Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Utter Ignorance
05-29-2011, 09:52 PM
Post: #1
Utter Ignorance
I didn't debate religion when I first came to the conclusion I was an Atheist because I didn't think it did any real harm.

Later I noticed the harm it does, not just the murder, etc, but suppressing science and drive to understand. So I started voicing my opinion and try to help people see how outrageous it is. And it is, not just the religion itself, but the way it changes someones mind and blinds them from so much. Not just blinding people from conflicting views like evolution, or the earth revolving around the sun, but it really alters the thought process entirely. It give a person the ability to laugh at the Islamic idea of virgins in heaven, while they eat the flesh and drink the blood of their God!

Now I'm at the point where I have debated enough and I don't mind to debate people who have thoroughly investigated their religion, but the ones who are completely ignorant about their religion, other then the idea that I, and other non-believers are going to hell, these are the ones that I don't usually bother to debate or sometimes even acknowledge. Mostly because they have absolutely nothing to say that I haven't heard and rebutted a hundred times, but also because these are the same people who haven't taken the time to judge there beliefs in any real way throughout their whole lives, so I can only assume that any logic I say is a waste of breath on my part.

Well this is one of the rare times, here is a twitter conversation that I got involved in, and against my better judgment I persisted past there point where I realized it was pointless.

Keep in mind this is from Twitter, so there is 144 character limit (less when your talking to someone) and from time to time a second question is asked before the first has been answered, etc.
I, as you may have guest am Garrett Fogerlie (eviltheists on twitter, but I used my name here) and soccer_maiden is the name of the other individual.


soccer_maiden: Atheists say, "Life began without an intelligent creator". Can someone tell me how scientists can test that theory without intelligence.

Garrett Fogerlie: Intelligence isn't a prerequisite for creation, does a river have intelligence because it creates a canyon?


soccer_maiden: Depends. Where did the river come from?

Garrett Fogerlie: came from water, witch came hydrogen & oxygen that came from stars that came from the matter, that came from energy
its simpler things making more complex things, to say a uncreated God created it, suppresses the entire drive to understand.


soccer_maiden: Where did energy come from?

Garrett Fogerlie: that is the limits to our understanding currently, just like the solar system was a few hundred years ago, etc

soccer_maiden: I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. -Voltaire

Garrett Fogerlie: "With ideas like God created it, we can't comprehend how so don't try, religion destroys the desire to learn" -G Fogerlie
[I know it's poor taste to quote yourself but I was talking to someone else and just felt like quickly throwing a quote back at them, because if there is one thing that unquestioning religious followers know it is if something was written down, it is true! (and probably spoken from God himself, ha)]


soccer_maiden: Yes but the common knowledge that every building has a builder and every creation has a creator doesn't.

Garrett Fogerlie: People who say "Christ died for my sins," when he did not really "die" at all are making a blatant false statement! http://ow.ly/55ANY
[this seems out of context because I didn't say it the them, but as this commonly happens on twitter, they replied to it]


AnotherTwitterUser - I think the story is he did actually die and was then resurrected.

Garrett Fogerlie: To die, then come back to life to pall around with friends for a while isn't the same as the soldiers who died for my freedoms!

soccer_maiden: And what if he did and you didn't except him
Yes. Look around.
He rose again to prove He was Gods Son.


Garrett Fogerlie: What about the accepting all the thousands of God's that billions more people then you have believed in?

What about the hundred dead people who rose from their graves within that same week, that the bible talks about R they god?


soccer_maiden: No they aren't. They are like Lazarus who God raised from the dead to prove his power.

Garrett Fogerlie: It doesn't state that, some books don't even talk about them at all. It says dead ppl rose form their graves, ppl assume why!

He died then was resurrected, it happens so often in the Bible, that it hardly has any meaning.


soccer_maiden: Those "gods" all have something in common. They were thought up by a man. The Bible wasn't thought up by a man.

Garrett Fogerlie: nope, the bible was thought up by a culture, just like every other religion! And most all of their texts were God inspired too.

The bible is full of saints resurrecting, family members, etc. We just focus on the one that got popular.


soccer_maiden: Who Lazarus? lol he was the only one I mentioned because I only have so much room to type.

Garrett Fogerlie: Son of Zarephath, A man who touched a bone, Son of Nain, Daughter of Jairus, Dorcas, Eutychus, damn 144 chars


soccer_maiden: Lol!
The Bible(And Jesus) is commonly called the word. Because it was spoken by God to John who wrote down the words God sead.

Garrett Fogerlie: John didn't write the bible, he didn't even write the book called John, these are basic facts, they're even taught in church!

soccer_maiden: Yes we can. He said let there be light and there was light.

Garrett Fogerlie: and the universe is on the back of a giant tortice. Stop reading a story book and taking it as absolute, read a real book!


soccer_maiden: Because death had been conquered. It held no power over believers any longer.

[I didn't rebut this idea because I was done with the conversation when I wrote "Read a real book," but for anyone who hasn't heard this argument before, the simple answer for death was conquered for believers, thats why the dead rose from the graves Matthew 27:52-53 is if death was conquered for believers, why do believers still die? and why don't they randomly rise from there graves? Of course there are rebuttals to these and so forth and so on.]

Garrett Fogerlie: The majority of ones I listed happened well before Jesus was even conceived, closer to the time of Job.

soccer_maiden: Yes but the ones we were talking about where the ones that rose during that week. Matthew 27:52.

Garrett Fogerlie: You believe that the bible is the absolute word of God?

soccer_maiden: I take it as absolute because it has been proven and tried and has passed.

Garrett Fogerlie: Your American then? Cause 60% of American Christians believe that, the percentage of Christians who belive that in the rest of the world is close to nill

You'd save a lot of time trying 2 justify all the contradictions & tall tales, by understanding that it was written by men!


soccer_maiden: Yes...Why?

Garrett Fogerlie: cause when I hear "the bible is the Literal word of god" it is from someone from here, where faith and logic are separate!

soccer_maiden: Really. Heres logic. If your right and I'm wrong I've lost nothing. But if I'm right and your wrong you've lost everything

Garrett Fogerlie: Why not believe every god just to be safe? Not to mention, if your wrong you wasted your only life in persuite of another!

soccer_maiden: Because your either for the one true God or your against him. Yes and if I'm right after this life (which I've lived to the fullest and enjoyed to its greatest extent) I'll go to be with the God who died for and rose again me for all eternity.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-30-2011, 12:38 PM
Post: #2
RE: Utter Ignorance
How did that whole conversation transpire? Did she come to you and start asking you to defend the point of atheists believing that life started without an intelligent creator? Do you think you could have saved yourself some strokes on the keyboard by reminding her that the burden of proof is on her? You could have asked her to give evidence for an intelligent creator. I like starting out that way when I have a discussion. Because in reality, I'm not the one in the corner defending my claims about the universe. In fact, I start by just asking questions and let the conversation ebb and flow from there.

One more general point.....I don't think I would have even accepted her first statement without requiring her to reword it. Atheists don't know for sure that there wasn't an intelligent creator. In fact, Dawkins has said that it's possible there could have been some form of intelligent engineering agent. But atheists can definitively state that "there is no evidence to suggest an intelligent designer." That is really as far as you can take that point and it's a lot stronger than pinning yourself to the statement that "life began without an intelligent creator." I often say that there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that, and therefore I remain unconvinced. What do you think about that angle?

Andy
ReasonistProducts.com
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-31-2011, 12:10 AM
Post: #3
RE: Utter Ignorance
I don't have conversations on twitter much, mostly because it's hard with the 144 character limit, and I'm really not big on social networking at all. I was just on there to plug an article or this forum or something, and I saw that statement:

soccer_maiden: Atheists say, "Life began without an intelligent creator". Can someone tell me how scientists can test that theory without intelligence.

I initially was going to say something to the effect of, "to prove something requires intelligence, but that doesn't instill or require the item being proved to have intelligence. Like proving a rock is hard..." but I didn't have enough room, and thought the better point was to go with it like I did.

Of course the burden of proof most always rests on the person making the positive claim, but I doubt that would have made any sense to this person.

By the way, about how life may have started, I think it absolutely started somewhere at sometime, unintentionally. The Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953 proved that complex protein peptides could be created, while this was considered meretricious for 50 years or so, another group that I can't recall, showed how Millers research when combined with high energy destructive forces, could produce protobionts. The entire Abiogenesis theory may not be complete (it may be complete, does anyone know more about this? it's been 6 or so years since the last time a attended a lecture on it.)

Never the less, Criag Venter's, by creating synthetic reproducing life, has proved that God is not needed to create life. While his method required an intelligent designer (him and his team), his work, along with everyone else who works to figure out the Abiogenesis process, should be able to show how life can be created from naturally occurring sources. After all, before Friedrich Wohler in 1828, nobody thought that organic compound could be synthesized from inorganic starting materials!

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Linkedin Technorati Twitter Digg MySpace Delicious

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)