Being an atheist.

[Abdu-l-Majeed]

Why can't we all simply admit what we do not know?
I think that'd let research move more freely and open our minds to new ideas.

Yeah, why don't you?

 

[Muezzin]

Do athiests feel victimised?

I think certain of them do. I don't particularly mind them feeling that. That's not to say I support victimising athiests.

I do mind when perceived or actual victimisation leads to the victimised seeking 'vengeance' on all who they see as culpable. Which, more often than not, includes innocent people through guilt by association.

Sort of like crazy pseudo-feminists who think feminism is a synonym for misandry, and that all men are evil because of the despicable actions of certain men in world history or their own lives.

To me, a minority of athiests seem to have a similar mindset vis-a-vis religion and religious people.

Any truth in what I'm saying, or just inane ramblings indicating a lack of Powerade?

 

[جوري]

^^agreed.. powerade might give your expressions extra oomph though..

 

[Pygoscelis]

Do athiests feel victimised?

I think certain of them do. I don't particularly mind them feeling that. That's not to say I support victimising athiests.

I do mind when perceived or actual victimisation leads to the victimised seeking 'vengeance' on all who they see as culpable. Which, more often than not, includes innocent people through guilt by association.

Sort of like crazy pseudo-feminists who think feminism is a synonym for misandry, and that all men are evil because of the despicable actions of certain men in world history or their own lives.

To me, a minority of athiests seem to have a similar mindset vis-a-vis religion and religious people.

Any truth in what I'm saying, or just inane ramblings indicating a lack of Powerade?

Really depends on what you mean by victimized. We atheists certainly don't face genocide or anything on that level (at least not in modern times). We really aren't discriminated against as much as many other groups either (ie, black people in the US).

That said we ARE frequently demonized (quite literally) by the religious, we are frequently told that we can't have morals (folks claim you can't be good without god), and religions frequently attempt to insert themselves into our secular societies and force their will on us (everything from stores being forced closed on Sundays in some places to tax dollars funding religious institutions and religious institutions not having to pay their fair share of taxes, to the more extreme cases such as denial of voting rights or the right to give testimony in court, etc).

Also, polls have shown in the US at least that atheists are the most distrusted and disliked group. More US citizens said they would vote for a black person, a woman, a hispanic, etc, than an atheist. The bigotry is usually understated, but it is there.

Now all that said, no, I don't feel victimized by religion. I live in one of the most secular and multi-cultural countries in the world and its really no big deal here to be whatever you happen to be (we got it all here in Toronto)

 

[Azy]

Do athiests feel victimised?

I was at a petrol station today and a guy speeds up the wrong side of the road, enters the exit lane and pulls up to the adjacent pump the wrong way. He then spends 5 minutes making a scene because they change the pumps recently and you need to operate a little electronic menu before it'll dispense, but he starts banging the pump and swearing.
The lady inside at the counter says through the loudspeaker "could the owner of the car at number 6 please turn it round".
He ignores her and carries on, and eventually she comes out and repeats her request to him in person and asks if he wants her to show him how to use the pump.

He shouts back at her, "Is it because I'm Asian?"

Anyway I don't really know why I had to share that but I suppose my point is that you could feel victimised for any number of reasons and some of them might even be your own fault.
Personally I don't feel victimised but I reckon it's a safe bet that some do whether it's justified or not, and that probably goes for any other group you can think of.

 

[Converse02]

Skye,
Sampsons theory of endometriosis. Note that endometriosis is a fact. Although Sampson's theory maybe incorrect.

Darwin's theory of evolution. Note that evolution is a fact. Life evolves.
Lamarck's theory was disproven. Darwin has not.

Take germ theory, or the theory of heliocentricity. These "theories" are so substantiated they are facts. Darwin's version of evolution has reached this point.

I don't know how many scientists you've come across? But to be a scientist doesn't denote you accept things at face value or because a percentage of it believes this or that to be true.

