The Inadequacy of Atheism

[baumgarten]

I'll be in good company!

 

[superluminal]

Thanks baum. Me too.

 

[lightgigantic]

It seems to be working. You almost understand!

Let me repeat. It was not a debate to begin with. My first post in this thread was a blatant ad-hominem, a debasement of your and Godless's arguments using personal attacks. I didn't try to cover it up. My follow-ups were merely repetitions of the original, each involving less explanation and more inflammatory language than the last. You're just too dense to know a well-deserved insult the first time you see it. You're so obsessed with this game of sanctimonious posturing that you think everyone who makes a comment to you is trying to take the moral or intellectual high ground, to appear somehow superior in his worldview or character. Well, not me. I believe you are an idiot, lightgigantic. You have convinced me. It wouldn't matter if I was a Nazi with the IQ of a rabbit. I'd still be making an accurate observation. Everyone who reads this board has to put up with your ornate but thoughtless monotone. You are full of shit; please stop using our throats as toilets.

In relation to this thread you certainly are appearing quite inadequate

 

[Godless]

Columbus, Watt, Bernoulli, Ford, the Wright brothers, and the vast majority of all the pioneers and innovators of the last thousand years were theists.

True Baum, however theism was not their main motivator of their accomplishments. Fact is Columbus had to basically beg for the funds cuase they thought the earth was flat and would fall of the edge, Wright brothers were predicted to fail, cause the main claim of theist's "if god had wanted you to fly he would have given you wings" Do you think, mysticism was the prime motivator for their success?

On and on you can give examples of theist, who have made great accomplishments, yet it was religion who had tryied to stagnate their advancements! Leornardo Davinci for example, and Bruno were both theists yet they were excomunicated for agreeing with Copernicus.

 

[Laika]

The issue of management is inescapable for human society (its not practical for us to just sit passively in this world)- theism offers boundaries and ideals for such endeavours - in otherwords the qualitative difference between humans and animals is more along the lines of having greater responsibility (dominion indicates responsibility rather than exploitation - at least amongst an intelligent person)

Yes, religions offer boundaries and ideals. But each religion offers a different set. Even within one sect of one religion there is not total conformity in terms of attitude. Different individuals can have different interpretations of the same scripture, and even when many people share the exact same view, the degree to which they each adhere to it will vary. My argument is not about the necessity of environmental management; it is about the lack of correlation between attitudes to the environment and to religion.