Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:17 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Could humans grow beaks in another million years.., 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
God is "hiding" "He" needs to show himself (evidence) to prove he exists (an absent parent that cares is around for the child to see. otherwise, the child becomes rebellious and insecure).


Straw man #14

Who here is claiming he needs to show himself? I don't care if he acts as if he doesn't exist. I won't believe he exists in that case. Does that make you angry? Your post sounded a bit heated, as if atheists were being absurd to ask for evidence before believing something. No, I will not believe Muhammed’s writings without something to corroborate his anecdotes. Christian authors get no special treatment. L. Ron Hubbard as well.

Everyone peddles their ideological wares without evidence, then blames the non-believers for not believing! Yes, we atheists don’t believe because we’re immature children. You got us pegged!

Quote:
This is something that rubs atheists the wrong way. In a chaotic cosmos they look for certainty just as much as the theist.


Straw man #15. Show me someone who has a stronger distaste for 'certainty' than myself. This one isn't only a straw man, it's the exact opposite!



Oh come on now. The Freudian analysis was just that., and analysis of the big stink atheists, militant in particular, make of their belief in the non existence of God. It wasn't an "argument" Duh!
It's very important that we were all once fishies to the atheist because that would certainly mean god does not exist. :D

I noticed you were more interested in getting emotional here and didn't bother with the meat and potatoes of my post - the theory of evolution.
I must have hit some Freudian soft spot.

But it is all very Freudian.

BTW,
You mentioned the word hiding. It's not a stretch to imply that if "he" is "hiding" you'd like to see him come out of hiding.
Don't get your shorts knotted up over my commenting on your childish cosmic hide-and-seek game you think is going on. You're the ridiculous one here.



Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:52 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Quote:
These posts are becoming increasingly ridiculous.



Okay. Bye



Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:53 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Quote:
ps: hay ant, what about The Plague? Let's hear it!


I admire the atheistic message Albert Camus has to share in The Plague.

My interpretation of the story is that in the face of human suffering it does not matter if god exists or not, we are fellow sufferers that need not look elsewhere for help. What saves us in the end is our humanity, our humane involvement. The willingness of each person to do their part. The character Rieux exemplifies this.
(in a nutshell)

:)



Last edited by ant on Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:08 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Quote:
You mentioned the word hiding. It's not a stretch to imply that if "he" is "hiding" you'd like to see him come out of hiding.


I'm sorry, but the joke's on you here. I don't believe he's hiding. How silly of a rationalization is that. The simplest explanation is that he's a fictional entity. I say "he's hiding" as a way of poking fun. "Where's the elephant you said was in the back yard?" "Oh, he's hiding behind that there tree." Yep.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
You mentioned the word hiding. It's not a stretch to imply that if "he" is "hiding" you'd like to see him come out of hiding.


I'm sorry, but the joke's on you here. I don't believe he's hiding. How silly of a rationalization is that. The simplest explanation is that he's a fictional entity. I say "he's hiding" as a way of poking fun. "Where's the elephant you said was in the back yard?" "Oh, he's hiding behind that there tree." Yep.



You wrote it, you wear it, pal.



Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:13 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Someone try to get ant to give one actual belief that he has that makes him different from atheists.

Otherwise what are you arguing about? The continued strawman position that atheists have a proof of non-existence?



Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:20 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Dexter wrote:
Someone try to get ant to give one actual belief that he has that makes him different from atheists.

Otherwise what are you arguing about? The continued strawman position that atheists have a proof of non-existence?



Don't be silly.
I know atheists dont have a proof of non-existence.
For real? You actually think that's what my posts are based on?
That's actually YOUR strawman.., you're ragging against something I've never asserted here.
My contention is that atheists who assert god does not exist are absurd, like Robert, who believe in some warped manner that "science is atheistic"
Yeah,, he said that. Can you believe that garbage?



Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:34 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
ant wrote:
Don't be silly.
I know atheists dont have a proof of non-existence.
For real? You actually think that's what my posts are based on?
That's actually YOUR strawman.., you're ragging against something I've never asserted here.


That's not the first time you've called me silly or dumb for accurately stating your position. I realize it must seem dumb once you look at it again. You've criticized atheists over and over again for being certain about non-existence, even though no one actually claimed that -- hence the strawman -- again, and again, and again.

If you have something else, then since atheists are immature, childish, etc., what would be the mature position? To be agnostic? To believe an actual religious claim, or not?



Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:55 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Dexter wrote:
ant wrote:
Don't be silly.
I know atheists dont have a proof of non-existence.
For real? You actually think that's what my posts are based on?
That's actually YOUR strawman.., you're ragging against something I've never asserted here.


That's not the first time you've called me silly or dumb for accurately stating your position. I realize it must seem dumb once you look at it again. You've criticized atheists over and over again for being certain about non-existence, even though no one actually claimed that -- hence the strawman -- again, and again, and again.

If you have something else, then since atheists are immature, childish, etc., what would be the mature position? To be agnostic? To believe an actual religious claim, or not?


Actually, Militant Atheists in particular.
Yes, I say there is a freudian issue involved. I am not the originator of that claim. It is a psychological analysis based on the overt hostility to all things related to religion and the very notion of a cosmic figure who's "authority" underlies universal law.
Daddy issues - where is daddy and why has he let us down. He must not care because he seems so uninvolved with my life and he doesn't want to speak to me to prove he cares. Some of my siblings say they have a personal relationship with him, and for that, I am angry and will destroy their faith in him.



Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:11 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
ant wrote:
Daddy issues - where is daddy and why has he let us down. He must not care because he seems so uninvolved with my life and he doesn't want to speak to me to prove he cares. Some of my siblings say they have a personal relationship with him, and for that, I am angry and will destroy their faith in him.


Got it. Freudian nonsense. Duck questions about actual beliefs.

This is kind of like the brilliant argument by theists who say you must believe in God because you're talking about him.



Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:36 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
id like to know which theists youre talking about who say "you MUST believe in god"

Freud was a Naturalist, by the way.
Daddy issues manifest themselves in all sorts of weird ways.
We are on to something here.
Its a brilliant analysis if you ask me.



Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:58 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5832
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2216 times in 1675 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
ant wrote:
atheists who assert god does not exist are absurd, like Robert, who believe in some warped manner that "science is atheistic"
Yeah,, he said that.

Unbelievable. Who could believe that science is atheistic?

Nobody expects the scientific method. The core principle of the scientific method is elegance - elegance and parsimony. The two core principles of the scientific method are elegance, parsimony, logic and evidence. The three, no four, core principles of the scientific method are elegance, parsimony, logic, evidence and an almost fanatical devotion to the truth.

The principles of elegance and parsimony, known as Ockham's Razor, stipulate that we should prefer a more elegant answer over a less elegant answer, and that we should not postulate the existence of entities that are unnecessary to explain observations. Elegance is explanatory power and simplicity. Parsimony is the avoidance of multiplication of unnecessary entities.

God is an unnecessary entity. As Laplace said to Napoleon, science has no need of the hypothesis of the existence of God.

Science has found matter and energy, and it looks like finding dark matter and dark energy, but not God (or other universes). Belief in God is more elegantly and simply and clearly explained by imaginative psychological projection by believers than by the existence of a supernatural being. The working hypothesis of all scientific knowledge involves the assumption that belief in the supernatural is delusional. That means science is atheistic, except regarding natural allegorical use of religious language of the Einstein variety, even if scientists have to be polite to believers at times.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:19 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7074
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1078
Thanked: 2077 times in 1666 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Quote:
It is a psychological analysis based on the overt hostility to all things related to religion and the very notion of a cosmic figure who's "authority" underlies universal law.


Whose psychological analysis? Your own?

The motive is rooted in daddy issues? It's a reaction to how widespread ignorance is. Willful ignorance. People want to teach that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That is damaging to our future, we need the next generation of Americans in touch with reality.

