Sir Anthony Hopkins: I couldn’t be an atheist

[wellwisher]

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

 

[wynn]

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

Catholic paedophiles and Hindu wife-beaters are examples of "purely human" people?

 

[Dywyddyr]

No i specifically said a majority of the ones who post. preach. publish about Atheism seem to be hardline.

Links please. I think you'll find that's not true. Possibly the most vociferous are hard line, but that's about it.

It's not a fail. I merely pointed out that in all reality Hardline Theists would NEVER comes to the same problem as for them there would always be that next horizon.

It is a fail. You're assuming again.

The belief that there is no Higher power at all

Oh dear. Re-read the question. Which SET of beliefs (per your claim). And, as shown, and acknowledged by you, this is not an "atheist belief".

But to counter AQnecdoctal evidence you ned actual evidence

No you don't. You simply have to not believe the eanecdotes.

In a real formal debate the Theist side would at least have anecdoctal evidence.

Two errors: belief isn;'t decided by formal debate. Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

Atheists got squat.

Atheists don't need "squat". They simply do not believe.

No it is pointless becuase many seemingly impossible things happen every damn day.

Really? Such as?

Saying someing is Impossible becuase it is improbable is just stupid.

Oh dear. We're back, again, to lack of evidence where there should be some.

It was the known world to the people at the time.

To THOSE people. Only.

Plus you have to allow for distortion of the tale by time it spent as a oral history.

Ah, right. So now you're claiming that a local flood was, through oral repetition expanded to a world-wide flood. How much else of the bible has been expanded in a similar manner?

Obviously you are not connecting dots. A god who created the universe would certainly work within the boundaries of said universe to do things.

Nothing to do with your original statement or my comment.

I see. A failure of understanding on YOUR part somehow constitutes an error on my part. How droll.

Oops, wrong.

Those are two traits common is all religions, to one degree or another.

Also wrong.

Actually that is the freaking point.

No it's not. On the one hand you're claiming that we can't dismiss god as a possibility because we haven't explored the entire universe while, at the same time, also claiming that he's had a direct influence (on numerous occasions) right here on Earth. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

Pure nonsense.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals).

Really?: please outline for us some "animal behaviour" as evinced by atheists.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

Bull. Shit.

 

[Yazata]

Try this (again): to what set of beliefs do atheists subscribe?

Atheists typically seem to believe that the word 'God' is meaningful and that the word refers to a single object of discussion that might or might not exist. Whatever meaning and cognitive content that they give the word is usually derived from whatever theistic religious tradition is influential where they are. So theists and atheists are going to share some basic assumptions. If they didn't, then they wouldn't come into conflict.

Atheists are pretty much defined by the belief that this 'God' doesn't actually exist. They may differ quite a bit among themselves as to how strongly they weight that belief, from total certainty on one end to a hypothesis that's more akin to a guess on the other.

Atheists often express a great deal of confidence in the belief that no convincing evidence exists for the existence of this God thing. That often involves more detailed beliefs about miracles, about religious experience, about scriptural authority and so on.

Atheists often try to associate themselves with science, in the belief that science somehow supports and justifies their religious position.

And there's the thing that's often most evident to people who come into contact with atheists -- the fact that a great many atheists seem to be angry. Atheists don't just placidly lack belief in the existence of God. They viscerally dislike "religion". Hostility is an emotion more than it's a belief, but if anyone pokes it with a stick, more beliefs come boiling out -- religion is intellectually stupid, it's atavistic, it holds back progress, it brainwashes people, it's intolerant, it's responsible for wars, persecutions and violence.

 

[wynn]

Atheists often try to associate themselves with science, in the belief that science somehow supports and justifies their religious position.

There is also the kind of atheists who associate themselves with art and philosophy.
(Also prone to being emotional about religion.)
But we don't see many of that kind here.

 

[Rav]

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

This actually made me laugh, in spite of the fact that it was clearly designed to be as insulting as possible.

 

[wynn]

I doubt Wellwisher will respond. He is too human for that!

 

[LoRaan]

Links please. I think you'll find that's not true. Possibly the most vociferous are hard line, but that's about it.

Why should I I was just making a fucking observation from a POV. I owe you nothing becuase you have proivded nothing/

It is a fail. You're assuming again.

SO you are telling me the universe is not infinite and ever expanding?

No you don't. You simply have to not believe the eanecdotes.

As a person but as objective scientist you have to look at them an see what you can glean if cioing for a scientific argument.

Two errors: belief isn;'t decided by formal debate. Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

I was talking about in a scientific proof or debate. Learn to read.

Atheists don't need "squat". They simply do not believe.

Which means squat scientifically

Really? Such as?

How many Royal FLushes are dealt in poker. There are many many more including miracle survivals, lucky flips of the coin, and so on

Oh dear. We're back, again, to lack of evidence where there should be some.

No I just stated a fact. If it is improbably it means it could happen. Stating an improbable is impossible is stupid.

To THOSE people. Only.

Amazing that we know it now huh.

Ah, right. So now you're claiming that a local flood was, through oral repetition expanded to a world-wide flood. How much else of the bible has been expanded in a similar manner?

