Atheism vs. Christian

[Hoghead1]

DogmaHunter.

The only reason why evolutionism is still around is that children are brainwashed into it and those who belong to secular religions and liberal theology do not want to be accountable to their Creator.

If evolutionism were vaild, evolutionists could satisfactorily answer these 15 questions for evolutionists: http://creation.com/15-questions But they cannot.

But evolutionism days are numbered. Britain, the birthplace of Darwinism, is being overrun with Muslims and evangelical Christianity is growing as well. These two groups have higher birth rates than the irreligious.

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins is panicking because he knows that Muslims will not assimilate and teachers are catering to Muslim schoolchildren whose parents teach them Islamic creationism. And global creationism is quickly growing.

The British newspaper The Telegraph reported in an article entitled Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools:
“ Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."[12]

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."

On February 24, 2015, the Science Nordic website declared:
“ Creationism, the belief that a god -- not evolution -- shaped life on Earth, is ... spreading in the very stronghold of evolution, Europe. That’s the conclusion of five years of research that’s been put into new book on creationism. The book details how creationism is on the march throughout most of Europe.

"Creationism is most dominant in Eastern Europe and Turkey, but even some schools in the Netherlands are teaching creationism," says one of the book’s authors Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, University College South Denmark. "Politicians in some German federal states are advocating that schools use creationist books alongside those about evolutionary theory in their lessons. This kind of struggle is going on on a small scale in many places."...

"Over the last ten years we’ve seen the emergence of big-city creationism. London is a good example," says Kjærgaar.

Here, noticeably more young people have been signed up to various local and religious groups.

"And this doesn't just apply to young Muslims as many people might think. Christian groups are also recruiting young people...

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...[17]

On October 4, 2014, the Vancouver Sun reported that evolutionism is rejected by hundreds of millions of evangelical Christians and Muslims around the world.[2]

Specifically, the Vancouver Sun declared:
“ Creationism, a religious world view that adamantly rejects Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, is on the rise among evangelical Protestants and most of the world’s Muslims.

It is not only the majority of residents in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey who strongly reject the teaching that humans and other species evolved over millions of years from less complex creatures. So do tens of millions of evangelical Christians in North America (as well as South America and Africa).

Overall, [Nidhal Guessoum, a Middle Eastern physics and astronomy professor] who teaches at the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, estimates roughly 60 per cent of the world’s Muslims are creationists, including many living in the U.S. and Canada.

Even though poll results about evolution vary based on the questions asked, Salman Hameed reported in the journal Science that strong anti-evolution majorities exist in Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Pakistan. The latter is among Canada’s top six source countries for immigrants...

An Angus-Reid survey found 43 per cent of Americans accept the creationist teaching that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, which means they reject the...view the universe began roughly 13 billion years ago.[3]

Despite what you say and present here, evolution is a central tenet in modern science and is going to stay there. It is probably 9ne of the best-supported theories in science. Also, these kinds of surveys are a dime and dozen and generally lend conflicting results. You can't fully rely on them. Even if you can rely on teh surveys you cite, they would simply prove how ignorant the general public still is about science and also theology and biblical studies.

 

[PaulA135711]

Quatona,

Stereotypes can be based on actual behaviors of groups or totally false perceptions of groups,

As far as the stereotype of the angry atheist, consider this:

On January 1, 2011, CNN reported:

“ People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.
In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers. source:http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

Various studies found that traumatic events in people's lives has a positive correlation with "emotional atheism". See: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god

The atheist Greta Christina told the journalist Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast, "there isn't one emotion" that affects atheists "but anger is one of the emotions that many of us have ...[it] drives others to participate in the movement". see: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/greta_christina_why_are_you_atheists_so_angry/

Quatona, given your sour and unreasonable posts to me which have been counter evidential and which you don't support, the evidence would suggest that it is based on irrationality and emotionalism of a negative nature.

 

[PaulA135711]

Hoghead,

You wrote: "Despite what you say and present here, evolution is a central tenet in modern science and is going to stay there."

Origins science, which is a historical science, is a small fraction of science. And both evolutionists and creationists agree that adaptation/microevolution occurs.

So how could evolution be a central tenet of science? How many doctors have to plug in some macroevolution formula into their work? Is the answer none?