We live in the age of the internet. We have pubmed and email. We have possible access to every scientist in every major university (depending if they want to read email from strangers). We have journals.
I am not accepting the claims of scientists at face valve or because a percentage say it is so. I am accepting because they have empirical evidence. Fossils, geology, and so on.
Darwin was the first to publish on evolution by natural selection. But Wallace discovered natural selection independently. Many scientists have discover evolution by natural selection independently from Darwin.

whether evolution happened as described and many concede the that one of the names of God 'Al'baree' denotes the evolver or whether each specie is its own with no change in morphology across the millenniums.. to me God is the driving force behind it,

Mutations are random. Ionizing radiation. DNA polymerase makes mistakes. We have DNA proofreading enzymes that do not catch the mistakes. There is no intelligent "driving force" behind it. Dawkins tried to illustrate this point in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker."

Now, you can say when DNA polymerase makes a mistake, it's not a mistake. It's God. Oh please....It's like saying the lottery or a coin toss is never random...You are simply redefining the word God as "random."

Finally, there are three theories of endometriosis I am aware of:
1. Sampson's theory
2. Theory of spread by tissue entering vasculature and/or lymphatics
3. Metaplastic theory (I believe this is the one currently en vogue).

 

[جوري]

Skye,
Sampsons theory of endometriosis. Note that endometriosis is a fact. Although Sampson's theory maybe incorrect.

indeed as is existing-- it is a fact-- we are here! although evolution as an explanation of how we came to be may be incorrect!

Darwin's theory of evolution. Note that evolution is a fact. Life evolves.
Lamarck's theory was disproven. Darwin has not.

You can't disprove a theory.. you can however put holes in its merits.. plenty of holes have been placed in Darwins.. see previous!

Take germ theory, or the theory of heliocentricity. These "theories" are so substantiated they are facts. Darwin's version of evolution has reached this point.

see above reply!

We live in the age of the internet. We have pubmed and email. We have possible access to every scientist in every major university (depending if they want to read email from strangers). We have journals.
I am not accepting the claims of scientists at face valve or because a percentage say it is so. I am accepting because they have empirical evidence. Fossils, geology, and so on.
Darwin was the first to publish on evolution by natural selection. But Wallace discovered natural selection independently. Many scientists have discover evolution by natural selection independently from Darwin.

You keep maintaining your argumentum ad populum yet can't prove it short of to repeat yourself of the many many scientists.. enough wasting of my time-- Dressing it up with names doesn't loan it credence! Previous I have told you, there are millions of scientists who write of religion, people with PhD's and MD's, the weight of literature and number of sites it doesn't loan the argument credence when at the very crux is something intangible-- try to understand so I am not wasting time writing the same thing over and over!

Mutations are random. Ionizing radiation. DNA polymerase makes mistakes. We have DNA proofreading enzymes that do not catch the mistakes. There is no intelligent "driving force" behind it. Dawkins tried to illustrate this point in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker."

Now, you can say when DNA polymerase makes a mistake, it's not a mistake. It's God. Oh please....It's like saying the lottery or a coin toss is never random...You are simply redefining the word God as "random."

Finally, there are three theories of endometriosis I am aware of:
1. Sampson's theory
2. Theory of spread by tissue entering vasculature and/or lymphatics
3. Metaplastic theory (I believe this is the one currently en vogue).

I have already discussed all the theories on endometriosis in previous threads!-- are we merely stating the obvious?
Some mutations are random indeed like achondroplasia FGFR3-- some are inherited.. Many defy the laws of natural selection.. No mutation or Break in DNA has been known to be of benefit to man!



Now-- I have dropped this thread, because I found none of you to be worthy contenders.. I can tell when someone googles their facts du jour and when someone actually knows what they are talking about..
why not be like your good buddies here and concede that that you simply don't know-- rather than feign knowledge? we have all seen how well your sickle cell trait attempt went, and your buddy's attempt to save you? I don't have the time to drag this out for another three months!

Don't assume for me, why there are or aren't mistakes-- any abberation should merely draw your attention to how much goes right for you that you take for granted daily!
We'll go back and forth about mutations.. it is lovely, you know about them, but can't demonstrate how a single one fosters speciation..perhaps you should finish reading dawkins guide to atheism so he'll dictate to you what to write next seeing how simple reasoning eludes you!..


cheers

 

[Converse02]

although evolution as an explanation of how we came to be may be incorrect!