Local flood we are talking the Mesospaotamian river valley or pretty much the center of civilization for that part of the world at that time.

Nothing to do with your original statement or my comment.

Actually to someone with a brain...it is.

Oops, wrong.

I love how you can just say that and provide no proof.

Also wrong.

And again

No it's not. On the one hand you're claiming that we can't dismiss god as a possibility because we haven't explored the entire universe while, at the same time, also claiming that he's had a direct influence (on numerous occasions) right here on Earth. You can't have it both ways.

Actually yeah i can becuase while a creator had effect on Earth and mankind in many way the majority of these were over 2000 years ago.

Now unless you are gonna provide some proof of which you claim i say just go with your rectal cranial inversion.

 

[wynn]

Actually yeah i can becuase while a creator had effect on Earth and mankind in many way the majority of these were over 2000 years ago.

Really? So who is it that makes the Sun shine, right now?
Who is it that makes it possible that the food in your intestines gets digested, as we speak?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why should I I was just making a fucking observation from a POV. I owe you nothing becuase you have proivded nothing/

Much like yourself. Fail again.

SO you are telling me the universe is not infinite and ever expanding?

Oh dear, missed the point.

As a person but as objective scientist you have to look at them an see what you can glean if cioing for a scientific argument.

Anecdotes do not enter into scientific argument.

I was talking about in a scientific proof or debate. Learn to read.

Got it. When you wrote "In a real formal debate" you were talking about science. Science is not decided by debate. Learn something.

Which means squat scientifically

Belief is not scientific. Still flailing I see.

How many Royal FLushes are dealt in poker. There are many many more including miracle survivals, lucky flips of the coin, and so on

So what?

No I just stated a fact. If it is improbably it means it could happen. Stating an improbable is impossible is stupid.

Wrong again. Please, go look "weight of probabilities".

Amazing that we know it now huh.

What?

Local flood we are talking the Mesospaotamian river valley or pretty much the center of civilization for that part of the world at that time.

So? A local flood is not a world-wide flood.

Actually to someone with a brain...it is.

Also wrong.

Actually yeah i can becuase while a creator had effect on Earth and mankind in many way the majority of these were over 2000 years ago.

Also false. Hearsay claims these things happened. Folk tales, which you have already admitted get inflated over time.

Now unless you are gonna provide some proof of which you claim i say just go with your rectal cranial inversion.

On the contrary, the original claims were yours. And I'm still waiting for some support.
I do note however that you are becoming more and more insulting.
Feeling trapped? Backed into a corner and having to resort to invective because you can't support your claims?

 

[LoRaan]

Really? So who is it that makes the Sun shine, right now?
Who is it that makes it possible that the food in your intestines gets digested, as we speak?

So mankind have never created something that can self sustain on a limited basis. Turn a modern engine on and it will run utill it runs out of fuel or suffer some catstrophe. If we can create that, then just think what an omnipotent being could do.

Damn could you try to come up with a hard one.

 

[wynn]

So mankind have never created something that can self sustain on a limited basis. Turn a modern engine on and it will run utill it runs out of fuel or suffer some catstrophe. If we can create that, then just think what an omnipotent being could do.

Damn could you try to come up with a hard one.

This above is a deist stance.

Why are you presenting a deist stance?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Catholic paedophiles and Hindu wife-beaters are examples of "purely human" people?

Humans with atheistic qualities.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Humans with atheistic qualities.

And people like I are what? Animals who seem human?

 

[Jan Ardena]

And people like I are what? Animals who seem human?

How does this question tie in to my point?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Animals do not have religion. Religion is a purely human behavior since humans are the only species that do this. As such, atheists must be somewhere between animals and human, since they lack that purely human behavior called religion.

This intermediate area of evolution could explain the animal standard used for atheist behavior (closer to the animals). This is often in conflict with those who attempt higher forms of human behavior that are characteristic of the purely human.

Just as it may not be possible to convince a dog or monkey that God exists, because the atheist is somewhere between monkey and human, it might be difficult for them to understand anything that is purely human.

Animals do not own bicycles, therefore people who don't own bicycles are somewhere between human and animal.

 

[familydoc]

So? A local flood is not a world-wide flood.

You are very dogmatic in your belief in the English translation of Genesis, that must take a lot of faith!

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded. This combination of words is largely to refer to local land or local people not "entirety of the world" and the translation of the English Bible seems to imply. Many feel that the flood story in Genesis refers to a local flood.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are very dogmatic in your belief in the English translation of Genesis, that must take a lot of faith!

And a failure to read:

The biblical flood was supposedly over the entire world.

Note the word "supposedly"?

LoRaan I believe is referring to the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis uses the words kol erets for the area flooded.[/QUOTE]
Sure thing:

It was the known world to the people at the time. Plus you have to allow for distortion of the tale by time it spent as a oral history.

 

[familydoc]

Note the word "supposedly"?

Your attempt was to dismiss out of hand LoRann's assertion that there was evidence to support the Genesis flood by stating that the flood was "supposedly" worldwide.

My observation was to point out that the Hebrew the passage was written in probably doesn't say "worldwide" and therefore your dismissal was invalid was met with...you showing that you understood what I was saying. Thanks for the clarification.