Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 90. (Read 89022 times)

Apparently the chess match you are talking about took 8 years to play 48 moves (62 days per move)... yeah, seems legit... surely no funny business going on there...

How gullible are you?

getting a grandmaster to spend years playing a mail game of chess as part of a hoax seems like a bit of a stretch. Why would someone go to that much effort to perpetuate a hoax? What did Eisenbeiss expect to gain from all this? The game garnered almost no publicity. There was no money riding on the game. The kind of preparation you're talking about is very extensive.

Then the psycic is in on it as well, which makes three people who have kept their silence for 15 years now- Eisenbeiss, the mysterious chess player, and the medium (who died without revealing any attempt at a hoax). You would think this was a master heist, not a chess game with nothing riding on it.

In your mind, why do YOU think these 3 or 4 people went to all this trouble?

Extremely easy? The materialistic explanation has a lot of holes in it. You're supposing a conspiracy of 3 or more people (one of which is a Grandmaster or high ranking Master who's reputation would have suffered if anyone blabbed) spanning years for no monetary gain and no publicity. That doesn't sound very plausible at all.

You simply don't like to remember that I told you long ago that I don't own a god. I checked my pockets, and there wasn't any there... the closet, the drawers, the cupboards, the garage, the shed, and the basement. Show me where I own a god. And if it is one of your gods, prove to me by title that you own it, and then title it over to me, by contract and agreement.

Actually, the closest I have been able to come to owning a god is, you atheists set yourselves up as gods, and since I am showing it to you, I own you. Wanna be free? Recognize God, so you don't keep on getting owned.

So because some are frauds, therefore they are all frauds... ?

That's not true, because actually the available facts and evidence are not adequately explained by the skeptical explanation. For some cases, a skeptic would have to imagine quite an elaborate conspiracy.

Randi again? But he has been dishonest! Check out this link:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm

You claim that all mediums are frauds, but is there any evidence at all that suggests Eisenbeiss was dishonest? I believe you have only pointed out hypothetical possibilities, apparently you do not realize that you also have a burden of proof in this discussion? You still did not link to anything that specifically addresses this one. Same with Thonnard's study; you don't understand it so you just point me to irrelevant sources that do not specifically address the study's methods.

I have seen dozens of cases where psychics have been debunked as frauds... which makes it obvious that other psychics use the same tricks...

because all of the available facts and evidence point to such a conclusion

You simply don't like to remember that I told you long ago that I don't own a god. I checked my pockets, and there wasn't any there... the closet, the drawers, the cupboards, the garage, the shed, and the basement. Show me where I own a god.

Just curious. Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol, and doing it all by simply saying that you are an atheist, when atheism doesn't really exist, since you are disallowing atheism by your self-god-making?

You take it on faith that all psychics are frauds. OP takes it on faith that awareness arises from nothing when all the evidence actually shows that it is continuous and cyclical.

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

some of today’s best-known geneticists and naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote: “Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.” Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, stated: “No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.” And these are by no means exceptional disclosures.

You say you have proven your god is an idol -- I thought idolatry was a sin in most religions?

Just curious. Why do you attempt to set yourself above God, Who has been proven to exist scientifically, thereby becoming an idol, and doing it all by simply saying that you are an atheist, when atheism doesn't really exist, since you are disallowing atheism by your self-god-making?

It's a shame that guy spent so much time writing such a long paper that is completely false

Darwin's "three logical fallacies" are just silly... there are no fallacies... his paper is easily debunked by anyone familiar with evolution... any high school kid could debunk that paper these days

Darwin actually did write a few things into the theory of evolution that turned out to be incorrect, but whoever wrote this paper is not familiar enough to even know what is true or not... he didn't even mention the things which are actually false

I don't understand why you feel the need to put words in the mouths of Atheists...

Just because you feel a certain way, does not mean Atheists feel that way... Please, do not ever claim to know anything about Atheists because you don't

Everyone is different, but Atheists tend to be extremely skeptical people... we take nothing on faith... we are rarely convinced by anything silly like religitards, because we rely on facts and evidence to support our beliefs about reality...

Atheists never claim to be infallible... we are the only ones who admit we can be wrong at all... every religion claims it is perfect and infallible... that's just nonsense... it's provably false

Atheists scoff at people 300 years ago for believing the Earth was flat, but are convinced they could never believe a similar absurdity. Those who ridicule and oppose anything they don't already believe is true, and who will diligently avoid any effort to fairly evaluate new, especially dramatically new ideas, are not rational, by definition. I urge all atheists to read up on the latest science and evaluate the evidence in favor of intervention theory; only a few hours spent searching for information could provide any reader with a profoundly altered world view.

More details explaining Intervention Theory

You say that you don't know the exact mechanism; I would like to propose one.

It's time to FIGHT THE STUPIDS by boldly moving to the cutting edge forged by alternative science!


Intervention theorists believe that alien beings intervened on Earth, terraforming everything from the planet's environment to human beings. They have arrived at that radical assumption by analyzing evidence across a wide range of disciplines, trying to scientifically explain the origin of life on Earth.

Intervention Theory Basics


Atheists scoff at people 300 years ago for believing the Earth was flat, but are convinced they could never believe a similar absurdity. Those who ridicule and oppose anything they don't already believe is true, and who will diligently avoid any effort to fairly evaluate new, especially dramatically new ideas, are not rational, by definition. I urge all atheists to read up on the latest science and evaluate the evidence in favor of intervention theory; only a few hours spent searching for information could provide any reader with a profoundly altered world view.

More details explaining Intervention Theory

If you are talking about how life evolves from simple matter, we still don't now the exact mechanism, even if we are close. But ignorance isn't evidence of god existence.

Darwin was in the right place at the right time with the right idea. The facts behind his idea were dubious from the beginning and were recognized as such by most scientists who could grasp what he was proposing. But they equally understood that by placing the mechanism for life’s processes in the hands of nature, it could be removed from God and thereby lift the onerous foot of religion—which they viewed as separate from God—off their necks.

Darwin lifted that foot to allow science to breathe freely at last, and for the fifteen decades since, religion has been spitefully playing catch-up.

 In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species, geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, published The Story Of The Earth And Man, as well written and carefully argued as Charles Darwin’s masterpiece. In it Dawson pointed out that Darwin and his cohorts were promoting a theory based on three fallacious “gaps” in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawson’s three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.

Wegener’s case relates to the debate about origins because it typifies how science reacts to new ideas that attempt to move the line of knowledge farther than a few inches. Anything significant enough to alter an entrenched paradigm will be vigorously criticized and uniformly rejected unless—and this is important to note—unless there is some overarching need for the new information.

Awareness arises from non-awareness: the fetus clearly isn't aware during most time of the gestation, until at least the central neurological system is built. Then, slowly, develops some basic elements of awareness. And, after being born, acquires full awareness.
If you are talking about how life evolves from simple matter, we still don't now the exact mechanism, even if we are close. But ignorance isn't evidence of god existence.

I wonder if you realize the consequences of the revelation of beliefs like yours. Try to say you believe in reincarnation (it seems what you mean with "Awareness is continuous and cyclical") on a job interview.
....

Your statement that the brain can't have any activity once the oxygen flow stops is false. Brain activity measurable on a EGG only disappears after 20-40 seconds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death). This time is enough to leave memories of hallucinations. Actually, the hallucinations probably start before the complete stop of the supply of oxygen. And in that situation, 40 seconds of hallucinations might seem minutes to the near death individual.

You can't compare Asimov's science fiction with scientific theories.

There is no evidence that our awareness can arise from nothingness. All the evidence??!! points to awareness being cyclical and continuous.

That is equivalent to saying that color-blind people don't fit in the same universe... everyone is different in some way... get over yourself asshole

Just because a character trait doesn't increase sperm count or whatever your standard is... does not make it wrong, it only makes you wrong... and a bigot

Do Homosexuals Fit into the Jewish Community?
By Bronya Shaffer

Question:

According to Jewish law, how should a person react to homosexual feelings? Do homosexuals fit into the Jewish community?

Answer:

You ask about feelings and law. But feelings do not fall within the domain of law. A person feels what a person feels. Then he has the power to decide whether he will act upon those feelings or… not. This is the human experience: desire, longing, wanting…and the law. Part of our development from childhood to adulthood is creating for ourselves a moral compass. Something that's internal. That which tells us right from wrong. And that moral compass is comprised of myriad components, but must be firmly grounded, always, in a system of values.

For Jews, the all-encompassing system is Torah law. Torah law governs every single part of living. And from the body of Torah law emerges a system of values - general, societal and personal. Sometimes, it's easy; we feel an affinity, for example, to the laws of tzedaka, or we feel a strong connection to the laws of Shabbat or brit milah. And sometimes, we feel something quite the opposite - we feel estranged or disconnected or personally deeply at odds with a law.

We feel what we feel. Some feelings we can change, and some we can't. Sometimes what we feel is subject to modification, and sometimes it's not. Totally and unequivocally not. And yet, the law is absolute.

As much as we know about human sexuality, we don't yet know enough. We're all, as individuals and as a society, still learning. In the last half century, we've come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality, and in redefining a cultural moral code. Some of what we've come to accept as a society is long, long overdue. And some of what we've come to accept undermines the very dignity of human sexuality. But, we're learning.

We do know this, though: we know that among other sexual behaviours, Torah law expressly forbids the specific act of male homosexuality.

And we do know this: Torah law forbids bigotry; homophobia is prohibited.

And we do know this: too many Jewish girls and boys, Jewish women and men, have suffered too much for too long. And we know that most of that suffering is caused by the environment around them. We do know this: when we become judges of another person, we behave contrary to Torah law.

And we do know this: A Jew belongs in a Jewish environment. Each of us, struggling or not, needs to be in a truly Torah-observant environment. And each of us is responsible for that environment - each of us is responsible for what we bring to that environment. When we bring ignorance, or cruelty or self-righteous judgment of others, we contribute to the sullying of a true Torah environment. When we bring the most ideal principles of ahavat Yisrael, respect for every individual, recognition of each individual's personal relationship with G‑d...when we bring the best of our humanity, as expected by Torah ideals, we contribute to a Torah environment that is healthy and wholesome.

Or perhaps your question is in regard to how we should react to the homosexual feelings of others? Or how we should react to someone who eats on Yom Kippur? Or someone who longs for the relationship with a man other than her husband? On this, the classic work known as the Tanya provides strong advice: Consider what it means to have such burning passions for forbidden fruit. Consider the day to day fierce and relentless battle demanded to conquer such passions. And then ask yourself, "Do I ever fight such a battle on my own ground?"

The Tanya continues to illustrate the many areas in which all of us can improve by waging at least a small battle on our own ground.

On your question concerning community: A Jew belongs within a Jewish community. There are no application forms and no qualification requirements. He's Jewish—that's where he belongs. Period. We all have our challenges, our shortcomings, our feelings...and our failures in battle as well...and with all that, we are a community of Jews.