Atheism vs. Christian

[quatona]

Eudaimonis,

Wikipedia is a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic.

According to Wikipedia, there is "strong atheism" and "weak atheism".

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

So there is a population of people calling themselves atheists with very different fundamental definitions of atheism.

No, they have the same definition. That´s why they distinguish between "strong" and "weak" atheism, and not between "true" and "false" atheism.

Jesus said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Atheism isn´t "a house" in that sense (like the Christian house, divided into countless denominations is), to begin with. It´s a position on one single issue. You are making too much of it.

 

[durangodawood]

Darwin published science which is foundational?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? http://creation.com/15-questions

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone. http://www.discovery.org/a/2611

Pangenesis was an evolutionary idea that was developed by Charles Darwin.

Dr. Jerry Bergman wrote concerning pangenesis:

“Pangenesis is based on the idea that all somatic cells produce ‘gemmules’ or gene material that is ‘thrown off’ into the body’s circulatory system. These gemmules multiply by dividing, and eventually collect in the organism’s eggs and sperm (the gametes). Consequently, the experiences of their bearers are imprinted in the gemmules, and then can be passed on to the organism’s offspring. Darwin discussed his pangenesis idea in great detail, and felt confident that it would provide a feasible mechanism to produce new genetic information.[1] ”

Despite there being devastating experimental evidence against the notion of pangenesis provided by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin stubbornly held to the notion of pangenesis as he had no naturalistic explanation on how genetic information could be formed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Pangenesis

*raft of quoted text from noted experts*

OK. we're tied now!
I could post another raft and win, but Im not gonna.

 

[PaulA135711]

Quatona,

I did use the wording atheists/agnostics more than once if memory serves.

Second, you wrote: "So all your statements about atheism and the articles actually don´t address us, but a pretty much non-existent position?". I did demonstrate that there are people who take the "strong atheism" position.

Third, in your post above, you didn't demonstrate that "most atheists are also agnostics". You merely asserted it. Argument by assertion is not a compelling argument.

 

[durangodawood]

....Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated....

Hmm. Do you really want to use him as an ally?
Look into his work before you answer.

 

[quatona]

Quatona,

I did use the wording atheists/agnostics more than once if memory serves.

So?

Second, you wrote: "So all your statements about atheism and the articles actually don´t address us, but a pretty much non-existent position?". I did demonstrate that there are people who take the "strong atheism" position.

Sure there are some. But most here are not. So the question is: Should we feel addressed by your stataments?

Third, you didn't demonstrate that "most atheists are also agnostics".

You made the case yourself when you said that 99% of self-professing atheists are agnostics.
The point, however, was: These aren´t mutually exclusive terms - as your statement suggested.
I don´t believe in the existence of Gods -> atheist.
I have no knowledge concerning the existence or non-existence of Gods -> agnostic.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Darwin published science which is foundational?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. http://creation.com/15-questions

Welcome to the forums. What you've done here is called quote mining. It's very dishonest and creation website are known for being liars. You won't be taken seriously here if you do things like this. If you included the previous paragraph before that quote it puts it in context and is basically calling for biologists to pay attention to other disciplines outside of their niche. Also, you should know creation websites ask their employees to abandon the scientific method. They state that if any evidence contradicts their beliefs, then the evidence is wrong. This is intellectual dishonesty.

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.

Irrelevant. Medical doctors aren't scientists. Try again.

Pangenesis was an evolutionary idea that was developed by Charles Darwin.

Darwin didn't know anything about how genetics and heredity worked. He's allowed to be wrong. Science is self correcting. It's a strength not a weakness. His lack of knowledge on genetics doesn't falsify his theory. This is typical creationist dishonest cherry picking.

 

[PaulA135711]

Setting aside any actions by Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, does this negate the poll of doctors I cited.

Does it negate the folly of Darwin stubbornly sticking to pangenesis even when there was compelling evidence against it.

The fact is that evolution is a religion with people who belong to a cult of personality in relation to Charles Darwin.

Michael Ruse, the atheist and evolutionist philosopher of science said, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. Stephen Jay Gould wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".[53] In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The fact is that evolution is a religion...

Calling things that aren't religions religions is intellectually dishonest.

Oh and...

You don't have any actual arguments of your own regarding why you think atheism isn't a valid position?

 

[durangodawood]

Setting aside any actions by Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, does this negate the poll of doctors I cited.....

Yes, probably, as your standards for how to properly cite authorities were exposed when I looked further into what Dr K really thinks about evolutionary biology.

Do I want to look your other claims make sure? No. "Fool me once" and all that.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Setting aside any actions by Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, does this negate the poll of doctors I cited.

Are you going to concede you dishonestly quote mined him?
Your poll is irrelevant. I can play the same game. Project Steve. This is a list of scientists just named Steve that work in relevant fields of study that accept evolution as the best explanation for living systems.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

Does it negate the folly of Darwin stubbornly sticking to pangenesis even when there was compelling evidence against it.

Citation needed that he stubbornly stuck to it after evidence of it being rejected. If you can't provide that, retract your claim.

The fact is that evolution is a religion with people who belong to a cult of personality in relation to Charles Darwin.

Is the germ theory of disease a religion? Is atomic theory a religion? Is the theory of general relativity a religion? Evolution is a biological science that is supported by 150 years of repeated experimentation and is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. It also has nothing to do with atheism as most Christians accept it. This is a dishonest claim.

