Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, they have the same definition. That´s why they distinguish between "strong" and "weak" atheism, and not between "true" and "false" atheism.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.
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.Jesus said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
*raft of quoted text from noted experts*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
Hmm. Do you really want to use him as an ally?....Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated....
So?Quatona,
I did use the wording atheists/agnostics more than once if memory serves.
Sure there are some. But most here are not. So the question is: Should we feel addressed by your stataments?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.
You made the case yourself when you said that 99% of self-professing atheists are agnostics.Third, you didn't demonstrate that "most atheists are also agnostics".
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
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.
Pangenesis was an evolutionary idea that was developed by Charles Darwin.
The fact is that evolution is a religion...
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.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.....
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
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.
You don't have any actual arguments of your own regarding why you think atheism isn't a valid position?
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
I think we have a POE. I'm suspicious of this 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.You're obviously a POE. You gave it away with that new account that just posted.
They will probably never meet, being in different galaxies and different times.Ok, this thread is now about Star Trek vs. Star Wars.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?