Well, I used to hang on every word of the debate between the deluded, and the rational, but more and more, I see no point.Superstition and reason are not compatible. One cannot reason with the superstition. It is a waste of time.I think what you are seeing is a recognition of that fact, and a desire for the rational to cease wasting time and work for a better world. After all, the rational recognize that we only have a short time in our lives to make a positive difference, and wasting it on a debate that has no merit does not help us achieve our goals of a secular society.
Rex, Thanks for your comment.Since you cannot reason to reason you hold to its superiority over superstition by “faith” and you do so whilst presenting these options in a false dichotomous manner.But thank you for attempting to excuse the fact that the supposed most brilliant amongst us not only cower from debate but have adherents such as yourself who excuse their absconding from challenges.All hail atheism—the unchallengeable!!!No wonder atheism is becoming nothing but an affirmation of an emotional rejection of God—this, it has always been; but now atheists are getting more and more tired of pretending that it is anything but that.Yet, I cannot blame the supposed erudite from cowering:Consider the following exchange between CMI’s Carl Wieland and one time “Skeptic of the Year” Paul Willis as one complained about “Simply going to laboratory setting, in a contrived laboratory setting…” when the scientific evidence was not going his way an the other retorted, “It’s valid in science, this is the best you can come to as far as experimental evidence is concerned. Surely, people should be commended for trying to emulate in a laboratory these sorts of things.”Indeed, the skeptic besmirched the scientific method when its results were inconvenient to his pseudo-skepticism and the wacky-superstitious-Bible thumping-YECist had to reason with him.aDios,Mariano
Don't you see... if you don't give crazy people the floor, we're crazy too.
Mariano,Face it, my friend: we're winning. The atheists and the humanists and secularists are on the march, and the religious are on the decline. We have on our side an unmitigated commitment to the scientific method, skepticism for the sake of knowledge, and objective truth.In response, the religious can only offer the world the authority of tradition (dying though it may be), skepticism for the sake of the "defense" of outdated beliefs, and a commitment to blind faith.Are there fools in both quarters? Of course. Are there inconsistencies in the theory of evolution? Absolutely, just like every single other scientific theory in existence.But I'm afraid you're a few years too late on this one. Simply search for "intelligent design" in youtube, and one of the first videos you will get is this exhaustive and excellent treatment by Ken Miller that any layman interested in this issue must see:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSgThe reports of atheism's "death" are greatly exaggerated.a La idea sin evidencia,secularist10
Mariano,You make some good points in this post. In many of William Lane Craig's debates with prominent atheists, he exposes the fact that they haven't actually considered many arguments that theists put forward for their beliefs. This is embarrassing for atheism's "elite" - how can they reject something for which they have apparently only given perfunctory thought to? Careful weighing of the arguments evidently played little part in their rejection of theism.Secularist10...20% of American atheists believe in an afterlife and in a higher power. I think you are generalizing the insinuation of intellectual superiority of atheism beyond reason.
Since atheism is the truth claim that there is no God, I wonder if there will be any justification given to hold to such a belief. Will the atheists provide evidence of God's non-existence?I'm going to go all prophetic on y'all and predict...no.
Secularist 10Ironic you should say that actually. The 2009 Megacensus done by Britannica (which they have projected on 2010 similarily like their 2004 megacensus projected onto 2005) shows that atheism in general had gone down from 2.4% of the worlds population in 2005 to a mere 2.0%. Thats a nothing compared to agnostics. Down from 13.4 to 11.2% of the worlds population. Islam went up by a 0.4% margin while Christianity a humble 0.2% yet they remained at 33% of the worlds religious population and Islam at 31% 2 billion for Christianity and 1.6 for Islam. Atheism has fallen below the 150 million mark that even I had predicted it would eclipse.I'm sincerly wondering where you get this "on the rise" mentality from. There are times where media and public attention goes to atheism, this upcoming event may draw eyes but the message will remain unappealing to most of the world.The reports of atheisms general decline are not so exaggerated.bossmanham:Funny you should say that. I recently had a fun conversation with an atheist who claimed that he had proof God existed. Intrigued I asked him to produce this claim. He led me to evilbible.com and showed me an article claiming it is impossible for God to exist therefore He did not exist. That was the entire premis. The article had no reasoning behind it. When I asked said atheist for his reasoning why God couldn't exist it was "just because He can't". That was his only answer. Sad really.Oh well.signed "that anonymous troll" ;)
"20% of American atheists believe in an afterlife and in a higher power."Not sure if you realize this, but anyone who believes in a higher power is by definition not an atheist."I think you are generalizing the insinuation of intellectual superiority of atheism beyond reason."Whoa, lots of big words there.Anonymous Troll:There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics. But let's say all of that is correct (very difficult to get precise numbers on this scale for the entire world, remember), that's why I'm not talking about atheism or agnostics alone. I specifically referenced humanism and secularism also.Almost all so-called "religious" people today (especially in the developed world) are secular.Most Americans call themselves "Christians"--doesn't mean they live their lives as Christians.
