Atheism: Your Views

[TheReasoner]

I don't think I've heard too many reports of people being assaulted by atheists because they believed in God. I've heard plenty of stories from the other direction, though.

remember Soviet?

 

[Luther073082]

And China, they don't tend to be real faith friendly people either.

 

[Luther073082]

I typed in "media anti-christian" (without the quotation marks) into Google and this is what I got: http://www.google.com/search?q=medi...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enUS202US203. Notice how all of the results are from Christian websites. Does that not seem suspicious at all to you?

No because who is going to actually report a story like that for a long period of time.

If we go off my assumption that the media is anti-christian, why would they report it at all. They won't! The BBC noted that they are anti-christian but didn't report it.

Is there any reason why you just completely ignored the fact that I said that everyone doesn't have to be pro-life? I mean, why do we have to start this tired old debate at all when there's absolutely no reason for you to try to "convert" me to being pro-life?

Fair enough, too off topic

Okay, so what? As long as those marriages are childless, I don't see the harm in them. Seriously, just because something (like a "starter marriage") doesn't follow Biblical morals doesn't mean that it's bad.

Oh so its ok for me to make a committment to someone and then break it.

When you marry you make a committment to someone. When you divorce you break that committment.

Do you not belive a committment matters? Is it right for me to tell you that I will go on a date with you and then stand you up? And to think standing up someone on a date is far less worse then committing to spend the rest of your life with someone and then changing your mind.

The media is only catering to the minorities because they don't want to be accused of discriminating against them by catering to the majority instead. Can you seriously fault them for that?

Yes cause its gutless.

Everyone assumes if you are a minority you can not take any critism for anything what so ever. But the majority gets faulted for everything.

I'm not saying give the majority a pass. I'm saying call a spade a spade! Do you remember the "art" where the guy put a crusifix in a glass of his own urine, photographed it and called it art?

What would have happened to him if he had done the same thing to mohammed or the Qu'ran??? Do you think the media would have labeled him a bigot? That is if he would have lived.

Bigotry is not monopolized by the majority but it all seems to get blamed on the majority.

The sheer fact that it takes every chance it can get to smear liberals. Would you trust a source that constantly smeared conservatives?

Well I havn't read that whole site so I'll take your word for it. However I would read it if was written neatly and not using personal attacks and had a cited study or other source that could be checked.

Personally I'm usually offended by most personal attacks no matter who they are directed against.

Unless they are like . . . Hitler. Then you can call him whatever you want.

That phycophatic massmurdiering meglomanic worthless waste of human flesh.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Well, I found the names of many textbooks that still push Haeckel's Embryonic Theory as proof for evolution. Here are some of them.

Vertebrates, Kenneth V. Kardong, 1998, ISBN 0-697-28654-1, McGraw-Hill

Evolutionary Biology, Douglas J. Futuyma, Third Edition, 1998 ISBN: 0-87893-189-9

Fundamental concepts of Biology, Nelson Robinson, Boolootian, 1970, p279, isbn: 75-100329

Biology, James M. Barrett, 1986 edition, Prentice-Hall, p 754


BIOLOGY - The Living Science by Miller and Levine (Lion)
BIOLOGY (Elephant)
1999

Biology, Miller and Levine Prentice Hall, 2000 Edition, p283


"The Way Life Works"
Hoagland & Dodson
1995

These textbooks are still in use and promote Haeckel's drawings even though the drawings were proven false 120 years ago. So Markus and Hannah, I'm holding you to your word. Protest away.

 

[Markus6]

Well, I found the names of many textbooks that still push Haeckel's Embryonic Theory as proof for evolution. Here are some of them.

Vertebrates, Kenneth V. Kardong, 1998, ISBN 0-697-28654-1, McGraw-Hill

Evolutionary Biology, Douglas J. Futuyma, Third Edition, 1998 ISBN: 0-87893-189-9

Fundamental concepts of Biology, Nelson Robinson, Boolootian, 1970, p279, isbn: 75-100329

Biology, James M. Barrett, 1986 edition, Prentice-Hall, p 754


BIOLOGY - The Living Science by Miller and Levine (Lion)
BIOLOGY (Elephant)
1999

Biology, Miller and Levine Prentice Hall, 2000 Edition, p283


"The Way Life Works"
Hoagland & Dodson
1995

These textbooks are still in use and promote Haeckel's drawings even though the drawings were proven false 120 years ago. So Markus and Hannah, I'm holding you to your word. Protest away.

