is or is no divine being.
I purposely changed Marilyn Manson to 'a musician' to avoid this explanation. I'm aware of all that you've said. But (in your mind) just replace it with any time a musician (which is what I actually said) is blamed when a mentally unstable person commits a crime in their name. Sometimes you need to hold back on your rants, really.
And for a mentally unstable person anything can justify what they're doing. That's the point I was making.
You're right. But until you have all the facts you're also basing this on assumptions by saying this is because of religion.
The rest of your post is about religion as a detrimental influence on society in general. I'm staying on topic and I don't feel like getting into all of that. But as you pointed out there are plenty of fair examples that you can use but to use this particular example and blaming it on religion is unfair. You're doing the exact same thing people often do with the animal rights movement.
And for a mentally unstable person anything can justify what they're doing. That's the point I was making.
You're right. But until you have all the facts you're also basing this on assumptions by saying this is because of religion.
The rest of your post is about religion as a detrimental influence on society in general. I'm staying on topic and I don't feel like getting into all of that. But as you pointed out there are plenty of fair examples that you can use but to use this particular example and blaming it on religion is unfair. You're doing the exact same thing people often do with the animal rights movement.
You really should just quote Mr. Dawkins, if you are going to copy him that much. I don't think your reasoning is very sound either. While, I think it is asinine to attach various characteristics to god, which is what religions do and we see the senseless violence that this begets.
But, some sort of rationalistic faith wouldn't be as unfounded as you claim. Our existence is extremely improbable, by any standards. As a reductionist you will argue while extraordinarily improbable, considering the infinite-like vastness of the cosmos, it eventually becomes inevitable. And the spiritually inclined thinks that the universe looks like a fix job, and claims intelligent design. It is known as the Goldilocks enigma. I personally don't find either of these explanations satisfying.
But your reasoning and science will never answer these questions. There will always be that tortoise at the bottom that you won't be able to explain away via spontaneous combustion. I'm certainly not proposing religion can answer these questions either.
I am just saying, I don't think some sort of faith or faith in the possibility of a god, is nearly as ignorant as you claim. And trust me, this world won't get much better without religion. People will remain just as intrinsically shitty as they are today.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.