How? In a world of hominid fossils, and the radiometric and geological dating of them, evolution is the only reasonable explanation of how we came to be. What other possible explanation is there? God buried those fossils and played with the radioactive dating himself to make it look like we evolved?

You can't disprove a theory.. you can however put holes in its merits.. plenty of holes have been placed in Darwins..

Lamarck's theory of evolution is disproven! None of the so called "holes" in Darwin's theory disproves it. Even the paper you gave me doesn't disprove it.
Your "Goddidit" theory is breathtaking inanity.

You keep maintaining your argumentum ad populum yet can't prove it short of to repeat yourself of the many many scientists..

Fossils in strata of rock is not "argumentum ad populum." We have the fossils. We win.
Darwinian evolutionists predicted the existence of Tiktaalik, the feathered dinosaur, and hominids before they were found. Science is the true prophecy.

Previous I have told you, there are millions of scientists who write of religion, people with PhD's and MD's,

Religion is NOT a science. There is NO empirical evidence of God. Millions of PhD's and MD's can write about magical elves, there is NO empirical evidence of elves either.
There is empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution!!!

Some mutations are random indeed like achondroplasia FGFR3-- some are inherited.. Many defy the laws of natural selection.. No mutation or Break in DNA has been known to be of benefit to man!

This gross misunderstanding of evolution. No mutation defies the laws of natural selection, you simply do not understand natural selection.
Many mutations are known to benefit man. I just named how sickle cell trait, which can result from a mutation, can lead to malaria resistance.
Also, by admitting some mutations are random, you are contradicting yourself earlier when you said God's hand in at play in all of this. Is it random or is it God?

Now-- I have dropped this thread, because I found none of you to be worthy contenders..

Nice excuse. Just admit you lost.
I've been saying, why don't you go to Harvard, Oxford, or your local college and debate with the professor of the biology/geology department? Forget that, just ask a bio undergrad. You will be owned.

We'll go back and forth about mutations.. it is lovely, you know about them, but can't demonstrate how a single one fosters speciation

No one says it's a single mutation. Evolution is over millions of years. Many mutations over time lead to speciation. How can it NOT result in speciation?
Take a tiger and a lion. They can breed, but you get an animal with genetic defects. They are an example of an animal that shared a common ancestor and are starting to speciate.
Animals off the islands of Africa are similar to the mainland ones, but different species? How did that happen? There are fish east and west of central america are similar, but different species. If you learn about evolution, you will know how. Read some Darwin.

perhaps you should finish reading dawkins guide to atheism so he'll dictate to you what to write next seeing how simple reasoning eludes you!

This tends to the logically fallacy of "poisoning the well." You have not shown how Dawkins is incorrect. You are shooting the messenger, not the message.
Read Dawkins. He's one of the world's experts on evolution and atheism.

 

[جوري]

How? In a world of hominid fossils, and the radiometric and geological dating of them, evolution is the only reasonable explanation of how we came to be. What other possible explanation is there? God buried those fossils and played with the radioactive dating himself to make it look like we evolved?

Ummm trying different species that have gone extinct.. it isn't really that mind boggling?

Lamarck's theory of evolution is disproven! None of the so called "holes" in Darwin's theory disproves it. Even the paper you gave me doesn't disprove it.
Your "Goddidit" theory is breathtaking inanity.

You must believe then that black people are indeed a transitional form between apes and humans as per Darwin!

Fossils in strata of rock is not "argumentum ad populum." We have the fossils. We win.
Darwinian evolutionists predicted the existence of Tiktaalik, the feathered dinosaur, and hominids before they were found. Science is the true prophecy.

I don't understand what having fossils has to do with existence? perhaps you can elaborate on that?

Religion is NOT a science. There is NO empirical evidence of God. Millions of PhD's and MD's can write about magical elves, there is NO empirical evidence of elves either.
There is empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution!!!

How many times must I define empirical for you? is that you can't understand or unwilling to learn?

This gross misunderstanding of evolution. No mutation defies the laws of natural selection, you simply do not understand natural selection.
Many mutations are known to benefit man. I just named how sickle cell trait, which can result from a mutation, can lead to malaria resistance.
Also, by admitting some mutations are random, you are contradicting yourself earlier when you said God's hand in at play in all of this. Is it random or is it God?

