Atheists praying

[shunyadragon]

Umm....mutation is...

fractal . . . random as defined is without known cause in the variations that we call mutations. The variation of the outcomes of DNA replications that result in mutations have known causes based on natural law. The variation in replication that results in mutations follow a fractal pattern.

Whatever you are calling the variation in the replication that result in mutations, they are not causal in the outcome. They simple part of the process that results in change over time in life that we call evolution.

[Tassman]

And you know that you can't compare the two. And why don't you include secular nations like North Korea, China, Cuba, or Laos?

I'm rebutting the blanket claim that "the track record of atheist/secular countries has not been very good". In very many instances it has been considerably better than theist countries.

[Jedidiah]

Umm....mutation is...

I think he is addressing results. Those are not random, just selected for survival.

[seer]

Nothing in the science of evolution is random.

Random:Having no purpose, or objective.

So yes, the fact that life was formed or that it survived or that it found conducive ecological niches is all random.

[element771]

Nothing in the science of evolution is random.

The mutations themselves are random which are necessary for evolution.

Are you going to redefine the word nothing now?

/snark

**edited**

Whoops... I didn't read further down. It seems he already redefined random.

[Roy]

The quantitative comparison of body count between religious and non-religious societies doesn't speak towards the truth of said religion. However, if you want to go with body count...lets entertain that.

Pol Pot: 1 - 3 million
Hitler: 15 - 20 million
Stalin: 20 - 25 million
Mao Zedong: 40 - 70 million

Total: 76 - 118 million people

Can you come up with a religious body count that is "on par" with roughly 100 million?

Easily.

Start by moving Hitler's contribution to the theist side where it belongs, because 1930s Germany was a religious society.
Then add 20-30m for the Taiping rebellion, 15m for WWI, 20-25m for Cortes and co in South America, 20-25m for Japan's holy war against China, 5m for the anti-Muslim Ottoman conflict, 1-10m for the Indian mutiny and 1-3m for the Crusades.

That leaves:
Irreligious: 61-98m
Religious: 97-133m

[element771]

There are logs, and splinters, but no matter how many you care to lodge, there's infinitely more room in Hilbert's hotel. Believing oneself so special that the creator of the universe wants a personal relationship with them, forever, can't be compared with any mere mortal arrogance.

The fact that Christians don't see this is the only reason the accusation of arrogance continues to be directed toward non-theists. Good luck on the living forever thing, but in the meantime, it'd be nice if you'd scratch that particular, poorly aimed barb from the armory.

I don't understand how it is arrogance for a Christians to believe that humanity as a whole are special. God wants a relationship with everyone not just a select few (that was kind of Jesus' point). I would imagine that you could also mean species arrogance I guess? Still doesn't follow. You act like Christians think that God doesn't love his entire creation. That is why we do not get the arrogance claim.

However, I typically hear atheists claim that they are their own God.

Christian view: God loves everyone and everything

Atheist view: I am God.

now who exactly seems arrogant again?

Also, we have not interacted very often but I am trying not to be salty. Telling me good luck with living forever also implies arrogance on your part.

The dentist was a case in point.

How does your claim that "there are prominent scientists who are Christians" counter my claim, to which you were ostensibly responding, that "Nagel's fame, in Christian circles, is far out of proportion to his philosophical impact, something I've noted holds true for most Christian scientists and philosophers."

It doesn't, and I wasn't willing to follow your deflection, and even less willing to follow a deflection based on bad math.

Me: there are prominent scientists who are Christians

You: ...is far out of proportion to his philosophical impact, something I've noted holds true for most Christian scientists and philosophers.

You then provide a dentist as an example of your point at a creation rally.

1. He is a dentist and not a scientist.

2. You are implying that Christians over celebrate their scientists because that they are Christians. My contention is that there are plenty of scientists who are Christian to that charge does not apply.

Nor have I seen entire Christian denominations unite in pillorying one scientist for over a century after his death. Let him have his day, and his defenders.

I don't care what they have...I think it is odd and strikes me of veneration in a religious sense.

Seems more Hindu to me.

Not even close. The idea that my consciousness is an illusion is a lot different from the world being an illusion. Here is why...

If the world is an illusion, them my consciousness is wrong about what my senses are telling me. That is miles away from the very thing I use to process sensory data and thoughts to be an illusion.

The world could be an illusion and I could be corrected of that. Say I wake up in another dimension and it is explained to me that my world was an illusion (see the Matrix). However, think about your very sense of being being an illusion. The undercuts everything. If the logic and reasoning that I use to come to believe that these things are illusory, how does that not undercut my very conclusion?

Craig also cited Hilbert's claim there was no place for the infinite in reality as an argument against an actual infinite, as if Hilbert wouldn't have said the same about the number two, and as if Craig wasn't arguing for the actual existence of his infinite God.

Cringe-worthy.

Let's not even start on his naive claims that you can't perform subtraction or division of infinite cardinals, and his seeming innocence, when speaking as a professional apologist, of the very concept of inequivalent cardinals, the continuum, or the lack of a largest cardinal to model the theologians' supposedly infinite God.

Well this is out of my area of expertise, i didn't see one protein or anything to do with entropy in there. Just curious, do you have expertise in this area.

One thing I will say off the cuff about infinite and the number 2. Maybe I am wrong but this doesn't seem like a legit comparison.

The number two exists in theory and can correspond to reality. I can have 2 apples for example. How can one have an infinite number of apples?

It's a mistake to read Dawkins for anything more than his biology, and a larger mistake to credit arguments from commentators like Alister McGrath as less embarrassing. But he's a Christian fighting the righteous fight against the evil Dawkins, so he gets a pass, too.

Then maybe he should not write a philosophy book like the God Delusion.

What does McGrath have anything to do with this? He is an actual theologian commenting on bad theology. Of course he gets a pass because he actually knows what he is talking about. That doesn't make him right but it is far better than being nonsensical.

Also I would like to make one thing clear. I have no problem with Dawkins writing a philosophy book IF it was good philosophy. That is the difference. He is so ignorant that he doesn't even know how bad it is. I am not saying that everyone should stick to their respective lane. I am saying that you should stick to your lane if you don't know how to drive properly in another lane.

The view in question is the applicability of supernatural causes to scientific investigation. I don't need a survey to know that's an absurd, fringe position. Suggesting I don't like the view is both wrong, and irrelevant.

We aren't talking about the same things here. I would agree with this statement. The idea that I was referring to is about peoples atheism being volitional.

*to whom

That is never annoying.

I think Christianity should be redefined to accept the inclusion of a mortal Jesus.

Did you miss the part that said I don't believe that ID should be allowed in science?

[element771]

Easily.

Start by moving Hitler's contribution to the theist side where it belongs, because 1930s Germany was a religious society.
Then add 20-30m for the Taiping rebellion, 15m for WWI, 20-25m for Cortes and co in South America, 20-25m for Japan's holy war against China, 5m for the anti-Muslim Ottoman conflict, 1-10m for the Indian mutiny and 1-3m for the Crusades.

That leaves:
Irreligious: 61-98m
Religious: 97-133m

Most of those are not religious wars.

[carpedm9587]

Easily.

Start by moving Hitler's contribution to the theist side where it belongs, because 1930s Germany was a religious society.
Then add 20-30m for the Taiping rebellion, 15m for WWI, 20-25m for Cortes and co in South America, 20-25m for Japan's holy war against China, 5m for the anti-Muslim Ottoman conflict, 1-10m for the Indian mutiny and 1-3m for the Crusades.

That leaves:
Irreligious: 61-98m
Religious: 97-133m

Out of curiosity, how was WWI a religious war?

[element771]

Out of curiosity, how was WWI a religious war?

No. I think what Tass is adding up are wars by religious nations vs wars by irreligious nations.

maybe I missed his point.

[Sparko]

Nothing in the science of evolution is random.

uh, that is exactly what evolution is, Shuny.

[Sparko]

fractal . . . random as defined is without known cause in the variations that we call mutations. The variation of the outcomes of DNA replications that result in mutations have known causes based on natural law. The variation in replication that results in mutations follow a fractal pattern.

Whatever you are calling the variation in the replication that result in mutations, they are not causal in the outcome. They simple part of the process that results in change over time in life that we call evolution.

sure. then you should be able to predict future mutations since you can calculate fractals.

[Roy]

Most of those are not religious wars.

1) Most of them (the Taiping rebellion, Japan's holy war, the Indian mutiny, the Crusades) were religious wars.

2) It wouldn't matter if they weren't, since the others you cited weren't atheistic wars.

If all you can do is distort the truth and move the goalposts, your claim is dead in the water. Are you going to abandon it, or are you going to continue pushing falsehoods like most Xtian apologists do?

[Roy]

However, I typically hear atheists claim that they are their own God.
...
Atheist view: I am God.

Bovine faeces.

[Roy]

Out of curiosity, how was WWI a religious war?

It wasn't. It was a war between religious societies.