Do you know what states these textbooks are being used so were know where to address our protests?

On the Miller and Levine textbook:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html
They fixed it.

 

[HannahBanana]

Well, I found the names of many textbooks that still push Haeckel's Embryonic Theory as proof for evolution. Here are some of them.

Vertebrates, Kenneth V. Kardong, 1998, ISBN 0-697-28654-1, McGraw-Hill

Evolutionary Biology, Douglas J. Futuyma, Third Edition, 1998 ISBN: 0-87893-189-9

Fundamental concepts of Biology, Nelson Robinson, Boolootian, 1970, p279, isbn: 75-100329

Biology, James M. Barrett, 1986 edition, Prentice-Hall, p 754


BIOLOGY - The Living Science by Miller and Levine (Lion)
BIOLOGY (Elephant)
1999

Biology, Miller and Levine Prentice Hall, 2000 Edition, p283


"The Way Life Works"
Hoagland & Dodson
1995

These textbooks are still in use and promote Haeckel's drawings even though the drawings were proven false 120 years ago. So Markus and Hannah, I'm holding you to your word. Protest away.

Thanks for the names of the textbooks. I'll start some petitions against them. (Honestly, I will.)

 

[WileyCoyote]

Do you know what states these textbooks are being used so were know where to address our protests?

On the Miller and Levine textbook:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html
They fixed it.

It appears they didn't fix it, but revised it. They still contain the drawings.

And I'll look up the states. But I need to know if you are really going to protest. Because if you're not, I'm just wasting my time.

 

[Markus6]

It appears they didn't fix it, but revised it. They still contain the drawings.

And I'll look up the states. But I need to know if you are really going to protest. Because if you're not, I'm just wasting my time.

Well yes, they still contain drawings, but accurate ones based on photographs, not Haeckel's originals which were doctored to enhance the simliarities. What is the problem with accurate embryo drawings?

 

[none the wiser]

Haeckel's stuff is in my text book. We talk about his theory "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," and why it's wrong. We do discuss why there is great similarity between embryos at a certain stage though. Phylotypic eggtimer.

Can you tell I just had my exam on this stuff? lol

 

[WileyCoyote]

A reiteration of my point. I'm not against people believing anything they want. But I am against lies being used to support a theory and passing it off as true.

 

[Allegory]

remember Soviet?

Let's not play the "see who can prop up the stupidest straw man" game.

 

[robzombie]

some are good people, some are bad people, just like almost every group.
Something is wrong with their logic though, if you can look at the wonders of nature and do not see the hand of God in crafting the universe then you must not be thinking straight.

"Something is wrong with their logic though, if you can look at the wonders of nature and do not see the hand of God in crafting the universe then you must not be thinking straight."

I would appreciate it if you could explain this as i dont see how it does.

 

[HighwayMan]

Atheism is a perfectly rational belief, in fact many things point to it.

That said, many atheists both really arrogant and ignorant. They're top 2 favorite claims is that they are 1) the only ones who are rational 2) they don't "attack", they only "question the delusional fantasies".

So yeah, just like there are many "bad" Christians, there are many "bad" atheists too.

 

[HannahBanana]

A reiteration of my point. I'm not against people believing anything they want. But I am against lies being used to support a theory and passing it off as true.

Plenty of lies (mostly anti-evolution lies) are used to support creationism, you know. Are you against those?

 

[WileyCoyote]

Plenty of lies (mostly anti-evolution lies) are used to support creationism, you know. Are you against those?

If there are lies being used to support creationism, then yes, I'm totally against it. Can you give me an example?

 

[HannahBanana]

If there are lies being used to support creationism, then yes, I'm totally against it. Can you give me an example?

Sure. Here's a complete list of every single claim that a creationism website has ever made against evolution: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Is that enough examples for you? (Oh, and you can click on each claim in order to see a link to the site that it was taken from.) Seriously, why do you believe in creationism when creationists have been responsible for so many smears against evolution?