Also, consider this science article:
Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling at http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html

Hoghead, I don't have gut feelings that gravity occurs. I don't have gut feelings electricity powers my computer.

Gut feelings cries wishy washy indoctrination/religious feelings which are not strongly supported by empirical findings. This of course supports the view that evolutionism is a religion.

 

[Davian]

It's hard to go downhill from the lowest imaginable point.

It is then when the OP gets out the shovel and starts to dig...

 

[ViaCrucis]

Also, consider this science article:
Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling at http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html

Hoghead, I don't have gut feelings that gravity occurs. I don't have gut feelings electricity powers my computer.

Gut feelings cries wishy washy indoctrination/religious feelings which are not strongly supported by empirical findings. This of course supports the view that evolutionism is a religion.

Congratulations on simultaneously misunderstanding and misrepresenting the article.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaulA135711]

It is then when the OP gets out the shovel and starts to dig...

Davian,

The initial post has a link to well-supported Conservapedia article on Atheism vs. Christianity" with over 100 footnotes from quality sources. Google does have quality and relevancy criteria in its ranking algorithm and the article on "Atheism vs. Christianity" ranks #14 at Google USA for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity". Google estimates that there are 630,000 search results for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity" so that would put the article in the top 1% of its search results. Yahoo and Bing show similar results.

The initial post also has an informative quote from the University at Cambridge.

Davian, you haven't given me a rationale why you claim the initial post was poor. There is a stereotype of the angry and bitter atheist. Your commentary on the initial post is rather negative and sour. I certainly hope this is not your general disposition. Are you similar in disposition to Quatona?

 

[Hoghead1]

Hoghead,

You wrote: "Despite what you say and present here, evolution is a central tenet in modern science and is going to stay there."

Origins science, which is a historical science, is small fraction of science. And both evolutionists and creationists agree that adaptation/microevolution occurs.

So how could evolution be a central tenet of science? How many doctors have to plug in some macroevolution formula into their work? Is the answer none?

Also, consider this science article:
Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling at http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html

Hoghead, I don't have gut feelings that gravity occurs. I don't have gut feelings electricity powers my computer.

Gut feelings cries wishy washy indoctrination/religious feelings which are not strongly supported by empirical findings. This of course supports the view that evolutionism is a religion.

I don't like it when someone blows me off and refers me to some online site. I want to her from you, not them. When people do that, it makes me suspicious they don't underrated the material and can't explain it in their won words. Gut feeling can be very important, contrary to what you have to say. It seems you may be reading poorly written material that has no understanding of the primary role of emotion and affective experience in the quest for truth. But I don't have time to go into that now. To say evolution is a "religion," shows a total misunderstanding of religion and also science. Your other comment about doctors need some qualifiers. What "doctors" are you talking about, what specific issues? My dentist doesn't spend all day studying solar flares, but that doesn't mean they don't happen or are unimportant.

 

[PaulA135711]

Viacrucious.

Congratulations on simultaneously misunderstanding and misrepresenting the article.

-CryptoLutheran

Congratulations on simultaneously misunderstanding and misrepresenting the article.


ViaCrucis.

A few questions:

1. How did i misunderstand the article?

2. Do you suspect that you have gut feelings that gravity exists? Is the existence of gravity a central belief of physics?

3. Do you suspect you have gut feelings that the moon exists?

 

[PaulA135711]

I don't like it when someone blows me off and refers me to some online site. I want to her from you, not them. When people do that, it makes me suspicious they don't underrated the material and can't explain it in their won words. Gut feeling can be very important, contrary to what you have to say. It seems you may be reading poorly written material that has no understanding of the primary role of emotion and affective experience in the quest for truth. But I don't have time to go into that now. To say evolution is a "religion," shows a total misunderstanding of religion and also science. Your other comment about doctors need some qualifiers. What "doctors" are you talking about, what specific issues? My dentist doesn't spend all day studying solar flares, but that doesn't mean they don't happen or are unimportant.

You wrote: "To say evolution is a "religion," shows a total misunderstanding of religion and also science."

A few questions for you:

1. is Michael Ruse an atheist?

2. Is Michael Ruse a respected philosopher of science?

3. If Michael Ruse is a respected philosopher of science, is that respect warranted. Here is his bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse If the respect is not warranted based on his bio/achievements, then why not?

4. If Michael Ruse is respected philosopher of science and that respect is warranted, do you believe he understands what science is?

5. Did Michael Ruse call evolution a religion? Did he say: “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Source: Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. see also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html

6. Do you believe that a respected philosopher of science can differentiate a science from a religion? If not, why not?

7. How do you know that I don't possess a proper criteria for what a religion is?

8. What is a good set of criteria to determine what a religion is?

 

[Davian]

Davian,

The initial post has a link to well-supported Conservapedia article on Atheism vs. Christianity"

I have not seen this "well-supported" article. Can you provide a link to it?

with over 100 footnotes from quality sources.

I am not familiar with this use of the word, in this context.

Google does have quality and relevancy criteria in its ranking algorithm and the article on "Atheism vs. Christianity" ranks #14 at Google USA for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity". Google estimates that there are 630,000 search results for the term "Atheism vs. Christianity" so that would put the article in the top 1% of its search results. Yahoo and Bing show similar results.

What has this to do with the veracity of your religious beliefs?

The initial post also has an informative quote from the University at Cambridge.

Was that quote relevant to the veracity of your relgious beliefs? No?

Davian, you haven't given me a rationale why you claim the initial post was poor.

I did. It started off with a fallacious statement.

There is a stereotype of the angry and bitter atheist.

And there is the stereotype theist that thinks they can accurately read the minds of others.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Try fresh batteries in that mind-reading hat of yours.

And change your shirt.

Your commentary on the initial post is rather negative and sour.

I see that you do not dispute its accuracy.

I certainly hope this is not your general disposition. Are you similar in disposition to Quatona?

Is this attempt to makes things personal intended as a distraction from your inability to establish the veracity of your religious beliefs?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Viacrucious.



Congratulations on simultaneously misunderstanding and misrepresenting the article.


ViaCrucis.

A few questions:

1. How did i misunderstand the article?

2. Do you suspect that you have gut feelings that gravity exists? Is the existence of gravity a central belief of physics?

3. Do you suspect you have gut feelings that the moon exists?

The article wasn't arguing that acceptance of evolution boils down to "gut feelings", but that intuition plays a role in how we accept or reject many things. We frequently accept positions, not because we've done all the legwork and investigation ourselves, but rather rely on confirmation bias and intuition.

Evolution is based on hard evidence, though many people accept the science not necessarily because they understand the science.

And, yes, the same is true with gravitation, physics, combustion theory, germ theory, etc.

"That makes sense to me" is a response we have for many things we have never studied ourselves.

Note, also, that a rejection of evolution is "gut feeling", the difference of course being that people don't have to rely on confirmation bias and "gut feeling" to know that evolution is true, one can actually investigate, study, learn, and do their own work in relevant scientific fields and disciplines and find out for themselves that evolution is a consistently accurate theory which describes change in populations over time; however rejecting evolution isn't based on evidence and the scientific method, but rather is based solely on confirmation bias and gut feeling--it requires a selective rejection of evidence, observation, in order to make conclusions come out right. The rejection of evolution requires predetermining the conclusion before observing any evidence, and selecting evidence and interpretation of evidence which can only confirm the predetermined conclusion.

Acceptance of evolution might be based on gut feeling, but evolution itself is based on hard evidence. Rejection of evolution can only result from gut feeling and rejecting hard evidence.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaulA135711]

I have not seen this "well-supported" article. Can you provide a link to it?

I am not familiar with this use of the word, in this context.

What has this to do with the veracity of your religious beliefs?

Was that quote relevant to the veracity of your relgious beliefs? No?

I did. It started off with a fallacious statement.

And there is the stereotype theist that thinks they can accurately read the minds of others.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Try fresh batteries in that mind-reading hat of yours.

And change your shirt.

I see that you do not dispute its accuracy.

Is this attempt to makes things personal intended as a distraction from your inability to establish the veracity of your religious beliefs?

The initial post has a link to the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article. If you don't know this, then I can safely dismiss your comments about the initial posts due to your carelessness in this matter.

I don't find you any more reasonable Quotona. However, you do appear to be less bitter.

 

[PaulA135711]

The article wasn't arguing that acceptance of evolution boils down to "gut feelings", but that intuition plays a role in how we accept or reject many things. We frequently accept positions, not because we've done all the legwork and investigation ourselves, but rather rely on confirmation bias and intuition.

Evolution is based on hard evidence, though many people accept the science not necessarily because they understand the science.

And, yes, the same is true with gravitation, physics, combustion theory, germ theory, etc.

"That makes sense to me" is a response we have for many things we have never studied ourselves.

Note, also, that a rejection of evolution is "gut feeling", the difference of course being that people don't have to rely on confirmation bias and "gut feeling" to know that evolution is true, one can actually investigate, study, learn, and do their own work in relevant scientific fields and disciplines and find out for themselves that evolution is a consistently accurate theory which describes change in populations over time; however rejecting evolution isn't based on evidence and the scientific method, but rather is based solely on confirmation bias and gut feeling--it requires a selective rejection of evidence, observation, in order to make conclusions come out right. The rejection of evolution requires predetermining the conclusion before observing any evidence, and selecting evidence and interpretation of evidence which can only confirm the predetermined conclusion.

Acceptance of evolution might be based on gut feeling, but evolution itself is based on hard evidence. Rejection of evolution can only result from gut feeling and rejecting hard evidence.

-CryptoLutheran

Viacrucus,

Hard sciences are often number oriented.

Can you give me a widely accepted macroevolution formula that scientists commonly use in their work. If evolution is a central tenet of science, surely biologists have to use some kind of macroevolution fornula it in their work frequently.

I know someone who did a post doctorate in biochemistry at an exceptionally elite university. If memory serves, and I think it does, he said he never used evolution in his work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Viacrucus,

Hard sciences are often number oriented.

Can you give me a widely accepted macroevolution formula that scientists commonly use in their work. If evolution is a central tenet of science, surely biologists have to use some kind of macroevolution fornula it in their work frequently.

I know someone who did a post doctorate in biochemistry at an exceptionally elite university. If memory serves, and I think it does, he said he never used evolution in his work.

"Macroevolution" isn't a thing.

Evolution is a thing.

As for your request for a "macroevolution formula", I frankly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is this attempt to makes things personal intended as a distraction from your inability to establish the veracity of your religious beliefs?

It's his attempt to anger non theists, as is usual with Christians of his ilk. The joy they have in spreading discord outweighs any attempts at actual discourse. As proof, I've asked several times for objections to atheism in his own words, which he's ignored in favor of cutting and pasting...

Wait a minute, could this be our poster of many names? Seems to follow his MO.

Anyway, I doubt we will get any actual intellectually honesty or sound reasoning from him. I mean, I could train my nine year old to post in the same manner he does. Although my nine year old is much more pleasant and polite.

 

[PaulA135711]

The article wasn't arguing that acceptance of evolution boils down to "gut feelings", but that intuition plays a role in how we accept or reject many things. We frequently accept positions, not because we've done all the legwork and investigation ourselves, but rather rely on confirmation bias and intuition.

Evolution is based on hard evidence, though many people accept the science not necessarily because they understand the science.

And, yes, the same is true with gravitation, physics, combustion theory, germ theory, etc.

"That makes sense to me" is a response we have for many things we have never studied ourselves.

Note, also, that a rejection of evolution is "gut feeling", the difference of course being that people don't have to rely on confirmation bias and "gut feeling" to know that evolution is true, one can actually investigate, study, learn, and do their own work in relevant scientific fields and disciplines and find out for themselves that evolution is a consistently accurate theory which describes change in populations over time; however rejecting evolution isn't based on evidence and the scientific method, but rather is based solely on confirmation bias and gut feeling--it requires a selective rejection of evidence, observation, in order to make conclusions come out right. The rejection of evolution requires predetermining the conclusion before observing any evidence, and selecting evidence and interpretation of evidence which can only confirm the predetermined conclusion.

Acceptance of evolution might be based on gut feeling, but evolution itself is based on hard evidence. Rejection of evolution can only result from gut feeling and rejecting hard evidence.

-CryptoLutheran

You wrote: "The article wasn't arguing that acceptance of evolution boils down to "gut feelings", but that intuition plays a role in how we accept or reject many things."

