What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It isn't .. but when I signed up to this website it was the closest approximation I could come up with which would lead to sign-up.
That the label isn't editable by the poster, is completely bizarre .. (and highly suspicious).

Ah, OK - I see. Have to say I consider myself a humanist too...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What I was attempting to express (maybe not so well) is that the process of classification of people which assumes them as being motivated by any default, fixed beliefs (or disbeliefs), in modern times, is not reflective of the demonstrable human ability of altering motivations on a basis other than fixed beliefs. In fact, classifying people that way and denoting those 'classes' by using the '-ist' suffix, sets up the path towards nothing more than discrimination.

The purpose of discrimination on the basis of fixed beliefs is certainly not the purpose behind science's classification system, and so any attempts to imply equivalence between the two, should encounter serious objectively based evidence counter argument. (I think we might agree on this?)

I find acceptance of the term of 'atheist' tantamount to the acceptance of humans being nothing more than what they believe, with 'atheism' simply being denial of some other assumed, preferred belief (ie: 'theism'). I understand and accept some atheists try to distinguish atheism from that, by saying it represents an absence of belief, however, this still indulgences a conversation which centers around belief systems.

Any notion which sanctions or certifies any belief system, is where I choose to take my stand.

I understand. I think you need to find a better way of explaining your "problem" since most -ists are not belief based. I don't see how we can reasonably include artists, violinists, dentists, florists etc in any belief based grouping.

 

[SelfSim]

Ah, OK - I see. Have to say I consider myself a humanist too...

.. and the patience, honesty and care in handling other humans you exhibit could easily be interpreted as Christian virtues (as opposed to some rabid atheist) .. all of which is just a total load of nonsense and serves no purpose other than divisiveness (IMO).

 

[SelfSim]

I understand. I think you need to find a better way of explaining your "problem" since most -ists are not belief based. I don't see how we can reasonably include artists, violinists, dentists, florists etc in any belief based grouping.

Point taken ... perhaps my generalisation can be taken as meaning things beyond what I'm actually trying to express then.
Interestingly, if one replaces the '-ist' with an '-ism', I think it may become clearer(?) and more akin to what I'm really on about, maybe(?)
(Hmm .. I'm content to quietly ponder the matter further ..)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Point taken ... perhaps my generalisation can be taken as meaning things beyond what I'm actually trying to express then.
Interestingly, if one replaces the '-ist' with an '-ism', I think it may become clearer(?) and more akin to what I'm really on about, maybe(?)
(Hmm .. I'm content to quietly ponder the matter further ..)

I think that works. I cannot think of an -ism that isn't belief based.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, they don't want people who previously declared themselves a non-believer relabeling a believer to get access to the Christians Only sections.

Since I left Christianity, I haven't tried to change my label. I thought that, when I was a believer, one could swap various Christian denominations at will. Therefore, I'm a little surprised that within the non-CO labels that we can't swap from, say, atheist to skeptic.

Ah, well.

I once had a CFs moderator offer to change my denomination tag when I tried explaining that Humanists didn't have to be taken as being atheists (which at the time, appeared to strip some preconception gears which were clearly in train). I declined, because there was no better means for me to disclose, publically, my position opposing all undistinguished beliefs.

Interestingly, (and perhaps unrelated), no moderator has subsequently ever responded to any posts I've made to them .. not a single one! I often wonder whether other CF atheists have ever perceived the same/similar treatment(?)
(There is certainly clear, and recent, hard evidence of one atheist poster being mistreated ..)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think that works. I cannot think of an -ism that isn't belief based.

This is why I don't think there is any such thing as "atheism" as being atheist doesn't imply or require a philosophy or belief.

Atheist and Theist (and if you like to separate it Deist) are just broad catagories on the "do you believe in a god?" question.

I'm in two other "ist" groups that don't have an "ism": Scientist and Physicist. These categories don't require one to follow any kind of "Scientism" or "Physicism" (both of which the spell checker correctly mark as non-words). [There is a dumb notion labeled scientism, which isn't the philosophy behind science, and is mostly an accusation thrown at people.]

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This is why I don't think there is any such thing as "atheism" as being atheist doesn't imply or require a philosophy or belief.

Atheist and Theist (and if you like to separate it Deist) are just broad catagories on the "do you believe in a god?" question.