 

[WileyCoyote]

Sure. Here's a complete list of every single claim that a creationism website has ever made against evolution: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Is that enough examples for you? (Oh, and you can click on each claim in order to see a link to the site that it was taken from.) Seriously, why do you believe in creationism when creationists have been responsible for so many smears against evolution?

I thought you said that evolutionists were not out to prove creationism wrong. I believe in it because that is my conviction. As evolution is your conviction. It is an ad hominem to suggest that because there are creationists that make bizarre claims and trash evolution, that creationism itself is not true. I never claimed that Haeckel's drawings disproved evolution, but rather that it was a lie being used to support it. Remember, address the evidence given. Not the giver of the evidence.




Wow. That is a lot of material to cover. I can cover some of it, but do not have the time to cover it all.

 

[HannahBanana]

I thought you said that evolutionists were not out to prove creationism wrong. I believe in it because that is my conviction. As evolution is your conviction. It is an ad hominem to suggest that because there are creationists that make bizarre claims and trash evolution, that creationism itself is not true. I never claimed that Haeckel's drawings disproved evolution, but rather that it was a lie being used to support it. Remember, address the evidence given. Not the giver of the evidence.




Wow. That is a lot of material to cover. I can cover some of it, but do not have the time to cover it all.

How exactly are the atheists at TalkOrigins.org trying to disprove creationism by pointing out the ways that creationists have tried to disprove evolution?

And no, evolution is not just "my conviction." It is the truth, because there is plenty of evidence to support it. What about the Fossil Record? Why is that not enough proof for you? Seriously, why would you rather believe in a theory with absolutely no proof (creationism) than believe in a theory with plenty of verifiable proof (evolution)?

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

How exactly are the atheists at TalkOrigins.org trying to disprove creationism by pointing out the ways that creationists have tried to disprove evolution?

And no, evolution is not just "my conviction." It is the truth, because there is plenty of evidence to support it. What about the Fossil Record? Why is that not enough proof for you? Seriously, why would you rather believe in a theory with absolutely no proof (creationism) than believe in a theory with plenty of verifiable proof (evolution)?

I agree. Evolution is a solidly proven theory that, given the overwhelming evidence supporting it, can be considered the truth. That being said, Evolution and/or science cannot disprove or prove the existence of deity, so using Evolution as a proof for the belief in atheism does not make any sense and is just as illogical as some of the claims used by creationists to prove creationism. Evolution is not contrary to the belief or the absence of belief in God--rather, it should be a non issue. Just because there are creationists that throw nonsensical garbage as evidence or reason it doesn't mean that their belief in God is wrong; it just means that they are using nonsensical evidence to try to support the existence of God.

 

[WileyCoyote]

How exactly are the atheists at TalkOrigins.org trying to disprove creationism by pointing out the ways that creationists have tried to disprove evolution?

That comment wasn't addressed to the good people at TalkOrigins.org, but it was addressed to you. Asking how can I trust Creationism when creationists smear evolution? Isn't this an attempt to disprove Creationism by saying that?

And no, evolution is not just "my conviction." It is the truth, because there is plenty of evidence to support it.

There is also plenty of evidence to support Creationism. I'd post a link, but then you will post a link. Then we will be going in circles posting link after link, not really accomplishing anything. The end result? A whole thread with links, but nobody ever considering the other side. I'm sorry, but that just seems like a waste of time.

What about the Fossil Record? Why is that not enough proof for you?

Again, I'd provide evidence as to why the fossil record is not sufficient evidence, but we'd be playing the 'link' game again. The only way this will work is if we both agree to consider the other side.

Seriously, why would you rather believe in a theory with absolutely no proof (creationism) than believe in a theory with plenty of verifiable proof (evolution)?

Ok, there are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin. First, it is a gross misrepresentation. Claiming there is absolutely no proof for Creationism and plenty of proof for Evolution is simply not true. And you are contradicting yourself. First you say that Evolutionists are not out to prove Creationists wrong, but then you turn around and tell me I shouldn't trust Creationism because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. It appears you (an Evolutionist) want to prove me (a Creationist) wrong. Am I wrong that this is what you are trying to do? If I am, please tell me.