The Well Reasoned Bully

“I have always found that mercy bears
richer fruits than strict justice”
~ Lincoln

I spent a great deal of time on social media, and I have to say that very little troubles me more than the behavior of a number of my comrade atheists.

I'm always being asked "when was the last time somebody killed in the name of Christianity?" Well let's forget Prodestants and Catholics blowing up children in Belfast, the assasination of abortion doctors, the murder of homosexuals in Darwfur, genocide in Sudan, Christian Zionist like Bush chasing "Gog and the Magog" through the middle east. You're missing the point.
I’m always being asked “when was the last time somebody killed in the name of Christianity?” Well let’s forget Protestants and Catholics blowing up children in Belfast, the assassination of abortion doctors, the murder of homosexuals in Darfur, genocide in Sudan, Christian Zionist like Bush chasing “Gog and the Magog” through the middle east. You’re missing the point.

I engage theists for a very simple reason… I believe there is a real possibility the world could end within a generation. I believe that the principal threat facing us today is dogmatic theism, both in the form of religious zealots eagerly anticipating the end of the world, but also by way of the denial of science (the unofficial mission of most theistic ideologies with which science regularly clashes) and the denial of global warming as a man made issue within our control.  I also believe that examined belief is the root cause of a terrible amount of suffering.

It goes without saying that any moral agent must oppose this.

But a disturbingly large amount of the opposition I see from fellow atheists does not seem to me to be out of genuine concern or engagement, but rather out of a sense of self-superiority, a search for catharsis by belittling others.

I’ve seen every defense to this–the most common one being that mocking or humiliating the other side is the only way to get some people to listen. This fatuous defense is as unseasoned and illogical as any defense of theism: first, it’s patently false. When mocked, people tend to strengths their beliefs, not abandon them. Even the slightest skills in self reflection (of which some atheists seem so proud) should reveal that the atheist himself, when mocked, shuts down rational thought and retaliates in anger. Secondly, the people making this defense often go straight to mocking, they don’t open with honest dialogue, so even if mocking is occasionally useful, many atheists I see use it as the primary, indeed often as the only, tool in any engagement. Lastly, while there is a case to be made that mockery is, in some cased, an excellent weapon, this is usually only true in the case of dictators. I’ve met many an atheist who counters that Christianity is a dictatorship over the atheist, and that may well be true, but the common believers are not themselves the dictator. It’s wish thinking to argue that their participation in the system forces one to mock them.

For many atheists, Christopher Hitchens was a roll model. He has earned that respect, and he’s certainly a roll model to me. Sam Harris, too, is an incomparable debtor and atheist. But it behooves one to understand how they differ and why.

Hitchens gets atheists off the bench. He gets them to engage, to want to actively oppose atheism. He preaches, not to theists, but to other atheists. He throws red meat out there, and must be credited with doing more for energizing atheists than any other person in history.

But energizing the base is only half the battle. The goal is to end theism, and that is done by engaging theists and getting them to genuinely question their beliefs. And while Hitchens had some efficacy there, he was hobbled by his combative approach. Sam Harris, on the other hand, is far, far more effective at this. His ingratiating manor invites theists to listen, even without their consciously being aware of it. He’s smooth, even keeled, and warm. He doesn’t motivate atheists like Hitch, he’s not as fun or cathartic, but he does the actual work of deconversion.

Further, Hitchens’ bullying tactics were not nearly as blunt as they appeared to the untrained eye. He actively engaged obvious bullies, was precised and practiced, knew exactly how to hit and where, and even did it with considerable charm. I’ve seen no atheist troll on twitter come close to any of these (and if they did, their probably wouldn’t be on twitter).

Another common defense to atheist aggression is, and I kid you not, “they did it first”. This is the defense of a seven year old, and hardly worthy of someone who considers themselves rational. “I treat others how they treat me” is the sister defense, which doesn’t take into account the bias of the atheist against the theist: the atheist wants to be offended. He’s looking for an excuse to engage (again, for the catharsis of it).

