|
TheInquisition
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Daniel
Birthday: 1/15/1988
Gender: Male
Interests:
For the purposes of this site, religious debate. Visit my politics site for more writings. Contact me at thurnandtaxis@gmail.com
Expertise:
Debate, on this site:
Evolution
Theology
Atheism
Homosexuality
Abortion
Young Earth Creationism
Whatever else interests you -- just drop a comment and ask for it.
Message: message meEmail: email me
AIM:  Thermitepyr
Member Since:
7/26/2004
|
|
| I think that it is time for me to move this site away from
theology. The discussion of theology is fine: it's logically
stimulating (sometimes) and makes for a topic that almost anyone can
offer a few cents on, for better or worse. But I am in this not
as an educational tool, but to enrich myself, my mind. As I have
departed Christianity and theism in general and become, I feel, much
more able to view a theological question objectively -- I harbor no
resentment or negative feelings towards theism -- I have gradually
found the very notion of a God to be increasingly
ludicrous. The Christian rendition in particular seems to hold no
more merit than any assemblage of myths and moral faebles, as
convincing of God and Jesus as the Norse legends are of Valhalla.
I feel that if Christianity had not grasped such a stranglehold on the
Western world through a variety of practices, its propositions would be
granted the same credibility by the general populus as the Norse
legends are now.
I foresee that some of you may take insult at this, but I cannot
apologize for that which I do not feel is wrong. If you care to
voyage with me beyond theology into ethics, politics, reason, and
whatever else may catch my (or your) fancy, I would be glad of the
company. Otherwise, let us part peacefully and in consideration
of whatever we may have gleaned from these discussions.
Now, some unfinished business:
If you look at all the information that is located in a single strand
of DNA, doesn't it seem more logical that someone of intelligence put
it there, rather than saying it just somehow got there?
After understanding the incredible productive power of mutation and
selective continuance, as is evidenced in the many uses of evolutionary
algorithms, it does not seem any more logical to invoke the
supernatural for DNA than for rain.
Do you think it's unfair that many people question the motives of ID
(Intelligent Design) people but never question the motives of ND
(Neo-Darwinism) people?
Is ND: (A) the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics
as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the
source of variation, and mathematical populational genetics; (B) Ne·o-Dar·win·ism (nē'ō-där'wə-nĭz'əm)  , n. Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.; or (C) a definition used by ID and allies that I am not familiar with?
If A or B,
then I don't see how you could question the motive of its supporters
any more than you could question the motives of a petroleum geologist
in regards to the methods he uses for finding oil. In short, I
don't understand the question. Please clarify in the comments, as
I will not be dedicating another entry to this subject.
Do you believe there is any correlation between religion and crime (either positive or negative)?
My first instinct is to say no. But -- ah! -- the glory of the internet: I can find out. This is what I found:
-------------------------------------
A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of
respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again,"
12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs
before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in
illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
--------------------------------------
Among other things, the report says 13 percent of the people who regard
religion as "essential" have lied to get jobs (as opposed to 15 percent
of irreligious people); that 36 percent of the same religious group
cheated on exams as high school seniors (compared with 39 percent of
irreligious people); that 30% percent of respondents who regard
religion as "essential" cheated in college (as opposed to 29 percent
for the irreligious); and that 20 percent of them admitted to
submitting other people's work as their own (as opposed to 21 percent
of their irreligious counterparts).
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-morality.html
---------------------------------------
So far, it would appear that religious orientation has little effect on crime. However, there is this intriguing study that finds that out of 74,731 members of the prison population that give a religious orientation, 156 are atheists -- 0.209%.
However, atheists make up about 10% of the population [ Source],
so we have a disproportionately low number of atheists in prison.
I have not been able to verify the prison numbers elsewhere, though, so
the data is questionable.
| | |
| Ask the Atheist
Questions? Interrogations? Rants in general? Ask
(or assault, as the case may be) your friendly resident Atheist. I'll
do my best to give a rational and reasonable response to whatever
query, from mundane to left-field.
First Responses
What if it's a full moon and it's raining. Is it still ok then?
No. We atheists melt in the rain.
Have you seen the movie "The god that wasnt there"
No. Synopsis?
when's the next full moon?