Michael Ruse, the atheist and evolutionist philosopher of science said

You've already demonstrated you will dishonestly quote mine so I am not going to go down that rabbit hole. Provide arguments in your own words.

 

[PaulA135711]

JonFromMinnesota,

You wrote: "It's very dishonest and creation website are known for being liars."

Known by whom? Fanatical evolutionists?

I hate to break this to you but evangelical Christianity and other conservative forms of Abrahamic religions have an immense amount of adherents. And they are creationists.

On the other hand, fanatical evolutionist who claim creationist websites are known to be liars are a rather small subset of humanity.

Consider this from the science journal Science Nordic: "Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...". source: http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe

If your claim were true and web creationists are known to be liars, then why has creationism risen in step with the internet according to this science journal? You claim appears to be counterfactual. You might not like it, but Abrahamic creationism is growing in Europe, Asia, and Africa. I think it is just a form of bullying and a cheap debate tactic. It is not all impressive. It just makes you look intemperate and unreasonable.

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[1] See also: Evolutionary indoctrination

Furthermore, even if your statement were true (and I am definitely not conceding this point) science is not a voting booth and you are using the ad populum fallacy.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

JonFromMinnesota,

You wrote: "It's very dishonest and creation website are known for being liars."

Known by whom? Fanatical evolutionists?

I hate to break this too you but evangelical Christianity and conservative forms of Abrahamic religions have an immense amount of adherents. And they are creationists.

On the other hand, fanatical evolutionist who claim creationist websites are known to be liars are a rather small subset of humanity.

Also, consider this from the science journal Science Nordic: "Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...". source: http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe

Furthermore, even if your statement were true (and I am definitely not conceding this point) science is not a voting booth and you are using the ad populum fallacy.

LOL. Seriously? You, in your own post, commit this fallacy.

Oh and...

You don't have any actual arguments of your own regarding why you think atheism isn't a valid position?

 

[Dudebro]

After reading Conservapeida and Rationalwiki for longer than I care to admit I have to say I think this guy PaulA135711 is none other than Conservative, the most prolific editor at Conservapedia. The long winded posts full of (mostly bias)quotes, asserting that atheism is religion, using the term "evolutionists", linking to all his pet pages and quoting youtube christian(although he sure doesn't act like one) ShockOfGod means it can be no one else, unless it's a very dedicated troll impersonating him. You guys would be better off not engaging with him because his mind is made up and he views all of this as a victory for his cause regardless of how it looks to the rest of us.


As for the topic at hand I think it's short sighted to put atheists against Christians. Atheists are against ALL faith based reasoning. Not actively, that would be antitheism, but in general.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You don't have any actual arguments of your own regarding why you think atheism isn't a valid position?

I think we have a POE. I'm suspicious of this new account that just posted.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

On the other hand, fanatical evolutionist who claim creationist websites are known to be liars are a rather small subset of humanity.

Consider this from the science journal Science Nordic: "Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...". source: http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe

Yet.....they lose in court every single time they try to introduce the nonsense into the classroom.

You're obviously a POE. You gave it away with that new account that just posted.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think we have a POE. I'm suspicious of this new account that just posted.

Ok, this thread is now about Star Trek vs. Star Wars.

 

[Cimorene]

Is this guy a bot programmed to just post stuff from Conservapedia?

 

[Dudebro]

You're obviously a POE. You gave it away with that new account that just posted.

You mean me? I promise you I'm only me. I've been reading this forum for years but never posted. I actually forgot I made an account at all until I tried to sign up today. You can report me to the mods and they'll see I'm coming from a different IP.

I decided to post because I've read a lot of/about conservapedia and the similarities stood out when I read his posts. I figured if people knew who they might be dealing with they might just leave it alone. Btw he's basically just advertising at this point. He's well known for dropping links all over the place. If it's really him.

Sorry if you meant someone else.

 

[durangodawood]

Ok, this thread is now about Star Trek vs. Star Wars.

They will probably never meet, being in different galaxies and different times.
So whats the point?

 

[PaulA135711]

Durangodawood,

re: the Harvard doctor quote

One of the problems with many atheists/agnostics/evolutionists is that do not know how to properly weigh evidence and some are not even aware that there are many forms of evidence and not just scientific evidence.

In a court of law, a hostile witness is an excellent form of evidence. For example, if you can get a Republican to admit some misdeed by a fellow Republican in a court of law rather than a Democrat for example, this is very excellent hostile witness testimony all other things being equal. See hostile witness: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=884

So if the Harvard doctor is an evolutionist and he makes a concession about the very limited nature of the usefulness of evolutionary biology, this is excellent testimony all other things being equal.

Next, I did not know the doctor was an evolutionist if in fact he is one. Regardless, his hostile witness type testimony still stands. Furthermore, unless your some form of mind reader, you certainly did not prove that I knew he was an evolutionist if in fact he is one. Your cry of liar just makes you look unreasonable. Since you are not a mind reader, you are going beyond the evidence you have at your disposal. And in order to impeach the Harvard doctors testimony you would have to do something like show he was a totally incompetent doctor or he was bribed by a creationist, etc. etc. Given the quality of the Harvard Medical school, I don't believe you will show he is a quack. And something like a bribe occurring seems very implausible.