Did you catch the title of the article at Livescience.com that I cited? If so, what was the title?

Was the title of the article: Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling. Here is the article: http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html

Is Livescience.com a respected online science website? Does it have informative articles? If not, why not?

Do respected online science websites generally title their articles correctly or incorrectly?

Do you really want me to believe that the article says that intuition doesn't play a significant role as far as belief in evolution? If so, you are going to be disappointed. I read the article and know what it said.

 

[Davian]

The initial post has a link to the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article. If you don't know this, then I can safely dismiss your comments about the initial posts due to your carelessness in this matter.

I knew that, but I allowed myself to be thrown off by your description of it as "well-supported".

I don't find you any more reasonable Quotona. However, you do appear to be less bitter.

Look! A Distraction!

• Davian
• Mar 14, 2016

 

[Hoghead1]

You wrote: "To say evolution is a "religion," shows a total misunderstanding of religion and also science."

A few questions for you:

1. is Michael Ruse an atheist?

2. Is Michael Ruse a respected philosopher of science?

3. If Michael Ruse is a respected philosopher of science, is that respect warranted. Here is his bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse If the respect is not warranted based on his bio/achievements, then why not?

4. If Michael Ruse is respected philosopher of science and that respect is warranted, do you believe he understands what science is?

5. Did Michael Ruse call evolution a religion? Did he say: “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Source: Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. see also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html

6. Do you believe that a respected philosopher of science can differentiate a science from a religion? If not, why not?

7. How do you know that I don't possess a proper criteria for what a religion is?

8. What is a good set of criteria to determine what a religion is?

My response is that I am not sure you carefully read and understand what he had to say. I think you are taking him way out of context. Apparently you missed the key sentence where he says, " I don't think that believing in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution though natural selection (his version or today's) commits you to religious belief." He also says that Dawkins "should not be taken as religious passion." (Apparently, you managed to miss that one also.) He adds, however, that he believes Dawkins shows some of the sociological characteristics of the "religious," in that he appears hateful and intolerant. Now, many do use the term "religion" in such a pejorative sense. Albert Ellis, the noted psychotherapist, wrote a major work entitled "Against Religiosity," in which he blasted away at religious people as being narrow-minded, anti-intellectual, intolerant, you name it. Also, one of my heroes, AN Whitehead, the famous British philosopher, pointed out that one of the dangers of religion is that it can become narrow-minded and admits of no questioning, etc. And there is no doubt such does happen with all the major religions, especially the Bible Belt and its narrow-minded views on Scripture and evolution. However, there are also more positive definitions and uses of the term "religion." They also have to be put into the equation. Look, I earned my doctorate in theology through a conjoint program between a PCSUA seminary and a major university's "Department of Religion and Jewish Studies." Now, are you trying to tell me all I do is push intolerance? C'mon. I, too, am critical of Dawkins because I feel he is too extreme and bombastic, a problem I also have with religious fundamentalists. However, he does make some good points. problem is, he fails to recognize that not all Christians are as parochial and backward as he lets on. Getting back to the article, it is true today that a religion of th earth is fighting a religion of teh sky. Many have extended out evolution to the point where it has a kind of sacred meaning for themselves. Many will argue that they have found here something transcendental to loose themselves in. Many feel it gives their lives great meaning to know they are part of some unimaginably vast evolutionary process. The universe, with its overwhelming profusion of complex structures and internal relationships seems far more beautiful, far more aesthetically satisfying than the traditional or classical Christian model of image of God, as wholly simple, void of body, parts, passions, compassion wholly immutable, which seems too tame, stale ,flat, and one-dimensional. That's why there is now a strong neo-classical movement among contemporary theologians that seeks to give the outmoded classical model of God a major face lift. As a theologian, I am part of this latter movement.

 

[Gene2memE]

The final paragraph of that Michael Ruse article would seem to be stunningly apropos in this instance:

So the answer to the question “Is Darwinism a religion?” is varied, interesting and insightful. But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say.​

Its always interesting when you read an article all the way to the end.

 

[Job8]

but that, lately, some atheists have been insisting that it means only that there's no way of knowing.

That is the position of the agnostic. The atheist says there is no God, and God says the atheist is a fool.