So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    You will find in life that when a person is so wrapped up in himself and thinks he is the only one who knows everything you need to actually consider the manner in which such a person replies.

Well that's very interesting, but since you and you alone have claimed to be 100% certain on here it's something of an own goal.

polyglide wrote: As I have said previously, I have considered Darwin's thoughts and also the evidence and theories regarding evolution, they are all there at the click of a switch.

Your posts have proved again and again that you not only haven't even a basic understanding of evolution, but that you are entirely ignorant of the most basic aspects of the scientific process

Polyglide wrote:   What some people cannot comprehend is that I am not in the least interested in experiments that apparently confirm certain aspects of life, past or present, what my only concern is, is the origin of life.

You've said this repeatedly so it's silly to make up such an obvious lie as everyone "comprehends" it. The point is your dishonestly claiming that science can't answer it, and that religious beliefs can. Yet religions offer no evidence for their claims so they're simply replacing one unknown for another which has all hallmarks of man made fiction. Besides science has started to evidence different hypothesis that don't require anything supernatural.

Polyglide wrote:It is obvious to anyone that there have been many changes since the formation of the universe and many of these can be confirmed by scientists and anyone interested can find out just what is involved.  That is not the point, none give any clue as to the origin of the universe nor what existed prior,

That last sentence is a laughable lie, you ought really to be embarrassed by repeating it.

Polyglide wrote:if one believes in the facts that all life forms came about by chance

Can you please cite one poster who has claimed this ever? Or else stop making up lies. You are again making the spurious assertion that only two choices exist here, it's a common enough creationist trick, but only an idiot would fall for it.

Polyglide wrote:yet you would not believe a car came about by chance

This one is called Hoyle's fallacy and again your dishonesty in repeating it when you know it's been debunked is embarrassing, but here we go again just for you..

The junkyard tornado is an argument used to deride the probability of both abiogenesis and the evolution of higher lifeforms as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."t was used originally by Fred Hoyle's statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time. While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay of creationist and intelligent design criticisms of evolution.
This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages over a long period of time. The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the 747 is not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits.

Polyglide wrote: then you should offer an intelligent and step by step manner in which any animal existed without all it's vital organs,

It didn't, that's not how evolution works, and the idea you could make such an asinine claim after claiming you have read and understood evolution speaks for itself, you're embarrassing yourself, again. However I'll try again to help you out. This link shows 55 million years of horse evolution, the most complete fossil record for a single species we have.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm

Polyglide wrote:every animal must have been complete at any one time and the  explanations to date are sadly lacking in common sense and I do not need any web sites regarding this matter as none explain anything step by step with proof of each particular stage of evolution, from one animal to a completely different animal.

Firstly scroll up, secondly follow the link. Now thirdly if your claim is not complete nonsense perhaps you can explain why you think we should ignore the entire scientific world in favour of your laughable opinions?

Yet another reply you see Sheldon?

stuart torr wrote:Yet another reply you see Sheldon?

The same tired old creationist clichés I'm afraid. They don't become compelling if they are endlessly repeated.

Must be quite painful at times to keep repeating Sheldon,

Stu,
Just point out to Dr, Sheldon that the horse theory has been discredited, step by step.

If he does not know the circumstances then he should look them up, I have no intention of trying to educate him into looking at all aspects involved.

I will leave him to read your post Polyglide,which he is probably doing at this very minute ok.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Just point out to Dr, Sheldon that the horse theory has been discredited, step by step.

    If he does not know the circumstances then he should look them up, I have no intention of trying to educate him into looking at all aspects involved.

   

What horse theory? As cryptic as ever, and do stop sulking and pretending you're not responding to my posts it's juvenile.

Evolution is a fact, I suggest you get over it.

stuart torr wrote:I will leave him to read your post Polyglide,which he is probably doing at this very minute ok.

Not much to read really. He's mentioned some horse theory being disproved. Since he doesn't say what horse theory or who's disproved it or cite any evidence or even explain why it's relevant, I have no idea what he's talking about. Then again his posts are not very lucid at the best of times.

You'll note stu that his repeated use of the long debunked Hoyle's fallacy and my refutation of it have been ignored. All very pathetic.

Well as you saw Sheldon,I did say that I would leave you to read it for yourself, as I do not pass messages on for anybody, not even the queen.

One presumes it was the horse theory/fact regarding the change of creature due to the fossil findings Sheldon,that you very kindly sent him the link for regarding evolution.?

What I posted was a link to the fossil record for the evolution of the modern horse. No horse theories were mentioned. Polyglide unfortunately doesn't understand the difference between evidence and theory, but then his posts show he doesn't understand basic scientific concepts and definitions. Claiming species evolution didn't happened would require some explanation of why the fossil record proves it does. The record I linked is the most complete we have, so it obviously dismantles his imbecillic gaps argument. He'll be back to his earlier claim that it's all part of a satanic conspiracy next.

I wonder does he ever read his posts back and get embarrassed at the lengths he's going to to deny reality? I'm inclined to think not judging from his resonses to everyone who's tried to help him grasp the truth. Some theists find it easier to create elaborate fantasies to evade scientific facts than to face them head on and try and rethink their beliefs. I'm not sure I respect either position if I'm honest as the latter category have the intelligence to know better.

Sorry for the later reply Sheldon,just trying to decide dinner tonight,might have some horsemeat for a change,being sold as beef at some butchers?
There are not to many theists who do actually rethink their beliefs though is there? they are Godlovers from one fraternity or another are they not,it is just their God is different.

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Try Deuteronomy 13:12-6

There is little in the way of despicable amoral criminality and inhumanity towards our fellow human beings that isn't justified in the Bible and the Koran. Small wonder then that religions have fought each other and anyone who rejects their doctrine.