Secularist10..."Not sure if you realize this, but anyone who believes in a higher power is by definition not an atheist."I know, but the fact is that 20% of self-identified atheists in a 2008 poll "expressed a belief in God". You have suggested that atheism involves an adherence to a rational process - this is undermined by the evident confusion of the 20% in the poll.
"You have suggested that atheism involves an adherence to a rational process - this is undermined by the evident confusion of the 20% in the poll."Not really. To say that atheism involves a rational process (although the main claim of atheism itself isn't rational) is not the same as saying that all people who happen to call themselves "atheist" are rational. Furthermore, 80% of these "atheists" evidently are logically consistent--that's a pretty big number.I'm more interested in generalized secularism, in any case.
Secularist 10It is pretty hard to get statistics for the whole world yes. Though giving five years between megacensus to gather the information seems sound to me. I'm not quite sure what your getting at with secularism and humanism.signed "that anonymous troll" ;)
"I'm not quite sure what your getting at with secularism and humanism."The average western person over the centuries has moved from a mindset and lifestyle marked by heavy spirituality, supernatural explanations (for the weather, disease, etc) and strict religious adherence, to a mindset and lifestyle marked by little spirituality, naturalist explanations and a looser "buffet"-style approach to religions and morality.Emphasis has moved from the next world (afterlife, heaven and hell, ghosts, spirits and demons) to this world (hence individualism, wealth creation and human rights).
Why are you so fixated on Dawkins? You're doing the same thing to him that you tried to do with PZ Myers when it comes to oral debates. I noticed that you reposted your "essay" but not my comments. Hmmm...Remember? You called him a coward until I showed you that he actually DID do some oral debates with some of you characters.You can see some by googling "PZ Myers" and "debate". Here's a four way debate of sorts.Myers is not the "top dog" of atheism but he has done oral debates. Why don't you admit that and be honest enough to admit that we're not the cowards that you're constantly implying that we (or our "leaders" are, or that our lack of willingness to "debate" you people is a sign of weakness on our part?You want to know why Dawkins won't debate you people? He's been deceived more than once (read the part about Stein asking Dawkins about alien life) when he's granted interviews to you clowns. So why the hell should he debate you? Other atheists have already done so.Speaking of people who won't debate, do you remember this challenge?You did agree to do it, after all, after a bunch of issues were dealt with. I assume that they've been dealt with by now, since you're happily posting away about other people refusing to do debates?
If you understood the overwhelming eviidence for evolution and support for it within the scientific community (less than 0.5% of biologists would describe themselves as creationists), you would understand why it's not even worth debating. It's a bit like debating a flat earther on the subject of the Earth being round.But, you obviously don't understand, so the point is moot.
As I posted on his PZ Myers post, I pointed out that oral debates don't really solve anything.Neither side has the time to check up on and cross-examine the other side's claims.That's why creationists kick ass in oral debates, but get nailed in places like courts of law or peer-review where their claims can be checked up on and they can be cross-examined. I pointed out an example of a flat-earther, Samuel Birely Rowbotham who did very well in debates against those who said the earth was round.Obviously, just because Rowbotham did well in his debates does not mean that he was right.Same with the creationists of today.
"Well, they expected too much. CMI-A wanted to specifically debate the evidence that supports evolution but the best that atheism/evolution has to offer say, “Nay!”And they want to use the same old tired arguments from their cultural artifact, the bible.Ray Comfort is constantly trying to debate Dawkin while admitting he has no knowledge of evolution.Theists that have no credentials that want to debate science are merely corrupting their faith based belif system.
Ray could make the debate happen with Dawkins anytime he likes. The Ball is entirely in his court. I think he just prefers to get more mileage pretending Dawkins won't debate him. No surprise that the article doesn't link to the actual replies from PZ Myers and co.
Mariano. You are one very scary person! Not because you pose a threat to atheism (on which you expend huge and pointless energy), but because you come across as a fanatic, who thinks himself far cleverer than his opposition and hence appears arrogant in the extreme. Please do yourself and true believers a favour and calm down. If I were Dawkins there is no way that I would debate with you - Not because your arguments stand up to clinical scrutiny, but because your approach appears specifically designed to wrap your opposition in knots for the sake of it, while they sincerely try to seriously debate. All you seem interested in doing is scoring points for the sake of it. It's just not worth giving you the airtime and second-hand celebrity you do not warrant.I am sad. You may have a great deal to offer, but you are doing humanity a great dis-service with your obsession.