Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

agnophilo123

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About agnophilo123

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    26
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Atheist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Ohio
  1. If somebody is evangelizing to you and you know they are trying to change you it's unavoidably patronizing for the person being evangelized to. You feel condescended to and it's insulting, especially if you work hard at being a decent person and improving yourself and improving your worldview. So for instance my best friend for the past 3 years is christian (I'm an atheist) and part of me of course has wanted to argue now and then about this kind of stuff, though not that often because my friend happens to be the kind of christian I don't think does any harm in america so honestly it doesn't really even come up anymore (and part of her has wanted to evangelize to me in the past). But I decided a long time ago that if I'm someone's friend and I care for them as a means to an end to change them or manipulate them, I'm not being a real friend. So when she comes to me for help or support (she's been through some serious abuse from her family) I do not ever take the opportunity to try to "fix" her, and she has even come to me at times and said she doesn't believe in god anymore or is doubting her faith and as a rule in those times I don't ever encourage her to stop believing or argue with her about it. Because to do so would be opportunistic and mean, it doesn't matter that I don't think there is a god or what my views on the harmfulness of religion are - to take advantage of someone when they're at their weakest goes against every ethic I have. So I try to build her up, make her strong, help her however I can for the sake of being a good friend. And if she never changes her mind about god or religion I'm going to be her friend anyway. To me that is the only way to go about friendship.
  2. agnophilo123

    Richard Dawkins Makes A Good Statement

    How is he making a fool of himself exactly?
  3. agnophilo123

    Understand Christian Yec Worldview

    "Looking at your quote that sounds like Unitarian Universalism; for the all opinions equally valid part minus the mockery. " Pluralism and moral relativism are not quite the same thing. My views are eclectic, like UU's I draw from many sources for my beliefs - but I do not believe all views are morally equal. Just equally worth thinking/learning about. "but 'I' believe that truth - lowercase t - is knowable because of a "uniformity of nature" as Lisle calls it, has been put into place by Jesus." I don't know how anyone could even begin to establish that to be true. "I call it the prime reality and I think that might be on the same context as what he says. Don't know where you got your quote from?" The quote was me paraphrasing the form of argument. "I think you were trying to imply that religious people oppose science?" No, though of course some do. "Everyone has religion in the context of rules they live by..." Your definition of religion is rules to live by? And atheism has no rules whatsoever. Atheists do of course, but generally not dogmatic or authoritarian or un-questionable ones, which is what I think of when I think of "religion". "for example Atheism was classified as a religion by the Supreme Court (see Kaufman v. McCaughtry)." No, it was just decided to have equal protection under the first amendment. The supreme court are not the dictionary police nor do they have the power under the constitution to dictate philosophical truths. "It also appears that your just mocking, what would you like to discuss?" I was perhaps mocking that form of argument a bit (as I think it is dishonest and irrational), it was not meant to be hostile to you or theists in general. "Here is another article on the uniformity of nature from him: http://www.answersin...god-natural-law (God and Natural Law; by Jason Lisle, Ph.D. August 28, 2006)" Lets say you were walking along the shore of a lake and you found a rock that was floating 1 foot above the water and you picked it up and whenever you put it down it always stayed one foot away from the water as though it were being pushed away by a magnet. You mess around with it some more, examine it, scrutinize it and you have no idea why it has this property or what the mechanism behind it is. Could you then logically conclude that it must be because the rock was enchanted by fairies? Or would that be a leap that could not logically or empirically be substantiated? Why is attributing an inexplicable property of the universe to a deity any different? To quote your article: "In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws." It's the other way around, the people who wrote the bible had eyes. They observed constant behaviors for themselves then assumed their deity was responsible for them the same way people saw lightning and assumed zeus was responsible for it. The fact that the bible attributes some aspect of reality that is real to yahweh no more proves yahweh is responsible for it then the fact that lightning is real proves zeus is responsible for it. If the koran said allah makes the rain fall would that substantiate the claims of islam? "Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals." No, there are countless theists and deists who support evolution (the theists that accept evolution actually outnumber the atheists that do in most countries). And "laws" are not immutable rules, "laws" of science have been "broken" many times, This is why they are referred to by less dogmatic scientists as scientific principles because they are only universally true in principle (so far as we have observed). Statements like "God created the laws of chemistry in just the right way so that life would be possible" could be modified to change "god" to "Brahma" and it would be no more or less substantiated. "The properties of elements and compounds are not arbitrary. In fact, the elements can be logically organized into a periodic table based on their physical properties. Substances in the same column on the table tend to have similar properties." That makes no sense, the periodic table is what isn't arbitrary not the elements themselves. "The secular naturalist cannot account for the laws of mathematics." That's just silly, all "laws" are man-made inventions and systems for classifying, quantifying and describing information. Even if there was a creator that made the properties of the universe we invented math and "laws" of physics and logic to try to describe and understand and exploit those properties. This is like saying if I make and use a hammer that proves the existence of god because god made hammers and has a "hammer-like" nature. He then attempts to deal with this but the "laws" themselves are man-made and separate from the properties they attempt (inadequately) to describe. "Indeed, the law of noncontradiction reflects God’s nature; God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19)" That is just nutty, total disconnect in logic there. And even if I accepted his assertion the "law" of non-contradiction, like many laws, is easily breakable - I imagine he's heard of relativity where a line or the path of an object is both straight and curved depending on the position of the observer and speed is relative to the point of reference etc. "The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past; this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this assumption, science would be impossible." It's not an assumption, it's an observation, and one that has been found to not be true many times over. His whole argument is based on abductive reasoning which if you don't know is basically concluding something is true not based on logic or evidence, but based on an assumption's ability (if it were true) to explain something. For instance if I can't find my keys tomorrow morning one possible explanation is that the CIA hid them as part of a mind control experiment to see how I would react. This, if it were true, would explain my missing keys. But the fact that it would, if true, explain my not being able to find my keys is not, by itself, proof or even evidence. Abductive reasoning is basically just imagination and is generally only used to produce hypothetical ideas which then must be substantiated logically or empirically. "How could we communicate without universal laws?" I have no idea. For all I know this is the only type of universe that's possible. Or for all I know the universe on a fundamental level is pure chaos and order and apparent "laws" are what you get when you zoom out far enough from that chaos and patterns emerge. According to quantum experiments on a small scale particles are in multiple places simultaneously and other particles are popping into and out of existence constantly so who knows. But not knowing doesn't give us license to fill in the blanks however we like, and that's the same thing people did with zeus and thor. It didn't give them any new information and it doesn't give us any new information either.
  4. agnophilo123

    A Question For The Creationists

    I wasn't talking to you and you know I'm not responding to you any more so stop clogging up every single thread on this site with responses, accusations and arguments. Unless you prefer to talk to yourself and hijack other peoples' threads.
  5. agnophilo123

    Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense

    The oldest fossils are 3.4 billion years old, much older than the cambrian period. The pre-cambrian period is the beginning of multi-cellular life not the beginning of life (though creationists made this claim for years, and I'm sure some still do).
  6. agnophilo123

    Questions To Evolutionists/atheists

    It was plainly spelled out. You're either unwilling or unable to comprehend it. There is nothing more I can do to help you.
  7. agnophilo123

    Science 101

    You repeat the same crap no matter how many times I respond to it. Remember that huge long explanation I gave you of why archeopteryx was evidence for evolution not because a scientist found it and scratched his head and dreamt up the theory of evolution, but because darwin specifically predicted the existence of early birds with multiple digits two years prior to their discovery in On The Origin Of Species: "The bastard wing of birds is a rudimentary digit; and I believe that if fossil birds are found very low down in the series, they will be seen to have a double or bifurcated wing. Here is a bold prophecy!" Bastard in the sense of "no longer in it's original form" by the way. This is an experimental test of the theory. Not all experimental predictions are tested in a laboratory. When einstein predicted the angle light would bend around the sun from a star behind the sun in an upcoming eclipse, nobody said that wasn't a valid test of his mathematical model because he didn't shrink half of the galaxy down into a laboratory to make the observation. Know what else is an experimental test of the theory? This: And this: And lots and lots of other examples, many of which I've given you in the past.
  8. agnophilo123

    More Youtube Scare Tactics.

    What did darwin plagiarize?
  9. agnophilo123

    More Youtube Scare Tactics.