April 27th, 2006
How does an atheist decide upon a moral system?
There are a variety of ways; as many as there are
atheists. There is, of course, the straight relativistic
approach. I personally prefer an objective reality, which
then leads to objective behavior and eventually an objective moral
standard that would be deducible through logic and reason. I have
done considerable research into the development of such a system, and I
will be writing a piece on it as soon as I am able to see the argument
from beginning to end and defend it.
#1 - What is the hardest and most difficult question for an atheist to answer?
For
this question and the next two, I can only speak for myself.
Perhaps the most difficult question for me to answer is the classic
"Where does it begin?" question. I find it so difficult to
provide an adequate answer that I must simply say "I don't know."
This is not leverage into theism, though, because I find myself asking
the same questions of the concept of "God".
#2 - What is the most unreasonable thing about being an atheist?
The
answer to this question arises when discussing the evidence it would
require to convert an atheist back to theism. I have to ask
myself, what would constitute a sign from God indicating I should
become a theist again? When I ponder this, I eventually say
(again) that I just don't know. This is slightly unreasonable,
obviously, because it implies that I have crossed a one-way door and
there is no way for me to return, because I would write off any
'miracle' as something we just can't explain yet.
#3 - Do atheists believe in ABSOLUTE right and wrong?
Some do, some don't. I do.
"If you look at all the
information that is located in a single strand of DNA, doesn't it seem
more logical that someone of intelligence put it there, rather than
saying it just somehow got there?"
Actually, that seems to
me like saying, "Look at the awesomeness of a lightning bolt!
Doesn't it just make more sense that an omnipotent being hand-crafted
it, instead of saying it's just the result of chaotic natural forces?"
| | |
| Again, it's been a long time. The IC argument wasn't worth
finishing -- anyone with an ISP (read: anyone who reads this) and
Google can find where I was going on at least one of the first five
search results -- not to mention that the commentators nailed it pretty
well.
I'm going to try to get this moving again with a different method:
Ask the Atheist
Questions? Interrogations? Rants in general? Ask
(or assault, as the case may be) your friendly resident Atheist. I'll
do my best to give a rational and reasonable response to whatever
query, from mundane to left-field.
Just to clear up the first question before it even comes up: no, we
don't eat babies. They're horrible for the digestion and all that 'baby
fat' does travesties to the arteries. We prefer toddlers, and most
atheist nutritionists suggest even that no more than once a month,
preferably under the full moon while worshipping Lucifer.
| | |
| Irreducible Complexity I
The IC argument states, essentially, that there are some biological
systems which could not have evolved because without one or more of
thier parts, they would not be functional. So, to evolve such a
system, there would have to be a construction of a non-functional
system with an end goal in mind -- and that wouldn't be evolution at
all, now would it?
IC systems include the chemical wondershop that is the bombardier
beetle's defense system, in which two volatile chemicals which are
stored in separate, specialized compartments are mixed in an equally
specialized tube with another -- you guessed it -- specialized enzyme
to create a super-heated toxic spray that emits from the beetle's
abdomen:
Other systems include the human eye, blood-clotting systems,
hunter-killer immuno-defense systems and the venus flytrap. All
seem to be non-functional if you take away any part of the system.
| | |
| I've been told that I'm too proud to accept God or Jesus as my savior,
etc. I've denied it vehemently: I'm not too proud to take
medicine when I'm sick, so I don't think I'd be too proud to come to
religion given the right reasons.
At least, that's how I always addressed the accusations. On second thought, though, maybe the accusers are right.
I am too proud to apologize for things I am not ashamed of. I am
too proud to hold anyone accountable for my actions but myself -- and
that accountability is permament. It does not go away. I am
too proud to accept someone else's penitence for my errors -- they are
mine and mine alone.
I don't want to worship a God that I must kneel before, or that I ever
feel the inclination before. I will worship a God in front of
whom I can stand erect and proud -- proud of myself, proud of God, and
proud of my actions in light of God's justice and understanding.
I am too proud to say that my state is wretched, my life sinful from
before I was conceived. I am too proud of me and my world to want
to abandon it. I am too proud to go into servitude for anyone,
man or God.
I guess I am too proud for God.
| | |
|
