The top 100 of these can be found here.
It is these type of statements that sometimes cause me to react emotionally to all things religious. The vile stupidity represented in these quotes is sad -- and the blame for it can be placed squarely on the shoulders of religion.
Of course, the majority of xians I know (or have met) are not like the idiotic folks who made statements like this: "If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol " - - and that is just one example of thousands cataloged by FSTDT.
Let's end tonight's post with this stupid graphic from Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis)...
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry... I'll probably do a bit of both.
Posts
18 comments:
I noticed this tidbit...
What does a functioning brain have to do with the Bible?
Yes, I saw that one too Bob... and I do agree with that one!
This is not a quote of stupidity but one of great wisdom that has lead this man, even older than I, to a new found reality:
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." A. Flew
I hope we all are on that path.
Yes, Al, following the evidence is a wonderful notion. If only more people did that then there would be no need for the archive of stupidity that FSTDT has cataloged.
(And yes, I am aware of Antony Flew. He rejects christianity. And his evidence for a "god" is simply that he cannot conceive of anything that could have caused the first replicating DNA other than a first cause god. My only comment on this is that opinions are not science.)
Who said anything about Christianity, opinion or science? You are correct, Flew readily admits the evidence leads him to believe there is a supreme being. DNA is a tough one for an atheist. He uses the word evidence although evidence is for one is not evidence for another it seems.
When it comes right down to it, most everything in life is opinion.
Just an opinion, but spending the day catalogin stupid quotes?
Al, you are back on the how did it start issue, and as far as I know, there is not a scientific theory to answer this. The Big Bang theory tackles the creation of the cosmos, but it does not (yet) identify the spark that started the Big Bang. And as for what created DNA, can't answer that either. But lack of knowing (or lack of a theory) does not mean I need to, child-like, create a deity out of whole cloth to whom I can ascribe it. I simply say, I do not know at this point and I hope that someday we uncover evidence to determine what that could be.
Lack of evidence for something (in this case, how DNA first arose) does not constitute evidence for a deity. It is simply that there is no evidence how DNA first arose. (And I admit to not having done any research at this point; there could, indeed, be some evidence out there that I am unaware of.)
Is there any evidence that a deity created DNA? If so, produce it.
And answer me this (either your ideas or Flew's or anyone else's): who created your deity? Can you conceive of anything that would have created him/her/it? That is a big problem for theists IMHO. It makes things even more problematic.
csm, I have seen a few different ideas (not full theories) on how DNA came to be. One of the more exotic and controversial ideas is that the oldest most primitive life may not have had DNA, and that DNA originated as a virus that came about independently, and then infected the early unicellular thingy, and the two formed a sort of symbiotic relationship. I've seen the same idea proposed about some of the various organelles, such as the Mitochondria, that they were originally independent thingies that joined with the early cells, and it turned out to be a good thing for all concerned.
Not that these thoughts are widely accepted, but I have seen it mentioned as an exotic possibility.
Y'know Bob, any comment that include the words mitochondria and organelles - along with the word thingies - has to be in my top ten favorite comments of all time!
csm, cool, thanks! How about I include endoplasmic reticulum? Anyway, to delve further in the weird idea about dna and early cells, the general idea is that early cells could reproduce, but it was a fairly random process, producing offspring with huge variety in characteristics. Meanwhile there was this virus-like thing out there that could replicate itself precisely, but was fragile, and operated as a parasite, like many viruses do today (I think. I may have that part wrong). Eventually it and the primitive cell managed to form a symbiotic existence, each benefitting the other: The virus allowed a more predictable and stable progeny, while the cell provided a more robust 'housing' for the virus.
Is this what happened? I dunno. But it's a fun thought experiment, I think.
Much like your acknowledgement of not knowing, I too admit I have no idea of how a supreme being came to be. I also do not know how the beginning came about but I know it did. I think science is tackling the issue of the supreme being that ultimately will be the answer. A great area of research.
The probabilities of the random chance make it practically impossible.
Like Flew, and many others, complex code, information and even cellular nanomachines provide just some of the evidence for a supreme designer. You refer to this as childish; I see it more as following the evidence where it leads. It just appeals to common sense much more than self designing processes or even thingies grabbing other thingies.
I like you reference to child-like belief. Typically the simplest solution is the correct one.
Like I posted at Freethinkers just recently, practically impossible is not the same as impossible.
And not even practically impossible when you consider the huge amount of time involved (which people generally either forget or cannot grasp because of its immenseness).
Bawdy, how are things over at Freethinkers these days?
Bob,
Not much going on. Posts every couple of weeks from the same camps.
Ah, about what I figured. What do they argue about if the freethinkers have left the room, so to speak?
The finer points of "authoritarianism".
*blink blink* Ok....
Just found these on Youtube earlier, had to share with you guys. I think they're really funny.
Phistophicles Intro and Book One
Phistophicles Book Two
Phistophicles Book Three
Post a Comment