    The word "race" had an entirely different meaning in darwin's day and darwin did not espouse the views of hitler. Saying that europeans after centuries of imperialism would surely exterminate less advanced tribes isn't the same as saying it's a good thing. Here's a darwin quote for you: "I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place. ― Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313 It's like he and hitler were twins or something! Here's some more hate from darwin: While staying at this estate, I was very nearly being an eye-witness to one of those atrocious acts which can only take place in a slave country. Owing to a quarrel and a lawsuit, the owner was on the point of taking all the women and children from the male slaves, and selling them separately at the public auction at Rio. Interest, and not any feeling of compassion, prevented this act. Indeed, I do not believe the inhumanity of separating thirty families, who had lived together for many years, even occurred to the owner. Yet I will pledge myself, that in humanity and good feeling he was superior to the common run of men. It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal. ― Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter II Here's him describing his interactions with indians in south america: A few days afterwards I saw another troop of these banditti-like soldiers start on an expedition against a tribe of Indians at the small Salinas, who had been betrayed by a prisoner cacique...Two hundred soldiers were sent; and they first discovered the Indians by a cloud of dust from their horses' feet, as they chanced to be travelling...The Indians, men, women, and children, were about one hundred and ten in number, and they were nearly all taken or killed, for the soldiers sabre every man. The Indians are now so terrified that they offer no resistance in a body, but each flies, neglecting even his wife and children; but when overtaken, like wild animals, they fight against any number to the last moment. One dying Indian seized with his teeth the thumb of his adversary, and allowed his own eye to be forced out sooner than relinquish his hold. Another, who was wounded, feigned death, keeping a knife ready to strike one more fatal blow. My informer said, when he was pursuing an Indian, the man cried out for mercy, at the same time that he was covertly loosing the bolas from his waist, meaning to whirl it round his head and so strike his pursuer. "I however struck him with my sabre to the ground, and then got off my horse, and cut his throat with my knife." This is a dark picture; but how much more shocking is the unquestionable fact, that all the women who appear above twenty years old are massacred in cold blood! When I exclaimed that this appeared rather inhuman. he answered, "Why, what can be done? they breed so!" Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country? ― Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter V Clearly he thought they should all be "exterminated". Etc, etc. Darwin's writings were banned under the nazis, they made their own version of every field of science by political force (like intelligent design) not by scientific consensus. And the first quote in your list is from neitzsche, not hitler. As for evolution being responsible for jeffrey dahmer, why then in norway where 80% of the population doesn't believe in a god who makes moral demands and around the same percent accept evolution, why is their homicide rate a fraction of that in the US and other predominantly christian countries?
  10. agnophilo123

    Christian Persecution

    You guys get that christians also persecute people, right? Like when scott lively and rick warren evangelized in uganda (which is 85% christian) promoting the false claim that virtually all pedophiles are g*y and that G*ys (of all people) were responsible for the holocaust which resulted in legislation being proposed to make h*m*s*xuality punishable by death or life imprisonment. Or like when in mostly christian kenya five women suspected of being witches were beaten and burned to death while onlookers recorded it with their camcorders: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dae_1236854361 It's the actual video by the way, not a video about it so click with caution as it is extremely graphic. Or the shooter in norway that likened himself to a crusader in the middle ages. Or the shooter in the virginia tech massacre (by far the worst school shooting in US history) who was raised christian and likened himself to jesus in his suicide note and said he, like jesus, was dying for the world's sins. Or countless examples going back thousands of years. Persecution of christians is evil and wrong. But to pretend like it's a one way street or that evil is just a non-christian thing is not only bigoted, it's the kind of bigotry that contributes to intolerance and violence toward "them", whoever "they" are.
  11. agnophilo123

    Youtube Christian Haters Try And Run Off Ministries.

    Yeah, free speech is a real problem. That's why I'm gonna go live in iran where it's so much nicer.
  12. agnophilo123

    Youtube Christian Haters Try And Run Off Ministries.

    So your complaint is that when christians censor criticism of their ideas by submitting false copyright infringement claims to have videos critical of their views deleted (which is illegal) and then get busted breaking the law and censoring atheists... there are ramifications? This is your idea of christian censorship?
  13. agnophilo123

    How To Spot An Abusive Church: Cult-Watcher Ronald Enroth

    This is excellent, and very true.
  14. agnophilo123

    Free Gospel Tracts

    I don't want to cost you money but I always read tracts, watchtowers etc when people hand them out (I'm an atheist btw). I'm always curious about what people believe.
  15. agnophilo123

    Evangelism 101

    To the response... wow. Speaking for myself, I'm an atheist and I feel compelled to argue with religious people not because I'm under some voodoo curse or lying to myself or to justify my beliefs or to "degrade" others (my best friend is christian and says she wouldn't have survived the abuse from her christian family without my friendship, I do not "degrade" people for being christian). I feel compelled to argue against christianity because it's used to deny people civil rights and promote hatred and intolerance and block medical research and introduce un-testable religious views into science classes. If it weren't for things like that (and many others) that annoy me about organized religion I would just ignore religious people. I'm not trying to start an argument and if you want to debate any of those things please do so in one of the other forums - I'm just saying atheists are not the one-dimensional stereotypes the above commenter makes us out to be. If I approached christians assuming every christian was either lying, deluded or insane (and ignored the fact that some just honestly don't agree with me) would I be able to build a constructive dialogue with them? An atheist would have to be either stupid or desperately confused to talk to a christian for a long time who had that kind of contempt for them and not pick up on it.
×

Important Information

Our Terms