Atheists face death in 13 Muslim countries

[Exophase]

When in Rome do as the Romans do. Do not go into a nation where you know you may be killed if you offend islam.

So yes, it is the atheist fault for putting themselves at risk.

Would you walk onto a highway an expect an 18 wheeler truck to drive around you? Or better yet, stand on a set of tracks and expect a train to go around you?

Islam is not going to go around you.

You don't think it's possible that someone born in that country could start to doubt the state religion on his or her own?

Contrary to what some people think you don't have to be taught how to not believe.

 

[ThinClient]

...bu..bu..I thought you said:





Just thought I'd leave this here.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

[Texashiker]

You don't think it's possible that someone born in that country could start to doubt the state religion on his or her own?

I am sure there are people who do that.

 

[ThinClient]

And I'd just like to mention that Evolution was fully accepted by the scientifc community well before they had nearly as much fossil evidence as they have today.

That tells me that science have spent the last, say...170 years or so trying to prove it, and less time trying to disprove it, or in other words, forcing the evidence to fit.

Wrong. The scientific community didn't accept evolution before Darwin came out with his books. Darwin was HATED for his theories because they weren't jesus-esque.

In the time since then, the scientific community has been throwing Darwin's evidence around trying to break it. We've been looking for holes, inconsistencies, falsehoods. We've been trying to prove it wrong. This is what scrutinizing the evidence means. Not only have we found it to be solid evidence, we've found literally mountains of additional evidence that supports Darwin's assertions. What have we done with the new evidence? We tried to break THAT stuff, too. When we found it to be solid evidence, we combined it with previous evidence, we re-evaluated the conclusion and found a match.

We continue this cycle when new evidence is found. Rigorously test it, make sure it's not false, then fold it into the existing set of evidence. Over and over, ever building this continuously growing mountain of evidence all supporting the theory of evolution.

YOU have been told this over and over and over and over and over. You KNOW this. Don't play stupid. We have all seen you participate in previous evolution threads and in each new thread you play dumb, making incredibly ignorant statements like the post I just quoted above. Stop being a dumbass.

 

[Retro Rob]

Wrong. The scientific community didn't accept evolution before Darwin came out with his books. Darwin was HATED for his theories because they weren't jesus-esque.

OK, so a book told them its true, so they believed it.

Sound familiar?

 

[ThinClient]

OK, so a book told them its true, so they believed it.

Sound familiar?

No, a book didn't tell them it's true, you intentionally obtuse nitwit.

A book said "here is my evidence, come see for yourself" to which the rest of the world did, then applied the same concepts to all corners of the globe after his evidence was scrutinized and found to be legit.

 

[soulcougher73]

OK, so a book told them its true, so they believed it.

Sound familiar?

Nobody believed it outright. His claims had to uphold to scientific scrutiny. And it has. You can't just believe things just because someone put pen to paper.

 

[Texashiker]

No, a book didn't tell them it's true, you intentionally obtuse nitwit.

A book said "here is my evidence, come see for yourself" to which the rest of the world did, then applied the same concepts to all corners of the globe after his evidence was scrutinized and found to be legit.

Recent fossil discoveries are casting serious doubt that modern man came from Africa.

Recent DNA studies show there is an ancestor we have not even found fossils of yet.

Darwins theory on the origin of man is being proven wrong. Not by looking at bones, but through the science of DNA.

 

[ThinClient]

Recent fossil discoveries are casting serious doubt that modern man came from Africa.

Recent DNA studies show there is an ancestor we have not even found fossils of yet.

Darwins theory on the origin of man is being proven wrong. Not by looking at bones, but through the science of DNA.

Right, and that man was on earth as long as 400,000 years ago.

This is what science does. It draws a conclusion from the existing valid evidence. When new valid evidence comes along, the conclusion is re-evaluated.

Darwin didn't have a theory on the origin of man, idiot. That was many other humans many decades or centuries after him.

Besides, at least science has the self respect to admit when it's wrong! At least science has the honor and courage to say "the conclusion that incomplete evidence supported must change now that more evidence has been found."

No such respectful thing can be said of ANY religion EVER.

 

[Texashiker]

Right, and that man was on earth as long as 400,000 years ago.
<snip>

You are so full of anger. Were you abused as a child?

Maybe you were not abused but wished you had been?

 

[soulcougher73]

You are so full of anger. Were you abused as a child?

Maybe you were not abused but wished you had been?

You were abused as a child. Still harboring a grudge 27 years later.

 

[Nebor]

Recent fossil discoveries are casting serious doubt that modern man came from Africa.

Recent DNA studies show there is an ancestor we have not even found fossils of yet.

Darwins theory on the origin of man is being proven wrong. Not by looking at bones, but through the science of DNA.

^^^
The best Christians are the ones that discard science at one turn and then try to use it to support their arguments at the next.

If you apply the same rigorous scientific method to everything in your life, there's no room for faith.

 

[Texashiker]

^^^
The best Christians are the ones that discard science at one turn and then try to use it to support their arguments at the next.

