Atheism vs. Christian

[Hoghead1]

Belk,

re: Pidgeon chess

The problem for you is not that I do not understand evolution. Your problem is that I do understand it and realize it is bunkum.

The Cadet at this forum tried to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution according to evolutionists. I clearly showed that this was not the case in a previous post by citing Myers, Matzke, Dawkins, University of Berkeley, textbooks, etc.

I realize that "pidgeon chess" is a pat answer and it is easier to give pat answers than thoughtful replies. But you need to do better. Atheist talking points (pat answers) are not cutting the mustard.

OK, so, what you ,as a lay person, are claiming is that science is all wrong, that you, as a lay person, have far more insight in knowledge than al these scientists. That impresses me as about the epitome of hubris.

 

[PaulA135711]

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.

Hogshead, I thought the article I cited was the original material of Ruse's which got so many Darwinist made at him I suspect. Sorry for my inattention about this matter.

Second, his first statements about Darwinism being a religion that he made about a decade ago are very emphatic. His subsequent piece is far less emphatic.

Again, I suspect his received a lot of flack his original statements. And sadly, what I have seen is that evolutionists put pressure on people until they recant or somewhat backtrack on their original statements. That appears to be the case here. Ruse is somewhat backtracking.

I will give you a similar case as a means of example.

I cite:

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[133] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[134] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[135]
source: conservapedia.com/Evolution

I also cite:

Karl Popper, leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, said:[9][10]

Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme...
Despite this, Popper wrote the following:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that.[11]
Later in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Popper wrote the following retraction:[12]

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism. However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry. The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here. Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others. I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted"[13], this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:[14]

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

It is clear, however, that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim regarding Darwinism not being a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.[15] In fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained.[16] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[17]
Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsif...s_asserting_that_evolution_is_not_falsifiable

 

[ez_fx]

I don't think you should use a online community edited encyclopedia as a source, rather source the sources in the article, if there are any and if the research isn't original, that is.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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

You're incorrect:

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

As an atheist, I disbelieve in any gods, per the definition. And I don't care what characters in books say about atheists...

 

[Locutus]

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

Almost all atheists today are agnostic atheists, in my experience. And I live in a predominantly atheist nation, so I do have some .... experience.

Meantime, different gods say different things about non-belief. Ought we take them all seriously?

 

[ez_fx]

You're incorrect:

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

As an atheist, I disbelieve in any gods, per the definition. And I don't care what characters in books say about atheists...

I've read on PZ Myers blog that there is usually a train of thought or collection of thoughts that made person came to the conclusion that they're atheist. If you're using the dry dictionary and calling everything else void, you're missing the point.Am I to assume you didn't think about God and everything else before you became an atheist? You just went, Poof! I'm an atheist. Using the dictionary definition means I would have to assume you did.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Am I to assume you didn't think about God and everything else before you became an atheist? You just went, Poof! I'm an atheist. Using the dictionary definition means I would have to assume you did.

That's an insane conclusion on your part.

And the post was to differentiate between an atheist and an agnostic. The post I was responding to had it wrong.

 

[PaulA135711]

Almost all atheists today are agnostic atheists, in my experience. And I live in a predominantly atheist nation, so I do have some .... experience.

Meantime, different gods say different things about non-belief. Ought we take them all seriously?

Poseur atheists. There is not a lick of difference between a "weak atheist" and most agnostics (I realize that some agnostics claim it is impossible to know if God exists).

Weak atheists want the rebellion and strutting of the term atheist without the responsibility to show there is no God.

It is not a coincidence that there are significantly fewer women in the atheist movement/population.See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_women

But this satire entitled "Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?" helps show that the modern atheist movement is cowardly: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Does_Richard_Dawkins_have_machismo?

So does this article: Atheism and cowardice http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_cowardice

Eric Kaufmann, an agnostic professor whose academic research specialty is how demographic changes affect religion/irreligion and politics, wrote in 2010: "Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence..."

 

[ez_fx]

That's an insane conclusion on your part.

And the post was to differentiate between an atheist and an agnostic. The post I was responding to had it wrong.

That's because you said in the dictionary atheism is a lack of belief in god. It doesn't say that you have to think about god before becoming an atheist. It's not an insane conclusion. You would say someone thinks about god before becoming an atheist can be considered common sense but in its also can be considered common sense that atheism includes a lack of belief in a god. When you use a dictionary like that you're not telling anyone anything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That's because you said in the dictionary atheism is a lack of belief in god.

No I didn't. I showed that it's the dictionary definition.

It doesn't say that you have to think about god before becoming an atheist. It's not an insane conclusion.

Jumping to conclusions with zero evidence is not rational.

You would say someone thinks about god before becoming an atheist can be considered common sense but in its also can be considered common sense that atheism includes a lack of belief in a god. When you use a dictionary like that you're not telling anyone anything.

Why do you think I should be telling anyone anything other than what the dictionary defines an atheist as, seeing as how that was my only goal?

And what's with all these brand new posters...
Sock puppets?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So does this article: Atheism and cowardice http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_cowardice

For me, cowardice looks like someone who hides behind a website and refuses to speak in his own words...

 

[ez_fx]

No I didn't. I showed that it's the dictionary definition.



Jumping to conclusions with zero evidence is not rational.



Why do you think I should be telling anyone anything other than what the dictionary defines an atheist as, seeing as how that was my only goal?

And what's with all these brand new posters...
Sock puppets?

You showed an entry in the dictionary, you said that in the dictionary. I don't like your pedantry.

What am I supposed to think? You're not telling me anything other than atheism is the lack in the belief in god. You're not telling me anything about atheism that's already common sense. As for the sock accusation look me up on IMDB, I have an account there registered in 2008. I dont like your hypocrisy, jumping to conclusions with zero evidence is what you're doing when you say I am a sock

 

[Hoghead1]

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

Oh, c'mon. "Dr." Jerry Bergman claims he has a doctorate in biology from Columbia Pacific University, a non-accredited diploma mill that was ordered to close down in 1999 by the Marin County Supreme Court. He also falsely claimed he was fired from Bowling Green Univ. over his views on evolution. Totally false. The court found he was fired over the fact he misrepresented his credentials in psychology and was not qualified to teach.
The you cite the Discovery Institute. Both Templeton and the Bullit foundation pulled all their funding. The Bullit Foundation described it as "the institutionalized love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell."
An no, of course not, evolutionary biology may not at all be directly relevant to medical education. For that matter, neither is physiological psychology. Clinical psychology, psychological testing and measuring, and even many forms of psychotherapy, is not at all central in the training of modern psychiatrists. That's the way it works. There needs to be a strict division of labor. Often fields that a lay person might think should be closely related really aren't in actual practice. Astrophysics certainly has embraced evolution. There is no doubt about that. However, you can do a lot of work in physics without direct reference to anything at all in astrophysics. I would suggest you try more reliable sources and also study more carefully how the division of labor works.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You showed an entry in the dictionary, you said that in the dictionary. I don't like your pedantry.

What am I supposed to think?

You're supposed to read and understand what you read. In this case, it's understanding that my post was in response to a post that said "The atheist says there is no God".

Which is not true in my case, and in the case of most if not all atheists on this board. I'm an atheist that does not say there is no god. In support of my position, I gave a dictionary definition that included "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

This tangent of yours is your own invention.

You're not telling me anything other than atheism is the lack in the belief in god. You're not telling me anything about atheism that's already common sense.

It apparently was not common sense to the person I was responding to...

As for the sock accusation look me up on IMDB, I have an account there registered in 2008. I dont like your hypocrisy, jumping to conclusions with zero evidence is what you're doing when you say I am a sock

I didn't say you were a sock puppet. I questioned it.

Please stop being disingenuous...

 

[ez_fx]

You're supposed to read and understand what you read. In this case, it's understanding that my post was in response to a post that said "The atheist says there is no God".

Which is not true in my case, and in the case of most if not all atheists on this board. I'm an atheist that does not say there is no god. In support of my position, I gave a dictionary definition that included "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

This tangent of yours is your own invention.



It apparently was not common sense to the person I was responding to...



I didn't say you were a sock puppet. I questioned it.

Please stop being disingenuous...

My bad, in that case I like how you make it clear for that person

As I said what am I supposed to think when all you did is just gave the definition without any explanation

I'm not being disingenuous, otherwise you are when you say I jumped to a conclusion without evidence when I questioned whether you're an atheist and didn't think about God beforehand. This is all very ironic and I can appreciate that.

 

[Hoghead1]

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."

Darwin certainly is a hero in biology and should be viewed as such. I don't know where you or he are getting this worship idea. Sounds more like inflammatory rhetoric than carefully thought out material. Most today speak of themselves as neo-Darwinians anyway. Are physicists worshipping Einstein because they follow his ideas on the relativity of time? C'mon.

 

[Job8]

Meantime, different gods say different things about non-belief. Ought we take them all seriously?

No. Just ignore all the false gods (and there is a multitude of them). Focus on the Lord God Almighty, the Creator of the universe and the Redeemer of mankind, who is also the Righteous Judge of all men.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

To be an atheist means that one has something missing ,one is blind to that which is unseen .To 'see ' that which is unseen is a gift from God ,but then I am a christian who believes we have been here before,and there has been a judgement ,but not the
final one .

Why would someone be unable to see the 'unseen'. Or rather, why would you be able to see the 'unseen'?

 

[PaulA135711]

Oh, c'mon. "Dr." Jerry Bergman claims he has a doctorate in biology from Columbia Pacific University, a non-accredited diploma mill that was ordered to close down in 1999 by the Marin County Supreme Court. He also falsely claimed he was fired from Bowling Green Univ. over his views on evolution. Totally false. The court found he was fired over the fact he misrepresented his credentials in psychology and was not qualified to teach.
The you cite the Discovery Institute. Both Templeton and the Bullit foundation pulled all their funding. The Bullit Foundation described it as "the institutionalized love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell."
An no, of course not, evolutionary biology may not at all be directly relevant to medical education. For that matter, neither is physiological psychology. Clinical psychology, psychological testing and measuring, and even many forms of psychotherapy, is not at all central in the training of modern psychiatrists. That's the way it works. There needs to be a strict division of labor. Often fields that a lay person might think should be closely related really aren't in actual practice. Astrophysics certainly has embraced evolution. There is no doubt about that. However, you can do a lot of work in physics without direct reference to anything at all in astrophysics. I would suggest you try more reliable sources and also study more carefully how the division of labor works.

After all is said and done, I have good reasons for disbelieving in evolution. And since both evolutionists and creationists believe in adaption/microevolution, it does not surprise me that there is not a single instance of evolutionism having any practical uses. Its held for ideological reasons and/or due to the fact that people have been brainwashed into it or they purposefully seeks out evolutionary ideology because they are gullible and mistake pseudoscience for real science.

That is all I have to say on the matter. And I believe one of the moderators said creation vs. evolution debates are not appropriate in the philosophy forum part of this website. We got into this topic because an atheist brought up some material related to evolutionism at another website. But I think we should respect the wishes of the moderator/website.

 

[Hoghead1]

After all is said and done, I have good reasons for disbelieving in evolution. And since both evolutionists and creationists believe in adaption/microevolution, it does not surprise me that there is not a single instance of evolutionism having any practical uses. Its held for ideological reasons and/or due to the fact that people have been brainwashed into it or they purposefully seeks out evolutionary ideology because they are gullible and mistake pseudoscience for real science.

That is all I have to say on the matter. And I believe one of the moderators said creation vs. evolution debates are not appropriate in the philosophy forum part of this website. We got into this topic because an atheist brought up some material related to evolutionism at another website. But I think we should respect the wishes of the moderator/website.

No, that is totally inaccurate. I strongly suggest you try and study more carefully science and also evolution. You are way, way off base here.