I'm in two other "ist" groups that don't have an "ism": Scientist and Physicist. These categories don't require one to follow any kind of "Scientism" or "Physicism" (both of which the spell checker correctly mark as non-words). [There is a dumb notion labeled scientism, which isn't the philosophy behind science, and is mostly an accusation thrown at people.]

I have thought of some non-belief -isms, but nowhere near as many as -ists. Examples would be embolism, magnetism, polyglottism. They're mostly scientific terms. Just goes to show (and this lines up nicely with @SelfSim point) how our words can carry a lot of unnecessary innuendo and semantic baggage.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have thought of some non-belief -isms, but nowhere near as many as -ists. Examples would be embolism, magnetism, polyglottism. They're mostly scientific terms. Just goes to show (and this lines up nicely with @SelfSim point) how our words can carry a lot of unnecessary innuendo and semantic baggage.

There are a lot of professions that are "ist"s especially in science and medicine:

Geologist, phlebotomist, optometrist, biologist, internist, dentist, botanist, ...

or musicians:

pianist, violinist, trombonist, ...

@SelfSim should use whatever label he chooses. I took mine in part because it was the "hardest" choice. I wanted to leave no question about my theological position. It's something I can't always do out in the regular world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

magnetism

I'm more of an electromagnetist.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm more of an electromagnetist.

I find ferromagnetism more attractive

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. and the patience, honesty and care in handling other humans you exhibit could easily be interpreted as Christian virtues (as opposed to some rabid atheist) .. all of which is just a total load of nonsense and serves no purpose other than divisiveness (IMO).

Yes; I may be frumious, but I'm certainly not rabid

Virtue is as virtue does - the idea of 'Christian virtues' seems a rather 'parochial' appropriation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I once had a CFs moderator offer to change my denomination tag when I tried explaining that Humanists didn't have to be taken as being atheists (which at the time, appeared to strip some preconception gears which were clearly in train). I declined, because there was no better means for me to disclose, publically, my position opposing all undistinguished beliefs.

Interestingly, (and perhaps unrelated), no moderator has subsequently ever responded to any posts I've made to them .. not a single one! I often wonder whether other CF atheists have ever perceived the same/similar treatment(?)
(There is certainly clear, and recent, hard evidence of one atheist poster being mistreated ..)

Be aware - discussing forum moderation sometimes gets a slap-on-the-wrist response from the moderators - I think it's against the rules.

 

[SelfSim]

Be aware - discussing forum moderation sometimes gets a slap-on-the-wrist response from the moderators - I think it's against the rules.

Then there's a missing 'feedback' forum on moderation!
How can one provide feedback/suggestions on improvements, when there is evidence (and a growing perception) of being on a moderator 'ignore' list? Its a catch-22!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then there's a missing 'feedback' forum on moderation!
How can one provide feedback/suggestions on improvements, when there is evidence (and a growing perception) of being on a moderator 'ignore' list? Its a catch-22!

You can suggest a new forum... good luck with that!

 

[Astrophile]

This is why I don't think there is any such thing as "atheism" as being atheist doesn't imply or require a philosophy or belief.

Atheist and Theist (and if you like to separate it Deist) are just broad catagories on the "do you believe in a god?" question.

I'm in two other "ist" groups that don't have an "ism": Scientist and Physicist. These categories don't require one to follow any kind of "Scientism" or "Physicism" (both of which the spell checker correctly mark as non-words). [There is a dumb notion labeled scientism, which isn't the philosophy behind science, and is mostly an accusation thrown at people.]

Deleted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Deleted.

I can do that too.

 

[driewerf]

Its not internal feelings or convictions, you wouldn't understand, like i said if God appeared to you would you be an evolution origin believing atheist? of course not, God has made himself known to me, and this is more important for me than anything else.

If god appeared to me I would be an evolution accepting christian.

 

[NBB]

If god appeared to me I would be an evolution accepting christian.

There is a reason why theistic evolution exists, its because God making all things even through evolution is not compatible with 'standard' evolution. If it were scientists would discover that the process of evolution is not enough and there may be something else at play here.

 

[Speedwell]

There is a reason why theistic evolution exists, its because God making all things even through evolution is not compatible with 'standard' evolution. If it were scientists would discover that the process of evolution is not enough and there may be something else at play here.

It depends on your theology. Accepting that the process of evolution as scientists describe it is "enough" and fully compatible with God's authorship of our being is entirely satisfactory to most Christians. That applies to a fully naturalistic abiogenesis as well. To put it another way, no, you are not going to find God's greasy fingerprints on the works. He is above such things.