Not sure I understand your point?

 

[ThinClient]

You are so full of anger. Were you abused as a child?

Maybe you were not abused but wished you had been?

What are you even talking about?

 

[Nebor]

You were abused as a child. Still harboring a grudge 27 years later.

I think anyone under 16 years of age that's taken to a church should be considered abused. They're fed a pack of lies designed to enslave them for their entire lives before they're able to understand what happens to them.

I'd pose this question to all the pro-religion people in this thread: If the law said that no one was allowed to enter a place of worship, or be taught religious beliefs of any sort until they were 18 years old, what percentage of people do you think would adopt a religion as an adult, and what religion do you think they would adopt? If it's easier to work with, imagine it's done experimentally with a group of 100 kids, in a monitored environment where the no-religion rules are flawlessly enforced.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think anyone under 16 years of age that's taken to a church should be considered abused. They're fed a pack of lies designed to enslave them for their entire lives before they're able to understand what happens to them.

I'd pose this question to all the pro-religion people in this thread: If the law said that no one was allowed to enter a place of worship, or be taught religious beliefs of any sort until they were 18 years old, what percentage of people do you think would adopt a religion as an adult, and what religion do you think they would adopt? If it's easier to work with, imagine it's done experimentally with a group of 100 kids, in a monitored environment where the no-religion rules are flawlessly enforced.

..and you wonder why an atheist would never win a Presidential Election.

 

[Nebor]

..and you wonder why an atheist would never win a Presidential Election.

We'll be done with elections when it's time for an atheist to be in charge.

 

[Retro Rob]

We'll be done with elections when it's time for an atheist to be in charge.

Of course...because the "elightened" will kill all theists, burn down all houses of worship...this would basically be a reverse-Islamic Theocracy where dictators outlaw voting.

Glad you're acknowledging the true side of atheism.

 

[Nebor]

Of course...because the "elightened" will kill all theists, burn down all houses of worship...this would basically be a reverse-Islamic Theocracy where dictators outlaw voting.

Glad you're acknowledging the true side of atheism.

At some point the ratio of contributions by theists to trouble by the theists will drop so low that it'll be the only pragmatic, utilitarian solution. The fact that theists vote consistently and in blocks makes them that much more irritating. Democracy will return when it's no longer subject to the block voting of people who believe in fairy tales.

 

[Exophase]

Of course...because the "elightened" will kill all theists, burn down all houses of worship...this would basically be a reverse-Islamic Theocracy where dictators outlaw voting.

Glad you're acknowledging the true side of atheism.

How could you possibly infer that from what he said?

It sounds like he wants to let people figure these things out as reasonably adults instead of baking it into their brain from the earliest stages of development.

At some point the ratio of contributions by theists to trouble by the theists will drop so low that it'll be the only pragmatic, utilitarian solution. The fact that theists vote consistently and in blocks makes them that much more irritating. Democracy will return when it's no longer subject to the block voting of people who believe in fairy tales.

Okay, never mind, I guess he is pretty crazy about this 😛 Don't go thinking this is the "true side of atheism" though (anymore than a Christian wanting to kill all atheists would be showing the true side of Christianity)

 

[Nebor]

How could you possibly infer that from what he said?

He doesn't want to forbid people from being religious, he wants to let people figure these things out as reasonably adults instead of baking it into their brain from the earliest stages of development.

It's really just a theoretical meant to point out the fact that religious people would NEVER consider not indoctrinating their young children with their religion because even they know that no rational adult with even a mediocre education would all of a sudden start believing in fairy tales. The theists would go to war over such a restriction because it would be tantamount to forbidding religion over the course of a couple generations.

 

[Nebor]

Okay, never mind, I guess he is pretty crazy about this 😛 Don't go thinking this is the "true side of atheism" though (anymore than a Christian wanting to kill all atheists would be showing the true side of Christianity)

It's just looking down the road. Game theory. Fortunately the future strongly favors the atheists at this time, so hopefully it remains that way, God willing.

 

[Retro Rob]

How could you possibly infer that from what he said?

It sounds like he wants to let people figure these things out as reasonably adults instead of baking it into their brain from the earliest stages of development.

Well, I was kidding a bit as I know he that's not what he meant.

But the point about abuse is quite telling. It seems to me as if he wants tell people how to raise their kids, as child abuse is illegal, so essentally, he's advocating criminalizing religion.

That's the hallmark of Stalinism, and you cannot see why I have a problem with that?

 

[Nebor]

That's the hallmark of Stalinism, and you cannot see why I have a problem with that?

We can have capitalism, atheism AND a strong central government. It's called corporatism.

 

[ThinClient]

Of course...because the "elightened" will kill all theists, burn down all houses of worship...this would basically be a reverse-Islamic Theocracy where dictators outlaw voting.

Glad you're acknowledging the true side of atheism.

What the fuck are you even babbling about?

You haven't the first clue about atheism beyond your ignorant brainwashing agenda-driven dogma.