In a fight, the blame of the fight is on the smarter person. If the atheist position is that non-belief is somehow superior, the kind of engagement one sees online certainly doesn’t support their position. Indeed, it makes the atheists who engage in online bullying more hypocritical than the theist. The theist enjoys their belief, the sense that they’ve chosen the right god over others, the sense of self superiority over others, the right to judge those who don’t agree with them. The bully atheist both understands these faults, and none-the-less echoes them in his own position. He charges the theist with an inability to reason logically, and yet is just as incapable.

It’s nerve cringing to watch, and it undermines any genuine attempt to overthrow theism.

Rev. Dr. Martian Luther King Jr. epitomized the approach of the truly enlightened individual. He recognized even in those who would humiliate, imprison, beat, or even murder him, a common brotherhood, and with that recognition became one of the most influential men of a generation. To the atheist who would hand me all of these excuses which he says justify the belittling of those with faith, who say that it’s the best way to educate theists, I would remind them of how many times Dr. King was told that. It was wrong then. It’s wrong now.

Theism is rapidly becoming a threat to our survival on this planet. The only moral position of the atheist is to challenge this threat. But that is done through education, engagement, and understanding. The atheist whose toolkit regularly includes mockery, derision, or outright bullying, not only is impotent in the face of theism, but making the problem worse.

223
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
30 Comment threads
193 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
The Humanist Codex Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

One cannot escape the connotation of the word “Atheist” because it defines your deepest foundational basis in viewing all that is (it is your universal reference starting point). What a person thinks about everything and anything else starts at that point and builds outward. That is an inescapable fact. And that happens whether a person is cognizant of it or not. Hating the term “atheist” may be equal to hating the word “christian” for the same reasons.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Back on the universal reference point then? There is certainly no universal reference point for the myriads of religions except that there is the common factor of those who would be priest, they like the inside work with no heavy lifting and the opportunity to control people.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

And no I won’t be deterred from bullying theists.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I’m not talking about priests and religion. But yes, they do have a universal reference point. They believe in the existence of God. They may be right or wrong building out from there. But that’s where they start. An Atheist starts from a point that there is no God and then works his way out. This is an example of why what a person doesn’t believe in is as important as what he does. Both shape individual world views that impact behaviors and decisions. I’m pretty sure we all know that.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Perhaps payback for the centuries the othe way round. I especially think it right when a whining theist complains about attacks on their faith. Personally I don’t care how they sacrifice to Baal as long as they do not want, as they do, a pinch of incense on the altar from me as well.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I’ve never considered myself a bullying theist. But if an attack on an individuals faith is unjustified, I have no qualms at calling it out. That seems to be what the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion is all about.

Corr Guineacht
Commenter
Member

Warren Kincaid Freedom of Religion also means the Freedom from Religion. I’m with Edwyn on this one. In America it is worth at a minimum, social discomfort, up to being assaulted, to admit that you don’t believe in a sky daddy.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

“Freedom from religion” is a modern twist on the original concept. It’s mostly used to try to intimidate and silence. The only freedom you realy have is to not listen. The free martketplace of ideas should not have to be afraid of opposing views or try to stifle them. I’m sure Mr. Codex would agree.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Bit naive Warren, freedom not to listen to ranters outside abortion clinics, freedom not to listen to muslim crowds baying for the blood of apostates, atheists, gays. Freedom to shut your eyes when the Ten Commandments are erected in US courts and schools, freedom for some to feel excluded when a sports team prays in a public school etc ad nauseum. What are you, ignorant or hypocritical?

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Freedom to hear your fears. It’s not naive. It’s was the system we have devised after the oppression found in Europe ushering in the Reformation. Our founders were not afraid that the truth of any world view (religion or lack of it) could and would rise to the top in open public debate and civil protest. That should be good news to Atheists who think their arguments hold water at the deepest levels. Part of “Freedom to” is having to witness something you may not believe in or endorse. It’s then your choice (an exorcise of free will) to think deeper or turn away. It’s a risky system we have, but those who envisioned it thought it was worth the risk. Lincoln said “A republic once established will either maintain its virtues, or loose its liberties”. I wonder where he found his virtues?

Corr Guineacht
Commenter
Member

Warren Kincaid Well then, I also have the freedom to be condescending to patently idiotic beliefs, regardless of the comfort it gives those who believe. Ironic how fast they get offended when their beliefs are even questioned; almost as if faith isn’t enough.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Corr Guineacht You absolutely do have that right. And some of them deserve it…. but not all of them. However, condescension might not be the best tactic to a reasonable conversation.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Warren Kincaid One finds ones virtues from one’s parents and peers and society together with an instinctive empathy. The proof is in the bond of families and altruism through the ages. To such virtues religion was very late in influencing. It had to be because if there was not an altruistic etc community already how would the religious ever have had existed? Sadly the good nature of communities allowed religion a hearing that it expanded to control.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

I don’t think Abraham Lincoln would have agreed with you. There seems to be something missing.

Frank Whitaker
Commenter
Member

I am an atheist who hates the term. Why do I have to be labelled for not believing in some made up bullshit. I don’t have to be labelled as a non believer in UFOs, fairies or intergalactic pasta monsters, like am just normal, rational and non deluded thank you. By the way there are literally tens of thousands of gods that have been invented over the years and countless different versions of the Christian one, so I only don’t believe in one God more than you.

Robert Jones
Commenter
Member

No matter how vehemently an atheist argues their point the don’t condone murder in the name of their beliefs

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Sounds just like a sermon. Atheism is faith based as a system (no matter what the response is). It has its pastors and priests as well as its congregants. And why shouldn’t it? Aren’t we all the religion of man? We all live within boundaries of our own making. All have our fears and pleasures. But we are all flawed and searching nonetheless. Nothing changes much at a certain level. I don’t think we’re among the last generation though. Numbers may shrink soon, but not vanish. Just as easily, we could rise more.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Tone? I do appreciate moderating the tone. It is what it is. It’s a real life observation. I’ve been to sermons. They call for civility and faithfulness to the cause. Your faith is in your system of belief. Just like everyone else’s.

Shaun Philip Hutchings
Commenter
Member

You’re faith is the superior value of atheism over theism because you believe theism is an actual danger to humanity. I’m assuming you’re American where religion is taken very seriously and some protestants there want the world to end soon. You think atheism is the answer. A firm conviction in the non existence. Where as I believe that Indifference is stronger. Agnostic indifference has practically destroyed Christian influence in western Europe.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Shaun Philip Hutchings Good answer. Although “Agnosticism” doesn’t answer the largest questions of why we are as we are (and I’m sure you’re good with that if that’s your view). Every human who is functional in this world lives his (or her) life out according to the “grid” they have built internally, both cognitively by what they have seen and assimilated, and by way of the historical and personal pressures. Their faith that this grid is sufficient or even superior is found exactly there. The author of the “Atheist Codex” is so adamant of his faith in his system (and its superiority), he has formed an active organization to promote it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Shaun Philip Hutchings
Commenter
Member

My defence would be an argument about the meaning of the word faith. For example I have faith in my bicycle brakes working because there is evidence that they work. I don’t have faith in Christianity because I see no evidence. When I argue with Christians they often claim that there is evidence in the form of the Bible. I don’t think that is evidence so I don’t have faith. Not all faith is blind faith. Faith is another way of saying ‘think’. You think there is no God. Christians think there is one. I think that I don’t know and don’t believe anyone else knows either which is why I don’t believe in any religion.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

Shaun Philip Hutchings Mr. Codex and I have been down this road many times. His denial of the “faith” found in world views tends to shift around some. It doen’t matter though. If language means anything at all, he builds his world view revolving around the basis that there is no existant inteligence/personal entity above the level of man. Something or other must take that place in every person. Our core foundational beliefs are simply that. To deny that “God” exists means that a persn chooses the next thing down as his highest point of life-reference. In doing so, man places himself in several dillemas that defy answers. We all have to start at some ultimate point and build out from there. To say that Atheism is immune from that is disingenuous.

Corr Guineacht
Commenter
Member

Shaun Philip Hutchings Semantics; evidence is proof, not faith.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex At this point, I think you’d know how I’d respond.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter
Member

“I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice”
~ Lincoln. That’s because strict justice is at the hand of God. It’s not our business to strictly judge. In a sense, we are all guilty. Lincoln knew this truth and a deeper understanding of him would reveal that. The same is true for Martin Luther King (as mentioned in the post). God (biblically) calls on a higher virtue of mercy, and that concept is found in reality as well as in God. He offers mercy and He offers judgement. Usually, people ask for mercy, not judgement. And that’s where richer fruits are found. I always admired Lincoln and King. They knew things most of the world today does not.

Darren Nesbit
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex so the wizards have told you they have found these particles and you believe them?

not really science that, is it?

you are still claiming the most complicated book in the world, dna, wrote itself, aren’t you?

because you are insane, hypnotised to believe a lie, like we all were

Gerhard
Member
Member

“All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident”.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Darren Nesbit
Commenter
Member

naive, gullible, programmed fools who believe everything came out of nothing with no cause and no purpose. quite insane.

as insane as saying a book will somehow write itself, but you will claim dna code miraculously, spontaneously happened.

totally unscientific and you are primed to fall for the great deception of ‘alien ancestors’ when they show up next decade.

Darren Nesbit
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex where did the multiverse come from? do you have proof of the existence of such theories? are you just talking about the spirit realm, from whence will come the ‘aliens from another world’ that will deceive you and those naive and unskeptical unthinking irrational people who may read your page?

claiming a religion as science, as ever they have done since there was first a nation and cities. do you know the history of how you think

Gerhard
Member
Member

“All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident”. ~Arthur Schopenhauer Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian 10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours. 9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt. 8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God. 7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees! 6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky. 5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with… Read more »

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex So how can God be loving to those who hate Him and the last thing they want is to spend eternity in His presence ? Any ‘loving’ person would grant their wishes, not to be forced to love Him. And that’s exactly what God will do. They will spend their time outwith His company.

Peter Griffiths
Commenter
Member

I am an atheist simply because I find no basis to believe in mythology any more than I would believe in fairies. Others may have different views which is not a problem to me provided that I am not affected by them.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex “Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” (Revelation 22:11)

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus never countenances violence against people. Satan can use Scripture to suit his purposes.

Atheist Skeptics against Atheist Believers
Commenter
Member

I dealt with this so much that I pretty much had to create an entire page about this subject

Atheist Skeptics against Atheist Believers

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex Luke 19:27 is a parable about the post death Judgement. Matthew 10:34 is about dying rather than denying Christ. John 15:6 is about the Judgement after death. None of these words of Jesus tells us to kill or persecute non-Christians. They all point to Christians suffering at the hands of non-believers. Which is what the evidence proves.

Roy Latkowski
Commenter
Member

Agree with this article. Bullying by either side of this discussion only strengthens the opposing side. And bullying doesn’t convey any intellect but rather ignorance.
We become our own worst enemy if we resort to bullying and insults. Whether you are an athiest or thiest don’t become your biggest problem. Stay clear of insults and bullying, your influence will be much more and be fruitful too.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex Again, where did Jesus instruct anyone to do anything to anyone ? Stop imputing stuff that isn’t Christian onto us. These murderers weren’t followers of Jesus Christ. You’re problem is, you don’t understand what being a Christian means.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex Can you please point to the bit in the Bible where Jesus says we’re to kill or torture anyone ? If it’s represssion you desire, then move to secular North Korea, Stalin’s atheistic Soviet Union or Mao’s atheistic state -where 120 million people were murdered by the feedoms given to them, because they rejected Jesus Christ. When there’s no God, anything is possible, even concentration camps.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes They chop your head off in the M.E. if you won’t believe in Mohammed. You’re better off in the ‘Christian’ West, as nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers are to be killed or anything else. The only reason you have the freedom to say what you like is because of Jesus Christ.

Andrew M Gilmour
Commenter
Member

If the state is your religion/god that’s not really atheism, imo.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

zactly

Andrew M Gilmour
Commenter
Member

All Marxists, some forms of communism and socialism, even some types of democracy see the state as God.

Andrew M Gilmour
Commenter
Member

“As an atheist, why do I spend most of my time fighting atheists” – You. The issue I see is (broadly speaking) atheists come in 2 types. One the rational skeptic and two the type that replaces God or religion with the state or the government. Sorry if that was unclear. My reply was a snarky off the cuff way of stating the above. 🙂

Bob Claxton
Commenter
Member

“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” Admiral Rickover MEME’s like this one present The Atheist Codex in the category less than those of great mindedness. Why is this?

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex i think what hes saying is,,, your not discussing ideas or solutions, your discussing past events of people’s

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

are you also insinuating that theists are clansmen. 12 robes? 12 ???

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

is it your goal to ween/wean belivers FROM their faith, or is it possible for them to still believe while being empathetic to your or our or their standings belifs observations or not yet recognitions (lol)

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

hmm

Kevin Smith
Commenter
Member

Jesus himself said ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.’

Kevin Smith
Commenter
Member

Any Christian who prays for war is not a Christian. Jesus said ‘ Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you.’ I suggest you read the words of Christ himself and avoid equating the words and actions of ignorant hypocrites with true Christian beliefs.

Jim Cooper
Commenter
Member

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Yeah jesus was all about the love.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

I suggest you read it yourself, if your going to to suggest it. He also said to sell your cloak and buy a sword.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Don’t forget that pesky 2nd amendment

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

what is secular business?

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex i also believe there should be … separation of belief and state

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

and what about secular personal beliefs. and i agree ,cant anyone tell you who you can sleep with (unless of course they are 3 years old)( or if you live in the middle east) i also agree in separation of church and state… ALL CHURCH’s… including middle eastearn church’s… belieave it or not they are not secular, are you for womens rights except in the middle east

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex luke 19? what? luke 19:42???… how could one know this?

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

try being an athiest in the middle east,?. since we’re despised so much in america, below muslims, obviously we have that in common with muslims, we should move to the middle east and exchange views so publicly, couldnt hurt, anyway.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

i know,lol

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes They chop your head off in the M.E. if you won’t believe in Mohammed. You’re better off in the ‘Christian’ West, as nowhere in the Bible does it say that non-believers are to be killed or anything else. The only reason you have the freedom to say what you like is because of Jesus Christ.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex Can you please point to the bit in the Bible where Jesus says we’re to kill or torture anyone ? If it’s represssion you desire, then move to secular North Korea, Stalin’s atheistic Soviet Union or Mao’s atheistic state -where 120 million people were murdered by the feedoms given to them, because they rejected Jesus Christ. When there’s no God, anything is possible, even concentration camps.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian macnaught. My point was that the middle east doesn’t tolerate atheism. Its called sarcasm… Don’t be so confrontational. And I can’t tell you that there is no god or that christianity hasn’t influenced life in the west… But the life we have in merica is because of the constitution. And I’m not telling you it wasn’t devinely influenced…. Little less confrontation

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Was sacrates before Jesus Christ. Did he say what he wanted

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

No one was murdered because they rejected Jesus, in fact weren’t his desciples murdered because they wouldn’t reject Jesus.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Our freedoms are, because they are. They are just that… Freedoms… The constitution only points out this fact

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex Again, where did Jesus instruct anyone to do anything to anyone ? Stop imputing stuff that isn’t Christian onto us. These murderers weren’t followers of Jesus Christ. You’re problem is, you don’t understand what being a Christian means.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex i was basing that on the athiest regimes he was mentioning not on the history of existence

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex you seem to have the typical indoctrinated hatred for christians that seems to come with atheism and or liberal thinking…example, didnt you fuck my girlfreind back in high school should i try to end your existence because of YOU, 30 years ago, much less 200 plus years ago… just a little less confrontation

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught those people probably believed they were following christ just as muslims believe they are followin mohamed

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex Luke 19:27 is a parable about the post death Judgement. Matthew 10:34 is about dying rather than denying Christ. John 15:6 is about the Judgement after death. None of these words of Jesus tells us to kill or persecute non-Christians. They all point to Christians suffering at the hands of non-believers. Which is what the evidence proves.

Roy Latkowski
Commenter
Member

Taking anything out of context is not a truthful or honest way to debate

Roy Latkowski
Commenter
Member

I put that out for all sides

Roy Latkowski
Commenter
Member

Not doing such. Made a general comment for all to consider.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Science says that evolution in an unproven theory. In order for something to be accepted as fact it must pass the ‘Scientific Test’. In other words it must be ‘observable’ and ‘testable’. Evolution has never been ‘observed’ to occur and is currently ‘untestable’. It would appear that only group of believers who are ‘science deniers’ today are atheistic ones.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

science is the melinial religion,. and my life has evolved over the past 30 years (though very little)

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex is this the criticism you were talking about.lol,jkjk

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

“you need to understand basic terminology” would lead the unknowing to unengage to feeling inferior intellectually, or they would strike back with insults

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

theory is just a theory.lol.. is terminolgy the same from culture to culture. is legal terminology the same as street terminology. be open

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

why dont honey bees evolve pesticides, or am i wrong, i honestly dont know

Robert Gaito
Commenter
Member

Don’t science much huh Ian….

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

David Smith Please provide evidence for evolution in micro-organisms.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Jim Cooper Sorry this doesn’t prove evolution, but natural selection, which is in the Bible. You started with bacteria and what did you end with ? Other bacteria. Maybe you don’t understand how evolution is supposed to work. This is where a single celled organism acquires additional complex genetic design information to enable it to become more complex. Like becoming an eye. Can you explain how it does that please.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex I’ll believe in evolution when you demonstrate how a simple self replicating single cell got the additional complex design information to make an eye.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex Please tell us what the fruit fly evolved into? If it was another fruit fly, then it wasn’t evolution but natural selection. Scientific observations found no Fruit Fly Evolution even after 600 Generations.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex According to your meme “Scientific theories are based on lines of evidence”. I’d just like to see some evidence for the theory of evolution. BTW speciation isn’t evolution either. According to believers in the evolution myth, it all began with the first self replication cell. So everything came from this cell. Where did this cell get the extra genetic information to make your brain ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes This is natural selection, not evolution.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Gaito You’re obviously very up on science, so maybe you can tell us where the additional complex genetic information came from to turn the first self replicating cell into an eye ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex “Evolution takes time” Obviously you’re not aware of the “abrupt stasis” or “punctuated equilibrium” The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian macnaught what are you trying to prove

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

In and due to my natural selection my life has evolved. Evolution is the process of change over time. Be it 2 hours 2 months, years thousands or millions of years… Natural selection is the adaptation to an environment. Yes I have adapted to my environment and made selective changes, thereby evolving from where I was, I selectively adapted to Change the direction that I was evolving.lol

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes Natural selection is in the Bible. It’s the method the Creator uses to keep his creation going. I’d like to know where simple organisms get the additional genetic information to make more complex organisms, like from a single cell to an eye ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex I’m not an idiot. If conclusive scientific proof was found that evolution can indeed create totally new complex genetic design information, from nothing, or which wasn’t present before, then I’d be a fool not to believe in it. But, to date no such evidence has been observed or tested. If there were such proof, then the great debate over Intelligent Design and Creationism would have been won by evolution.

Ron Solovic
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught, you mentioned the great debate between intelligent design or creationism and evolution and why evolution didn’t win. It is fact that evolution has won every time a court case has been decided to allow id or creationism to be taught in public schools. Reference Kitzmiller vs the Dover Board of Education. The big guns of id were totally destroyed by many including Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University who also has a video presentation that obliterates the false premise of irreducible complexity of the eye. If you are honestly an open minded person, google it and learn.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Ron Solovic If, as you claim evolution has won, tell us where the first self replicating cell got the additional complex genetic design information to make an eye ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex Bacteria have never been observed to change into anything but other bacteria. This only proves natural selection, within a kind. If bacteria were to eventually evolve into an eye they would require billions of pieces of additional complex genetic design information. My question is very simple. Where did the bacteria get this ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex What you don’t realise is, you’re backing a dud. For evolution to work it requires to create all the DNA to make you. Where did this come from ? We all know that live cannot come from a rock, but you’re asking me believe that a rock designed me and all life forms. If the rock didn’t design our brains, the most complex known thing in the Universe, then how do you explain it ? Even Dawkins has given-up on albiogenesis and the rock theory. He has admitted that we are Intelligently Designed and left atheism to become an agnostic (not sure if God exists or not) Hawking is spending $millions trying to find the Intelligent life of the Universe and Cox and Attenborough confess “There might be a designer God afterall”. Evolution is a busted flush, as nothing comes from nothing. If all its supporters had found proof, do you not think they’d have told us ?

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught your asking questions in line with the FACT that you can not prove god

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught is noahs ark natural selection

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught was paganism before christ or after

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

i cant prove that there is or is not a god, ye or neh… why cant anyone just say i dont know the answer to your question, or nor i cant prove there is, or, is not a god and i dont appriciate you making me feel like im crazy

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes If you weren’t designed by a rock, then you were made by a Superior Intelligence. There is no other option. Even Dawkins admits this. Noah’s Ark is an example of Intelligent Design, not evolution. Paganism was before and is alive today. It will end at the Judgement when Satan and his followers are thrown into the eternal fires of Hell.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Atheist Codex “would do nothing to sway you”. Who are you working for ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Science says that evolution in an unproven theory. In order for something to be accepted as fact it must pass the ‘Scientific Test’. In other words it must be ‘observable’ and ‘testable’. Evolution has never been ‘observed’ to occur and is currently ‘untestable’. It would appear that only group of believers who are ‘science deniers’ today are atheistic ones.

David Smith
Commenter
Member

It is observable in microorganisms, dummy.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

science is the melinial religion,. and my life has evolved over the past 30 years (though very little)

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex is this the criticism you were talking about.lol,jkjk

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

“you need to understand basic terminology” would lead the unknowing to unengage to feeling inferior intellectually, or they would strike back with insults

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

theory is just a theory.lol.. is terminolgy the same from culture to culture. is legal terminology the same as street terminology. be open

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

why dont honey bees evolve pesticides, or am i wrong, i honestly dont know

Robert Gaito
Commenter
Member

Don’t science much huh Ian….

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

David Smith Please provide evidence for evolution in micro-organisms.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Jim Cooper Sorry this doesn’t prove evolution, but natural selection, which is in the Bible. You started with bacteria and what did you end with ? Other bacteria. Maybe you don’t understand how evolution is supposed to work. This is where a single celled organism acquires additional complex genetic design information to enable it to become more complex. Like becoming an eye. Can you explain how it does that please.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex I’ll believe in evolution when you demonstrate how a simple self replicating single cell got the additional complex design information to make an eye.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex Please tell us what the fruit fly evolved into? If it was another fruit fly, then it wasn’t evolution but natural selection. Scientific observations found no Fruit Fly Evolution even after 600 Generations.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex According to your meme “Scientific theories are based on lines of evidence”. I’d just like to see some evidence for the theory of evolution. BTW speciation isn’t evolution either. According to believers in the evolution myth, it all began with the first self replication cell. So everything came from this cell. Where did this cell get the extra genetic information to make your brain ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes This is natural selection, not evolution.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Gaito You’re obviously very up on science, so maybe you can tell us where the additional complex genetic information came from to turn the first self replicating cell into an eye ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex “Evolution takes time” Obviously you’re not aware of the “abrupt stasis” or “punctuated equilibrium” The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian macnaught what are you trying to prove

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

In and due to my natural selection my life has evolved. Evolution is the process of change over time. Be it 2 hours 2 months, years thousands or millions of years… Natural selection is the adaptation to an environment. Yes I have adapted to my environment and made selective changes, thereby evolving from where I was, I selectively adapted to Change the direction that I was evolving.lol

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes Natural selection is in the Bible. It’s the method the Creator uses to keep his creation going. I’d like to know where simple organisms get the additional genetic information to make more complex organisms, like from a single cell to an eye ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex I’m not an idiot. If conclusive scientific proof was found that evolution can indeed create totally new complex genetic design information, from nothing, or which wasn’t present before, then I’d be a fool not to believe in it. But, to date no such evidence has been observed or tested. If there were such proof, then the great debate over Intelligent Design and Creationism would have been won by evolution.

Ron Solovic
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught, you mentioned the great debate between intelligent design or creationism and evolution and why evolution didn’t win. It is fact that evolution has won every time a court case has been decided to allow id or creationism to be taught in public schools. Reference Kitzmiller vs the Dover Board of Education. The big guns of id were totally destroyed by many including Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University who also has a video presentation that obliterates the false premise of irreducible complexity of the eye. If you are honestly an open minded person, google it and learn.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Ron Solovic If, as you claim evolution has won, tell us where the first self replicating cell got the additional complex genetic design information to make an eye ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex Bacteria have never been observed to change into anything but other bacteria. This only proves natural selection, within a kind. If bacteria were to eventually evolve into an eye they would require billions of pieces of additional complex genetic design information. My question is very simple. Where did the bacteria get this ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex What you don’t realise is, you’re backing a dud. For evolution to work it requires to create all the DNA to make you. Where did this come from ? We all know that live cannot come from a rock, but you’re asking me believe that a rock designed me and all life forms. If the rock didn’t design our brains, the most complex known thing in the Universe, then how do you explain it ? Even Dawkins has given-up on albiogenesis and the rock theory. He has admitted that we are Intelligently Designed and left atheism to become an agnostic (not sure if God exists or not) Hawking is spending $millions trying to find the Intelligent life of the Universe and Cox and Attenborough confess “There might be a designer God afterall”. Evolution is a busted flush, as nothing comes from nothing. If all its supporters had found proof, do you not think they’d have told us ?

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught your asking questions in line with the FACT that you can not prove god

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught is noahs ark natural selection

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Ian Macnaught was paganism before christ or after

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

i cant prove that there is or is not a god, ye or neh… why cant anyone just say i dont know the answer to your question, or nor i cant prove there is, or, is not a god and i dont appriciate you making me feel like im crazy

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

Robert Hughes If you weren’t designed by a rock, then you were made by a Superior Intelligence. There is no other option. Even Dawkins admits this. Noah’s Ark is an example of Intelligent Design, not evolution. Paganism was before and is alive today. It will end at the Judgement when Satan and his followers are thrown into the eternal fires of Hell.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex “would do nothing to sway you”. Who are you working for ?

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex If you’re not ‘for’ Jesus, you’re working against Him. There are only two masters. Jesus and Satan, you fall into his rebellion against God. All atheists have chosen to reject Christ and told God they don’t want to spend eternity with Him in Heaven. Fine, you won’t.

John Brader-Snell
Commenter
Member

Intelligent design….advocated by un intelligent wackos….. Seriously this is not even debate worthy…… Evolution theory had passed every examination and test….

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

John Brader-Snell Can you validate that statement please. I’d like to understand how evolution works. According to evolutionists it all started from the ‘first self replicating cell’. Okay let’s have this cell. Where did it get the addional complex genetic design information to make an eye ? I await your relpy with interest.

Ian Macnaught
Commenter
Member

The Humanist Codex “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me”, (Jesus Christ) The reason was, you were never His. The proof is in what you’ve now become.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

No, he is wrong. We are supposed to feel guilty about the slave trade, the Empire etc so why shouldn’t the religious be challenged on past and ongoing actions against atheists. No Quarter!

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

I don’t equate myself with Martin Luther King do you? King was working for equality and integration into the American social, economic and political life. I have absolutely no interest in integrating with the religious life at all. Not even attendance at inter-faith buffets. Religion is a nonsense, a scam, the real equivalence for King would have been if he had been referring to the Mafia rather than the American body politic.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

DAESH, Catholic antl-family planning and lies about HIV, American evangelists in Uganda etc etc. not the same difficulties?

Kevin Smith
Commenter
Member

As I said above, Christians who preach hate are not Christians. I may claim to be Napoleon…That would be amusing.Hypocritical Christians are less than amusing, they bring the ‘brand’into disrepute.

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Kevin Smith Classic no true Scotsman claim. So no Pope ever has been a Christian etc?

Kevin Smith
Commenter
Member

Simply this: A claim to be something does not make you that something!! A pope is elected by cardinal conclave…Fine. A pie = Christian. …I hope so. By their fruits you shall know them

Edwin Deady
Commenter
Member

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Robert Hughes
Commenter
Member

Kevin Smith who originally gave the cardinal conclave that responsibility