And I just told you how sickle cell trait is a mere substitution of one disease state for another so one doesn't succumb to a super infection -- Perhaps you can name a few more.. say one that turns rabbits into elephants?

Nice excuse. Just admit you lost.
I've been saying, why don't you go to Harvard, Oxford, or your local college and debate with the professor of the biology/geology department? Forget that, just ask a bio undergrad. You will be owned.

lol.. How have I lost?
I have a B.S/M.S/M.D--
mu under grad was in molecular bio.. my thesis for my M.S was in Genomic fingerprinting.. what exactly can an under grad tell me that I can't comprehend on my own?

No one says it's a single mutation. Evolution is over millions of years. Many mutations over time lead to speciation. How can it NOT result in speciation?
Take a tiger and a lion. They can breed, but you get an animal with genetic defects. They are an example of an animal that shared a common ancestor and are starting to speciate.

I have already enclosed a paper on known mutations and the improbability of sharing an ancestor over millions and billions of years and its ability to speciate.. all the variables of our known universe are there, perhaps you can rebut it with something of substance? . when/if you do --I'll make sure I'll read it

Animals off the islands of Africa are similar to the mainland ones, but different species? How did that happen? There are fish east and west of central america are similar, but different species. If you learn about evolution, you will know how. Read some Darwin.

how you tickle me!

This tends to the logically fallacy of "poisoning the well." You have not shown how Dawkins is incorrect. You are shooting the messenger, not the message.
Read Dawkins. He's one of the world's experts on evolution and atheism.

You have failed to engage your understanding of Dawkin.. the same way you fail to synthesize your understanding of evolution.. I am not impressed by names but by substantiated logic!

honestly it took me a total of four minutes to write this.. that is how much time needs to be dedicated to you!

cheers

 

[Converse02]

lol.. How have I lost?
I have a B.S/M.S/M.D--
mu under grad was in molecular bio.. my thesis for my M.S was in Genomic fingerprinting.. what exactly can an under grad tell me that I can't comprehend on my own?

Even an undergrad can tell you that Darwinian evolution is a fact and show you the empirical evidence to prove it.

Why don't you go back to where you got your B.S./M.S./M.D. and tell your professors and colleagues you don't except evolution so they can set up back on the correct path instead of arguing it over the islamicforums. If you feel you are disproven evolution, why didn't you do your thesis on it or publish a paper on it or something...lol, fat chance at that.

And I just told you how sickle cell trait is a mere substitution of one disease state for another so one doesn't succumb to a super infection --

Not all people with sickle cell trait have symptoms. Not all are in a "disease state."

 

[جوري]

Even an undergrad can tell you that Darwinian evolution is a fact and show you the empirical evidence to prove it.

Why don't you go back to where you got your B.S./M.S./M.D. and tell your professors and colleagues you don't except evolution so they can set up back on the correct path instead of arguing it over the islamicforums. If you feel you are disproven evolution, why didn't you do your thesis on it or publish a paper on it or something...lol, fat chance at that.

I am glad you can find an undergrad who agrees with you.. it is indeed lonely when you are a free thinker and not into herd mentality ..
I have already defined what 'empirical evidence' means to you a few pages back..
luckily the folks at Johns Hopkins and Duke aren't as affected by neurosis as you appear to be..
Evolution isn't a point of interest for me.. It is a mere permutation for those not into conventional wisdom.. It really does nothing to better man kind!

Not all people with sickle cell trait have symptoms. Not all are in a "disease state."

Indeed a few paged back I have defined for you, that in order for one to be protected from Malaria in sickle cell state, one has to contract the disease.. which like Hypoxia, acidosis, high altitude etc, causes a sickle cell like disease state, whereby ones cells sickle, disabling the schizonts from surviving-- but one is then sick with a disease state like sickle cell.. so protective from Malaria.. but possible death from a a sickle like crisis.. Got it this time I hope?

still waiting on those other mutations though. that cause speciation!

cheers

 

[Woodrow]

This Merry-go-round has been damaged beyond repair. It is no longer a safe ride for Humans, kittens or elephants, so it is now shut down.

:threadclo: