The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Atheism: the default ethical position of humanity > Comments

Atheism: the default ethical position of humanity : Comments

By David Nicholls, published 8/7/2008

Popular rumour has it that atheists have cranial horns and sacrifice babies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
cont..
You then proceed to take Jefferson out of context (as the links I provided to the letters those quotes came from clearly show) and claimed that even though discerning the supernatural beliefs of the founding fathers 'are not as simple as your [sic] seem to think', you were still correct about Jefferson.

You then misquote me regarding lists of 'true Christians' and link to the website I have already said was not mine.

But then...then comes the really really amusing attack....
you point to this post http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/04/missing-fish-link-new-icon.html and claim that my quoting of Wells quote of Henry Gee is 'reprehensible' and a 'grievous' mistake.

Why is it so funny? Because Gee himself, in his response admits again the point being made. You can view his response here
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp
Where point 3 says again
"That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident...."

He has merely spat the dummy because others use his statements to support a non-evolutionary position. That's why he would be considered a 'hostile witness', but the point remains that his quote is not taken out of context. It is not made to mean anything other than what it says and even Gee himself says so again.

Really David. This article and exchange is one big example of you projecting your own way of operating onto others.

Lets review
Misquoting. - Jefferson - Check.
Unreliable sources. - Gregory Paul - Check.
Close-minded. - Evidence against you belief must be 'rubbish' - Check
Irrational. - Continues to use ad hominem and assertion rather than actual argument - Check.

Thank you for making it so easy to debate Atheists. It makes talking to the more rational, less zealous atheist so much easier when I can point to such clear cases of irrationality...
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Good try at attempting to salvage your ‘reputation’. Bad luck it failed.

Outside of Christian fundamentalist circles, Jefferson is a deist.

Of course, there is opposition to Gregory Paul from Christianity.

You can pad that the enlightenment personalities did not have “courage”, if you want.

Both web sites contain the same kind of fantasyland propaganda.

No, I have decided that religion can be bad by observation now and knowledge of history,

I did not attack your ‘beliefs’. I possibly pointed out you are a Christian fundamentalist who believes without any evidence supported in peer reviewed accredited scientific journals, that creationism is a valid way of looking at nature. If you believe that, then you are capable of believing anything, and you do.

I still have no answer on who is or who is not a ‘true Christian’.

You are playing semantics with Gee. Write to him.

Yes, apparently it is easy to debate atheists, just as easy as it is to believe in the creationist fairytale.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:59:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

Your muddying of the waters on disagreement between divergent ideas of palaeontologists on the periphery of evolutionary theory is a method consistent with fundamentalist creationism. Scientists involved with the study of evolution do disagree; that is the nature of science. The Gee case is a good example. There is rigorously investigation of varying explanations until the evidence supports the highest probability of a certain set of factors being no longer in dispute. Even then, future evidence may alter that. However, the overall picture of evolution remains solid, irrefutable and intact

The reason being:

The deeper into strata, the less advanced are organisms.

Morphological and chronological investigation of fossils is consistent.

Hominid and dinosaur fossils do not exist in the same strata.

Hominid fossils do not exist in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils.

Rare exceptions have scientifically based explanations. (Tectonic plate movement, local flood etc)

Many disciplines of science support evolution.

I think you have stated you are a science teacher. If so, the above is inconsistent with your parting statement on the Gee page of your blog and is most unscientific:

“Somethings never change....Evolution continues to rely on a sliding scale of evidence. Every time one evidence collapses, they find something else to prop up their rickety old theory.”

Evolution, a “rickety old theory”? Only those out of desperation in believing their childhood indoctrination, or those who have lost control of the rational part of their brain, would state such rubbish.

Pity help your students.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 6:51:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey,

On your site, click, ‘Blogs I Frequent’

http://alangrey.blogspot.com/ then the heading, ‘Intelligent Design the Future’

This leads here:

http://www.idthefuture.com/

Search for ‘Thomas Jefferson and Intelligent Design’ and play the audio supporting “intelligent design”:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-07-04T19_24_48-07_00

Apart from the obfuscation, it clearly states Jefferson’s views on religion and virtually calls him a deist. If there were any evidence at all, that Jefferson was a Christian then these people would have used it.

I am not going to go through endless hours looking for the errors in all your ‘logic’ but maybe you can explain this discrepancy between the audio and your statement that: “Jefferson's earlier writings (and indeed his funding and efforts of evangelism) clearly show his non-deistic beliefs.”

“Clearly?” is not a good description. This audio does not scream – “I am a Christian”.

And this site:

http://www.leroygarrett.org/ac_tj/chap04.htm

“Jefferson, for instance, was branded "an atheistical monster" by the president of Trinity College (Methodist), now called Duke University. The president said Jefferson's establishment of the University of Virginia was "a long-range plan for the subversion of Christianity" and "a bold enterprise and deistic daring of enormous proportions." He called him "a deist, an infidel, agnostic and materialist." (M. D. Peterson, The Jefferson Image, p. 243)

And a conclusion from a priest:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_012.htm

“The question is, how are these damaging confessions to be understood? Was Jefferson an atheist not only nominally but really? And if only nominally, what proof do we have that in real life he admitted the existence of a personal God in spite of the bizarre speculations he put on paper when trying to philosophize on his religious beliefs? It is the writer’s opinion that the Morals of Jesus or the Jefferson Bible give us the key to the problem, proving that its author was not an infidel but a deist, in the sense of one who rejects the need of divine revelation and consequently repudiates any form of established religion, beyond the limits of independent human reason and will.”

Summing up, Jefferson held a strange mixture of religious belief far more in line with deism than Christianity.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 6:47:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grey’s Anatomy (2)

Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:00:55 PM
“I think this article nicely shows how atheism leads to a loss of rationality.”
(Note: Grey immediately introduces an unsubstantiated negative opinion to initiate doubt – An old trick but a good one)

“Atheists may donate to charities, but they donate less that the conservative religious.”
(Note: Buffet and Gates, atheists, donate in the billions. Singer donates 20% of his salary. Ticket-to-heaven and other religious donations, are used for, hoarding, politics, proselytising, propping up business and charitable works. Percentage distribution unknown)

Posted by Grey, Thursday, 10 July 2008 5:40:54 PM
“Global warming wouldn't be a problem”
(Note: In contradiction, Grey’s website says global warming is not a problem.)

“try and avoid giving atheism credit for communism and the associated 200 million in one century death toll”
(Note: Fundamentalist Christians love this exaggerated historical simplification)

Posted by Grey, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:28:37 PM
“I would have thought you would have been more tech savvy than that.”
(Note: Implication – therefore, wrong elsewhere)

Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:04:43 PM
“Amongst much derision and non-rational rhetoric,”
(Note: Hyperbolic opinion. ‘Hubris’, is another Grey favourite)

“an atheistic philosopher who has written that infanticide is a ethical logical position and a study by Gregory S Paul which is the academic equivalent of a 2 year-old's crayon scrawl.
(Note: This reference to Peter Singer is unsophisticated mischievous misrepresentation. It is a Christian fundamentalist belief - No exaggerated bias regarding Paul here…?)

“This shows your close-mindedness and real lack of rational thought.”
(Note: Do I smell another ad hominem?)

“After this little gem, you decide to try and start attacking my belief”
(Note: The beliefs one holds, does produce bias. (Vested interest) The less evidence supporting such beliefs, the more the bias. I was therefore attempting to establish Grey’s beliefs – of which, I am still unsure, and which remain a mystery)

Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 5:07:21 PM
“You then proceed to take Jefferson out of context”
(Note: No, incorrect, as further evidence provided supports)

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 24 July 2008 11:30:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah David, you're still projecting your own lame rhetorical tricks onto others....

Case in point...
"Good try at attempting to salvage your ‘reputation’. Bad luck it failed."
and
"Grey immediately introduces an unsubstantiated negative opinion to initiate doubt – An old trick but a good one"

You seem to have problem putting together a logical, rational argument. Others don't. My comment was an introduction/abstract, immediately followed by links to peer-reviewed studies by scientists that highlights how you self-servingly ignore evidence disagreeing with your atheistic faith whilst simultaneously putting forward a hopelessly inept 'study' to supports your beliefs.

Rationality is having consistent standards of evaluating evidence. Your response however, is to dismiss anything disagreeing with your beliefs. This is further evidenced by your comment
"Of course, there is opposition to Gregory Paul from Christianity."
Math and logic aren't Christian or non-Christian. They’re universal and are evaluated objectively.

If you evaluated Paul’s study skeptically, you would note
1) Paul has selected crimes and countries in a non-random fashion. Brief evaluation of non-selected countries seem to indicate they diverge from Paul's thesis. Paul admits this "The especially low rates [of_homicide] in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample" – Paul doesn’t back up the 'statistical noise' claim.

2)Paul fails to properly define his data groupings

3)Paul indicates his data is not all from the same time period, but nowhere describes which years were used for which countries or document his data sources, giving no confidence that his study can be replicated.

4) Paul fails to perform a multivariate analysis, making any results meaningless.

5) Paul fails to provide any correlation coefficient/other standard statistical measures

Any one of these points is enough to cast serious doubt about his study; that all of them apply makes this truly appalling ‘research’.

Let me reiterate. None of these points have anything to do with Christian/non-Christian belief, but are simply related to doing valid research. Paul's study is the academic equivalent of a 2-year-old's crayon scrawl. You, however, place great faith in it because it agrees with your bigotry.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 1:16:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy