Atheism vs. Christian

[Eudaimonist]

There is not a single critic of the article at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity in this forum who pointed out a single factual error in the article or a single instance of illogical reasoning in the article.

I did. Post #7.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PaulA135711]

Goldenboy89,

Like other critics, you have yet to point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article nor have you pointed out a single instance of illogical reasoning.

Given their penchant to engage in illogical commentary, I am not at all impressed with the atheist/agnostic side of the aisle in this thread. Unfortunately, I see a strong desire to stick to this form of illogical reasoning on this side of the aisle. And I have no desire to wrangle with unreasonable individuals.

 

[durangodawood]

Knee-jerk cries of bias are a genetic fallacy no matter how much one wants to rationalize it, paper over it or ignore it.

No they arent.

"Cries of bias" are judgments, not rational arguments. So they are not fallacies.

 

[PaulA135711]

Eudaimonist,

You are not being accurate in this matter. Your post #7 does not point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia article or point out a single instance of illogical reasoning in the article.

Your post #7 was merely commentary on a statement made in this thread.

Next, as far as that statement in the thread: Atheism does go against common sense. A painting demands a painter.

"The strongest argument against the atheism so beloved of the Left is not an argument that can be put in words, for it is the argument of beauty. If you see a sunset clothed in scarlet like a king descending to his empurpled pyre, or wonder at the gleaming thunder of a waterfall, if you find yourself fascinated by the soft intricacy of a crimson rose or behold the cold virgin majesty of the morning star, much less see and enter a cathedral or a walled garden...or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, if indeed you see real beauty and for a moment you forget yourself, then you are drawn out of yourself into something larger.

In that timeless moment of sublime rapture, the heart knows even if the head cannot put it into words that the dull and quotidian world of betrayal, pain, disappointment and sorrow is not the only world there is. Beauty points to a world beyond this world, a higher realm, a country of joy where there is no death. Beauty points to the divine.

The Left hates this argument, because – since it is not put into words – it cannot be refuted in words" source: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/03/politics/robbed-of-beauty-by-the-left/

The Bible teaches that nature fell when man sinned. "Paradise on earth" ended. Still, there is a tremendous amount of beauty and order in the universe.

The Canadian anthropologist Paul Gosselin wrote:

"In the world of myth, miracles are commonplace and occur regularly. Much the same could be said of evolutionary myths of origins. Just like in the Aboriginal Dreamtime stories and the Wolverine stories from the First Nations of North America, in the evolutionary origins myth one regularly encounters phenomena that are contrary to natural law and which have never been observed by any human. And the first of these miracles is abiogenesis, the transition from inert matter to living organisms, capable of reproducing themselves. But that is just the beginning. From there we go on to the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, then there’s the transition from marine organisms, such as fish, to terrestrial organisms, the transition from reptiles to mammals, the transition from land mammals to marine mammals and then the transition from crawling reptiles to flying birds. But the greatest miracle of all? This is undoubtedly the appearance of functional genetic code and its chemical basis, DNA, and all this without the intervention of a Programmer. It is clear that miracles abound in the evolutionary origins myth. The faith of evolutionary believers is great, but for my part I have to admit lacking enough faith to believe in such miracles."

Although he is not a creationist, the atheist philosopher John Gray admitted in 2008 in The Guardian: "A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth"

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory Is Under Siege, Intelligent Design Notwithstanding: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/d...tionary-theory-under-siege-intelligent-design

Intelligent Design Aside, from Templeton Foundation to the Royal Society, Darwinism Is Under Siege: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/intelligent_des_25102792.html

Also, atheism and the origin of the universe: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_origin_of_the_universe

And when ideas go against common sense, they are frequently imposed on people.

According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."

See also:

Suppression of alternatives to evolution: http://www.conservapedia.com/Suppression_of_alternatives_to_evolution

Atheist indoctrination: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_indoctrination

Militant atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism
And when ideas go against common sense, they are imposed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You post #7 does not point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia article or point out a single instance of illogical reasoning in the article.

Your post #7 was merely commentary on a statement made in this thread.

I see now that I mistook that statement for something written in the article. Thanks for the correction.

Next, as far as that statement in the thread: Atheism does go against common sense. A painting demands a painter.

That's right. A painting demands a painter, pretty much by definition. It isn't obvious (or "common sense") that a human being doesn't need a designer, but that doesn't make it any less true.

In that timeless moment of sublime rapture, the heart knows even if the head cannot put it into words that the dull and quotidian world of betrayal, pain, disappointment and sorrow is not the only world there is. Beauty points to a world beyond this world, a higher realm, a country of joy where there is no death. Beauty points to the divine.

No, beauty just points to beauty. Beauty can exist and be valued in this world, even if it isn't always present. There is no need for "higher realms".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PaulA135711]

Eudaimonist,

First, I appreciate you admitting your previous error.

Second, you wrote: "beauty just points to beauty".

That is just argument by assertion/proof by assertion. it is just circular reasoning.

Again, I see a strong desire for the atheist/agnostic side of the aisle to insist on the use of illogical reasoning being used in this thread. And I don't see this unfortunate state of affairs ending.

 

[durangodawood]

..Second, you wrote: "beauty just points to beauty".

That is just argument by assertion/proof by assertion. it is just circular reasoning....

Thats all you did regarding beauty, except using more words.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Second, you wrote: "beauty just points to beauty".

That is just argument by assertion/proof by assertion. it is just circular reasoning.

I don't know what else to say here. There is no reason to think that beauty is evidence of anything other than itself. We have experience of beauty in this life, and it is just evidence of beauty in this life. If you are eating a pizza, that is just evidence of the pizza, not a "higher realm" of pizza.

What exactly do I need to prove here? What hurdle do I need to jump?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Belk]

Subscribing for the lulz.

 

[keith99]

Why not use a dictionary definition? Why the need for a biased source?

Because that is the only way their arguments work, if they get to define all the terms exactly as they need them to be. But you already knew that.

 

[freezerman2000]

Eudaimonist,

You are not being accurate in this matter. Your post #7 does not point out a single factual error in the Conservapedia article or point out a single instance of illogical reasoning in the article.

Your post #7 was merely commentary on a statement made in this thread.

Next, as far as that statement in the thread: Atheism does go against common sense. A painting demands a painter.

"The strongest argument against the atheism so beloved of the Left is not an argument that can be put in words, for it is the argument of beauty. If you see a sunset clothed in scarlet like a king descending to his empurpled pyre, or wonder at the gleaming thunder of a waterfall, if you find yourself fascinated by the soft intricacy of a crimson rose or behold the cold virgin majesty of the morning star, much less see and enter a cathedral or a walled garden...or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, if indeed you see real beauty and for a moment you forget yourself, then you are drawn out of yourself into something larger.

In that timeless moment of sublime rapture, the heart knows even if the head cannot put it into words that the dull and quotidian world of betrayal, pain, disappointment and sorrow is not the only world there is. Beauty points to a world beyond this world, a higher realm, a country of joy where there is no death. Beauty points to the divine.

The Left hates this argument, because – since it is not put into words – it cannot be refuted in words" source: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/07/03/politics/robbed-of-beauty-by-the-left/

The Bible teaches that nature fell when man sinned. "Paradise on earth" ended. Still, there is a tremendous amount of beauty and order in the universe.

The Canadian anthropologist Paul Gosselin wrote:

"In the world of myth, miracles are commonplace and occur regularly. Much the same could be said of evolutionary myths of origins. Just like in the Aboriginal Dreamtime stories and the Wolverine stories from the First Nations of North America, in the evolutionary origins myth one regularly encounters phenomena that are contrary to natural law and which have never been observed by any human. And the first of these miracles is abiogenesis, the transition from inert matter to living organisms, capable of reproducing themselves. But that is just the beginning. From there we go on to the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, then there’s the transition from marine organisms, such as fish, to terrestrial organisms, the transition from reptiles to mammals, the transition from land mammals to marine mammals and then the transition from crawling reptiles to flying birds. But the greatest miracle of all? This is undoubtedly the appearance of functional genetic code and its chemical basis, DNA, and all this without the intervention of a Programmer. It is clear that miracles abound in the evolutionary origins myth. The faith of evolutionary believers is great, but for my part I have to admit lacking enough faith to believe in such miracles."

Although he is not a creationist, the atheist philosopher John Gray admitted in 2008 in The Guardian: "A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth"

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory Is Under Siege, Intelligent Design Notwithstanding: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/d...tionary-theory-under-siege-intelligent-design

Intelligent Design Aside, from Templeton Foundation to the Royal Society, Darwinism Is Under Siege: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/intelligent_des_25102792.html

Also, atheism and the origin of the universe: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_origin_of_the_universe

And when ideas go against common sense, they are frequently imposed on people.

According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."

See also:

Suppression of alternatives to evolution: http://www.conservapedia.com/Suppression_of_alternatives_to_evolution

Atheist indoctrination: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_indoctrination

Militant atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism
And when ideas go against common sense, they are imposed.

Origins and Evolution/Creation belong in the Creation/Evolution sub forum found here..
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/creation-evolution.70/..
Not in this area.

 

[The Cadet]

Hmm... Something the Conservapedia article gets wrong...

"Since the 1770s, there has been an ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World."

The very first sentence gets it wrong. There has always been an ideological conflict between Christianity and Atheism, most notably present before the 1770s in things like the various inquisitions where non-believers were among those targeted.

Beyond that, though, the article is vapid, shallow, and cross-references countless other, more notably wrong articles. If you use Conservapedia as a source, you kind of are asking to be mocked. Call it a genetic fallacy all you want, the fact is that people have better things to do with their time than listen to the raving hobo living in the dumpster.

 

[keith99]

Knee-jerk cries of bias are a genetic fallacy no matter how much one wants to rationalize it, paper over it or ignore it.

Read this C.S. Lewis essay on bulverism: http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

When are the freethinkers and rationalists going to stop being illogical in this thread?

Please see the articles:

Atheism and logic: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_logic

Atheism and logical fallacies: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_logical_fallacies

Atheism and critical thinking: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_critical_thinking

They cite like a academic source, but they choose what to cite based on what w2orks best for their argument with little to no consideration for accuracy of the source. They then make some remarkable conclusions. For example they percentage of atheists and agnostics remaining stable when their own hand picked source shows atheism has increased 50% and agnosticism has increased 25%.

 

[PaulA135711]

The Cadet,

The first two paragraphs of the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article has been amended.

It now reads:

"In the 1770s, there was an increase in the degree of ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World.

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature denied the existence of God and he was an early proponent of atheism in Europe (The book was published under a pseudonym). In addition, atheism gained further European prominence in revolutionary France in the 1790s."

 

[The Cadet]

The Cadet,

The first line of the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article has been amended.

It now reads:

"In the 1770s, there was an increase in the degree of ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World. Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature denied the existence of God and he was an early proponent of atheism in Europe."

Are you an editor there? Y'wanna maybe take a gander through this abortion of a page? Maybe trim out some of the arguments there which are wrong, which, to my knowledge, encompasses (hang on, lemme reread, it's been a while since I saw this page...)...

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10

Are all not just wrong, but trivially wrong by examination of a non-expert who knows the first thing about evolution.

 

[PaulA135711]

The Cadet,

If you want to make changes to the article or register a complaint on the articles talk page, it is easy to sign up as an editor at Conservapedia.

I am a creationist and while I might potentially agree with you on a particular matter, I suspect you might ask me to remove some legitimate information so I will pass on your request.

I am not saying that every creationists makes legitimate argumentation (for example, the leading creationist organization publish lists of "arguments creationists should not use"), but I found that that the evolutionist side of the aisle is far more unreasonable.

By the way, here are two lists of "arguments evolutionists should not use": http://creation.com/is-evolution-true and https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/

 

[Gene2memE]

The Cadet,

The first two paragraphs of the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article has been amended.

It now reads:

"In the 1770s, there was an increase in the degree of ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World.

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature denied the existence of God and he was an early proponent of atheism in Europe (The book was published under a pseudonym). In addition, atheism gained further European prominence in revolutionary France in the 1790s."

Totally ignoring the existence of the Theophrastus redivivus, I see. Atheism in European intellectual thought had been a growing strain for at least 200 years by the time d'Holbach published. He just published at a time when society had progressed to the point where excommunication was tolerable.

Why just Christanity and Western Europe? There are strong philosophical atheist traditions in Greek, Roman, Norse, pre-Christian Germanic, Arab, Indian, Chinese, Indo-Asian and central Asian cultures.

 

[PaulA135711]

I know the ancient Greeks had schools of atheist thought, but historically speaking, I have doubts they had a lot of major conflicts with Christians.

The same applies with the other cultures you mentioned.

Christianity had very rapid growth in the ancient world. If atheists put up resistance to this matter, it does not seem to be very historically notable.

And of course, pre-Christian times wouldn't even apply to the article.

In the 21st century, the demographics of the World/Western World and events in China points to atheism waning in influence in the future. See: Desecularization http://www.conservapedia.com/Desecularization and Growth of global desecularization: http://www.conservapedia.com/Growth_of_global_desecularization

 

[PaulA135711]

By the way, the article was further revised.

It now reads in the first two paragraphs:

"In the 1770s, there was an increase in the degree of ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World.

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature denied the existence of God and he was an early proponent of atheism in Europe (The book was published under a pseudonym). In addition, atheism gained further European prominence in revolutionary France in the 1790s."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The Cadet,

If you want to make changes to the article or register a complaint on the articles talk page, it is easy to sign up as an editor at Conservapedia.

I am a creationist and while I might potentially agree with you on a particular matter, I suspect you might ask me to remove some legitimate information so I will pass on your request.

I am not saying that every creationists makes legitimate argumentation (for example, the leading creationist organization publish lists of "arguments creationists should not use"), but I found that that the evolutionist side of the aisle is far more unreasonable.

By the way, here are two lists of "arguments evolutionists should not use": http://creation.com/is-evolution-true and https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/

Andy, is this really you...?