From the atheists perspective, the lies of religions have spread to dominate the world, and all in the name of faith. This type of faith, that anchors an entire worldview, isn't justified. I mean that in the philosophical sense, not the laymen sense.

If left unchecked, religion just spreads and spreads. There's no stopping it, and it's progress has no correlation to it's truthfulness. It's extremist borders are damaging society. And like a nation, it's borders expand as the center expands. Atheists are most outspoken against those fringes, the extremists and evangelicals. But there's no way to criticize them without criticizing the rest, since they all pull their core beliefs from the same book.

Those core beliefs are often debated in philosophy/theology. But when those beliefs are exposed, the believers think it's an attack on their very soul. They get all spiteful and make up Freudian tales to 'explain away' the attackers.


As some booktalkers have said, they consider themselves atheists and are outspoken against religion. If asked to expand, they'll explain that nothing is certain so they're technically agnostic. But in the arena of ideas, agnostic doesn't fare well against certainty. If you're to have any impact on the expansion of religion, your confidence level must be equal to sway the masses.

I agree it's psychological, but I think it's a complex social reaction rather than an epidemic of daddy issues.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:15 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
ant wrote:
Freud was a Naturalist, by the way.
Daddy issues manifest themselves in all sorts of weird ways.
We are on to something here.
Its a brilliant analysis if you ask me.


Atheists don't believe in sky daddy because they are mad at sky daddy? That seems like a brilliant analysis to you?

Are you mad at n-1 Gods?



Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:09 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
It is a psychological analysis based on the overt hostility to all things related to religion and the very notion of a cosmic figure who's "authority" underlies universal law.


Whose psychological analysis? Your own?

The motive is rooted in daddy issues? It's a reaction to how widespread ignorance is. Willful ignorance. People want to teach that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That is damaging to our future, we need the next generation of Americans in touch with reality.

From the atheists perspective, the lies of religions have spread to dominate the world, and all in the name of faith. This type of faith, that anchors an entire worldview, isn't justified. I mean that in the philosophical sense, not the laymen sense.

If left unchecked, religion just spreads and spreads. There's no stopping it, and it's progress has no correlation to it's truthfulness. It's extremist borders are damaging society. And like a nation, it's borders expand as the center expands. Atheists are most outspoken against those fringes, the extremists and evangelicals. But there's no way to criticize them without criticizing the rest, since they all pull their core beliefs from the same book.

Those core beliefs are often debated in philosophy/theology. But when those beliefs are exposed, the believers think it's an attack on their very soul. They get all spiteful and make up Freudian tales to 'explain away' the attackers.


As some booktalkers have said, they consider themselves atheists and are outspoken against religion. If asked to expand, they'll explain that nothing is certain so they're technically agnostic. But in the arena of ideas, agnostic doesn't fare well against certainty. If you're to have any impact on the expansion of religion, your confidence level must be equal to sway the masses.

I agree it's psychological, but I think it's a complex social reaction rather than an epidemic of daddy issues.


I agree that the biblical literalists who ignore science and wish to disseminate scientific falsities should be opposed.
I reject your bigoted blanket claim that all religion does is spread ideology that wishes to dominate the world.

Millions of theists peacefully coexist within their communities and live productive love filled lives. Their respective congregations also are productive, supportive, and key contributors in many volunteer capacities that give freely to those in need. Many people think of their faith as "motivated faith" something that must be sought and experienced in a personal manner.

Your "religion is a poisonous virus and must be combated wherever it may be" is dictatorial myopic bullshit.
Your sarcastic, biting comments about religion are mostly for the purpose of demeaning and ridiculing people of religion that are not looking to blow up buildings. Case in point your recent "god must be hiding" sarcasm was not an attempt at open minded dialogue. It was meant as an arrogant bashing of people that believe in God.

There is no real fight for you here on BT, Interbane.
If you are looking to fight religion on all fronts, the one to start with are message boards that have posts by militant jihadists.
While we fight the young earth creationists in Court, you can condemn the Jihadists on their message boards and start by asking them why their god is hiding.

Your only serious half the time, Interbane.



Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:33 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank