Evolution and Atheism Aren’t Married
By Brian Worley of Exminister.org
Organized religion has several “sacred cows”, science has one also that answers to the name “evolution”. Aren’t the rest of us lucky that we have just a few choices to choose between without incurring the wrath of the “enforcers” of these sacred cow proponents? Well, I want to clear my throat and muster my courage by replying with my own eight-word salvo. Evolution and Atheism aren’t married to each other!
Yes it is true that a large majority of skeptics and scientist believe in the respected position of evolution. But there are several scientists who don’t hold to evolutionary theory, and certainly not to creationism folly. These are outside of the box thinkers that respect scientific methods. They understand that evolution is just a theory; I won’t insult those who have forgotten what the definition of what a theory is.
Christian fence straddling,
Christianity is married to creationism
As I earlier stated, evolution and atheism aren’t married, but Christianity and creationism should be! I could never understand the “cross-over” of those claiming Christianity and evolution views in unison together. Back then, I could not accept them as sincere because it just seemed to me that these guys were just compromisers. Most I suppose would find justification by referring to the “gap theory” which they would derive from the book of Genesis. I looked at these guys as already having “one foot out of the door” of Christianity. I suppose that many holding this thought later took the second foot out and left the Christian myth altogether. As to motives, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I thought that they wanted the affirmation of science so that they could appear as clever and respectable in society.
I don’t know of any atheist that holds to creationism. This would have to be an utter impossibility, wouldn’t it? Atheists believe in logic, reason, and the scientific method. Christians are interested in logic, reason, and the scientific method but that is as far as they go, just lip-service! Facts are facts and Christians cannot claim to follow logic and reason and still profess to claim that the Bible is the word of God.
Science has proven that the earth is much greater than 6,000 years old. Creationism is an utterly absurd position to claim. I suspect that this is what those who hold to anything like the “Genesis gap theory” are trying to diplomatically say without opening their mouths.
With this said, I suppose that the Christian scientists that point out the flaws in evolutionary theory aren’t of the fundamentalist persuasion but rather the philosophical Christian types. I really don’t care what they believe concerning religion. I find it odd that they would step into the scientific ring with atheists holding a Bible. Now, if they offered anything other than the so- called Intelligent Design theory or creationism story maybe some might be willing to lend their ear to what they have to say. Still, whatever they say while holding a Bible makes them difficult to listen to. What they say is easy for the faithful flock to hear, but sheep often believe what they are told to believe without question anyway.
Us de-converted souls can feed ourselves
A point that many haven’t considered is that almost all of us who have de-converted have been well schooled in creationism and the so-called Intelligent Design theories. Most of us that attended Bible colleges or universities have also had a steady diet of anti-evolution instruction fed to us. We made it out of Christian bondage, and respect evolutionary theory but don’t have this warm and fuzzy feeling about it.
Removing an obstacle in the de-conversion path
I suspect, that these anti-evolution instructions serve as a rather large obstacle in the path out of Christian bondage for many considering leaving the faith. Why, because of the perception that Evolution and Atheism are married to each other. Why should any reasonable skeptic insist that they should be? Doesn’t that defy the spirit within those that have de-converted? If you left Christianity by means of logic and reason, this means (better yet proves) that you have learned to question things. Isn’t that where science begins, in the quest for truth?
Looking at the problem with Hegel’s Dialectic in mind
People need to be acquainted with Hegel’s Dialectic; you remember it as thesis versus anti-thesis producing the synthesis. Synthesis and anti-thesis do not annihilate each other, they just separately coexist. Hegel’s Dialectic can be in place either incidentally or on purpose. Sometimes the synthesis produces wonderful results, other times the synthesis produces stagnation and is just a spectacle for those enthused by conflict. Yes, some knuckleheads enjoy conflict and being ineffective. The bigger picture is that Evolution, Creationism, Christianity, and Atheism all desire adherents to follow them. All of the above have their own sales and marketing strategy. I have problems with the sales and marketing strategy of some atheist, Evolution and Atheism shouldn’t be packaged together!
For an example, the respected American Atheist website ran a headline during the holiday season that went something like this: “Ron Paul Doesn’t Accept Evolution” . It made me think, first I was irritated and said so what! I have observed Ron Paul’s voting record through his career, I challenge anyone to present somebody with a more consistent voting record within the last 200 years of American history when you judge by the intent of upholding constitutional principles. The man is amazing if the constitution is important to you when you vote. There are religious atheists like myself who don’t hold to creationism but are reluctant to identify themselves as a card-carrying evolutionist. Perhaps it was a clever headline to lure his followers to visit an atheist website. I resent the implication that evolution is the absolute final word in science.
Doing your own research and those that
Feel the need to misrepresent
I could give you several names and websites to alternative viewpoints. I think that you should dig for them yourself; I don’t want you to be distracted away from the point that I am making! When I read what others have said about these men, I have to question the reading comprehension skills of those making comments. They misrepresent the viewpoints that the author has expressed and I smell a rat! The tactics that they use is all the more reason to explore the views that they have expressed. History has shown that great ideas are often ridiculed prior to common acceptance. If the expressed idea is weak, then logic and reason alone should be able to put the idea down!
It shouldn’t be important to you what I believe on the subject. The real issue is freedom of thought and expression. Pressuring scientists to observe the party line on evolution inhibits the potential of greater understanding. It is almost the same phenomena as when you question Christian dogma within a fundamentalist university. Both schools of these disciplines exert pressure upon those within to stay within the lines. Challenge this and you can easily find your ass will be kicked to the curb as a lesson. This isn’t healthy and suggests an agenda.
Limits in following important personalities
I have great respect for those well-known atheists that are better known for their scientific viewpoints. They command respect and I am inclined to immediately come on board due to their acumen. But, I have learned my lesson in following Jesus like I once did. That lesson is to not be so hasty in asserting belief in something due to personalities alone.
Scientific views are important, but how a laymen views a scientific question shouldn’t prevent someone from accepting atheism. Most atheists will follow a certain path of inquiry, while others approach it differently in their pursuit of facts. Personally, I still have many questions and practice the right to explore other scientific possibilities when discussing evolution. I strongly believe in the scientific method, it is the interpretation of data that concerns me.
Science should be a battleground in establishing facts from fiction. If critics have valid viewpoints, then let us not be so quick to shrug what they say! Let us watch the process unfold like a spectator does when watching a sporting event, we won’t know the outcome until the game ends. Why not say, up until this time this is the best explanation of whatever scientific viewpoint that we have. This I can accept and respect! When a certain viewpoint has sufficiently put down its critics then it has earned the right to reign. Atheism has earned that right to reign, while evolution is still struggling to reach that pinnacle.
The end of atheism?
A hypothetical question needs to be asked here to those that insist upon evolution and atheism being married. That question is, If someone steps up with a stronger scientific accomplishment in the future, then would the break-up of this marriage be the end of atheism?
Closing thoughts
Human nature being what it is will see to it that some people feel the need to straighten out this exminister. Maybe we will always disagree upon how we approach things, but isn’t great that we live with the freedom to do so? Spare yourself the effort of trying to convince me of your viewpoint. I enjoy the process of thinking as much as I do the results of it. I have a rather large library and have read or have access to many of those that you might use to try to convince me with. I am always open to enlightenment and do welcome your opinions if you have something significant to say. I probably won’t respond to the diatribes I expect to get for this, but I am interested in your well thought out opinions on the subject matter that I have addressed with this article.
Brian Worley
Exminister.org
February 21, 2008
All rights reserved.
Organized religion has several “sacred cows”, science has one also that answers to the name “evolution”. Aren’t the rest of us lucky that we have just a few choices to choose between without incurring the wrath of the “enforcers” of these sacred cow proponents? Well, I want to clear my throat and muster my courage by replying with my own eight-word salvo. Evolution and Atheism aren’t married to each other!
Yes it is true that a large majority of skeptics and scientist believe in the respected position of evolution. But there are several scientists who don’t hold to evolutionary theory, and certainly not to creationism folly. These are outside of the box thinkers that respect scientific methods. They understand that evolution is just a theory; I won’t insult those who have forgotten what the definition of what a theory is.
Christian fence straddling,
Christianity is married to creationism
As I earlier stated, evolution and atheism aren’t married, but Christianity and creationism should be! I could never understand the “cross-over” of those claiming Christianity and evolution views in unison together. Back then, I could not accept them as sincere because it just seemed to me that these guys were just compromisers. Most I suppose would find justification by referring to the “gap theory” which they would derive from the book of Genesis. I looked at these guys as already having “one foot out of the door” of Christianity. I suppose that many holding this thought later took the second foot out and left the Christian myth altogether. As to motives, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I thought that they wanted the affirmation of science so that they could appear as clever and respectable in society.
I don’t know of any atheist that holds to creationism. This would have to be an utter impossibility, wouldn’t it? Atheists believe in logic, reason, and the scientific method. Christians are interested in logic, reason, and the scientific method but that is as far as they go, just lip-service! Facts are facts and Christians cannot claim to follow logic and reason and still profess to claim that the Bible is the word of God.
Science has proven that the earth is much greater than 6,000 years old. Creationism is an utterly absurd position to claim. I suspect that this is what those who hold to anything like the “Genesis gap theory” are trying to diplomatically say without opening their mouths.
With this said, I suppose that the Christian scientists that point out the flaws in evolutionary theory aren’t of the fundamentalist persuasion but rather the philosophical Christian types. I really don’t care what they believe concerning religion. I find it odd that they would step into the scientific ring with atheists holding a Bible. Now, if they offered anything other than the so- called Intelligent Design theory or creationism story maybe some might be willing to lend their ear to what they have to say. Still, whatever they say while holding a Bible makes them difficult to listen to. What they say is easy for the faithful flock to hear, but sheep often believe what they are told to believe without question anyway.
Us de-converted souls can feed ourselves
A point that many haven’t considered is that almost all of us who have de-converted have been well schooled in creationism and the so-called Intelligent Design theories. Most of us that attended Bible colleges or universities have also had a steady diet of anti-evolution instruction fed to us. We made it out of Christian bondage, and respect evolutionary theory but don’t have this warm and fuzzy feeling about it.
Removing an obstacle in the de-conversion path
I suspect, that these anti-evolution instructions serve as a rather large obstacle in the path out of Christian bondage for many considering leaving the faith. Why, because of the perception that Evolution and Atheism are married to each other. Why should any reasonable skeptic insist that they should be? Doesn’t that defy the spirit within those that have de-converted? If you left Christianity by means of logic and reason, this means (better yet proves) that you have learned to question things. Isn’t that where science begins, in the quest for truth?
Looking at the problem with Hegel’s Dialectic in mind
People need to be acquainted with Hegel’s Dialectic; you remember it as thesis versus anti-thesis producing the synthesis. Synthesis and anti-thesis do not annihilate each other, they just separately coexist. Hegel’s Dialectic can be in place either incidentally or on purpose. Sometimes the synthesis produces wonderful results, other times the synthesis produces stagnation and is just a spectacle for those enthused by conflict. Yes, some knuckleheads enjoy conflict and being ineffective. The bigger picture is that Evolution, Creationism, Christianity, and Atheism all desire adherents to follow them. All of the above have their own sales and marketing strategy. I have problems with the sales and marketing strategy of some atheist, Evolution and Atheism shouldn’t be packaged together!
For an example, the respected American Atheist website ran a headline during the holiday season that went something like this: “Ron Paul Doesn’t Accept Evolution” . It made me think, first I was irritated and said so what! I have observed Ron Paul’s voting record through his career, I challenge anyone to present somebody with a more consistent voting record within the last 200 years of American history when you judge by the intent of upholding constitutional principles. The man is amazing if the constitution is important to you when you vote. There are religious atheists like myself who don’t hold to creationism but are reluctant to identify themselves as a card-carrying evolutionist. Perhaps it was a clever headline to lure his followers to visit an atheist website. I resent the implication that evolution is the absolute final word in science.
Doing your own research and those that
Feel the need to misrepresent
I could give you several names and websites to alternative viewpoints. I think that you should dig for them yourself; I don’t want you to be distracted away from the point that I am making! When I read what others have said about these men, I have to question the reading comprehension skills of those making comments. They misrepresent the viewpoints that the author has expressed and I smell a rat! The tactics that they use is all the more reason to explore the views that they have expressed. History has shown that great ideas are often ridiculed prior to common acceptance. If the expressed idea is weak, then logic and reason alone should be able to put the idea down!
It shouldn’t be important to you what I believe on the subject. The real issue is freedom of thought and expression. Pressuring scientists to observe the party line on evolution inhibits the potential of greater understanding. It is almost the same phenomena as when you question Christian dogma within a fundamentalist university. Both schools of these disciplines exert pressure upon those within to stay within the lines. Challenge this and you can easily find your ass will be kicked to the curb as a lesson. This isn’t healthy and suggests an agenda.
Limits in following important personalities
I have great respect for those well-known atheists that are better known for their scientific viewpoints. They command respect and I am inclined to immediately come on board due to their acumen. But, I have learned my lesson in following Jesus like I once did. That lesson is to not be so hasty in asserting belief in something due to personalities alone.
Scientific views are important, but how a laymen views a scientific question shouldn’t prevent someone from accepting atheism. Most atheists will follow a certain path of inquiry, while others approach it differently in their pursuit of facts. Personally, I still have many questions and practice the right to explore other scientific possibilities when discussing evolution. I strongly believe in the scientific method, it is the interpretation of data that concerns me.
Science should be a battleground in establishing facts from fiction. If critics have valid viewpoints, then let us not be so quick to shrug what they say! Let us watch the process unfold like a spectator does when watching a sporting event, we won’t know the outcome until the game ends. Why not say, up until this time this is the best explanation of whatever scientific viewpoint that we have. This I can accept and respect! When a certain viewpoint has sufficiently put down its critics then it has earned the right to reign. Atheism has earned that right to reign, while evolution is still struggling to reach that pinnacle.
The end of atheism?
A hypothetical question needs to be asked here to those that insist upon evolution and atheism being married. That question is, If someone steps up with a stronger scientific accomplishment in the future, then would the break-up of this marriage be the end of atheism?
Closing thoughts
Human nature being what it is will see to it that some people feel the need to straighten out this exminister. Maybe we will always disagree upon how we approach things, but isn’t great that we live with the freedom to do so? Spare yourself the effort of trying to convince me of your viewpoint. I enjoy the process of thinking as much as I do the results of it. I have a rather large library and have read or have access to many of those that you might use to try to convince me with. I am always open to enlightenment and do welcome your opinions if you have something significant to say. I probably won’t respond to the diatribes I expect to get for this, but I am interested in your well thought out opinions on the subject matter that I have addressed with this article.
Brian Worley
Exminister.org
February 21, 2008
All rights reserved.
Oh, you will get a few diatribes if my own experience is any indication. This type of discourse and brazenly faulty logic by the creationists is a big component of my podcast called Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot. Needless to say some of the listeners to my podcast were not happy with my take regarding evolution and religion. They are very quick to attack me when given the opportunity! I have to remind them this is a work of fiction! Frankly, a quick examination of opinion polls will tell you that the scientific community has done of poor job of educating the American public in regards to both science and evolution.
ReplyDeleteErik Jon Bertel
www.floresgirl.com
Oh jeez...where does one start? I'll start with the end paragraph. Could your intent be more conflicted?? "Spare yourself the effort of trying to convince me of your viewpoint." (now that's real open-minded, huh?) vs. "but I am interested in your well thought out opinions on the subject matter." Which is it?
ReplyDeleteThis diatribe against the scientific community is a straw-man, claiming that the narrow-minded powers that be in the scientific community suppress any alternatives to evolutionary theory. Can you cite documented examples of this? In any case, evolutionary theory is not one monolithic theory, but is made up of many sub-theories regarding how life evolved. These are constantly being revised in the light of new evidence or new thinking. This is the strength of science -- that ideas can change as new information is discovered.
"But there are several scientists who don’t hold to evolutionary theory, and certainly not to creationism folly. These are outside of the box thinkers that respect scientific methods. They understand that evolution is just a theory."
Then the germ theory of disease is just a theory and might be wrong. You fall into the same trap as the fundy creationist do, diminishing evolution as mere conjecture, because "it's just a theory." You (and they) misunderstand the term theory as it's used in science. By the time a proposition as reached the stage of being a "theory" in science, it has undergone the most rigorous scrutiny. Theory in scientific parlence is what the lay person calls fact.
The burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim. Don't expect us to accept your position with "go research yourself." You're the one who brought this up, now back up your ideas on these alternative theories.
I;m sorry, but I just can't let the author of this piece get away with his fancy dance around the truth of the matter.
ReplyDeleteYes, it may be true that some atheists "don't believe in evolution", but this is NOT "thinking outside the box".
There is too much evidence, and too many lines of evidence, which lead to the conclusion that evolution a la the Modern Synthesis is in fact The Way The World Works.
To paraphrase someone whose name I forget: "There IS no debate: we've got the fossils - we win, so there!" and I would add that we've got the quantum mechanics and the evo-devo and the bio-chemistry and the genetics and the genetic engineering and all the rest of the panoply of modern science and engineering.
If being an atheist means rejecting supersition and adopting a rational world view then one is driven to the conclusion, by not only the over-whelming preponderance of the evidence but also by the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary, that Evolution is True is a very deep sense.
Any thing else - Heidiger or anyone else not withstanding - is just plain bull-shit
The term 'theory' in the scientific community does not have the same meaning as most people understand the word to mean. This single term causes more misunderstanding between scientists and lay people because the word theory has a completely different connotation in popular culture than it does in science. There is even some talk in the scientific community of coining a new term because it is such a source of confusion among the general population. Here is the Wikipedia article that explains this in greater depth and detail.
ReplyDeleteIt's my wish that someday soon every grade school child will understand this concept because this is key to understanding the scientific methodology. I believe that it is imperative that people understand the basics of the scientific method in order to usher in the age of science so that reason and logic will prevail over superstition (religion).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science
Sophia
Erik, Chucky and Anon and to others to follow, thank you for helping me to make my point. Sophia, you help in making progress in this world!
ReplyDeleteTo all commenters: Please indicate initially with one of the following two answers how you would answer the question about this "marriage between evolution and atheism". 1) Marry them 2) Don't marry and identify your scientific position.
I am sitting on information that I am thinking about either posting here or on my site in the future. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I stated my reasoning for doing so in this article. I have made an important point here I believe. I have given my real name and have not hidden behind any label or posted as anonymous.
This is a great opportunity for those that are in a compromised position to comment. YOU SHOULD POST ANONYMOUSLY because you might have something at stake! This is also a good opportunity for those of you that feel you have something important to add to this discussion.
I have a lot of respect for the evolution position and I stand by what I said within this article. Chucky, I know that many only care about their position and won't stop or maybe isn't confident enough to be challenged with another viewpoint. I am progressive and want to push forward towards progress in this area. I'm not a scientist and have never claimed to be one. Since I have made my point, it is up to those with the different viewpoints to step up to the plate. Maybe I post these names and positions in the near future. If I do, then those that want to battle them can then do so.
Okay, I just want to comment on a couple of statements.
ReplyDeleteOrganized religion has several “sacred cows”, science has one also that answers to the name “evolution”
I'm a zoologist. I do research and I also teach genetics and evolution. Scientific challenges to evolutionary theory come along all the time, but they occur within the context of peer-reviewed publications. Revisions within the theory of evolution occur constantly, it's just that they don't get a lot of public attention. (Yes, I am aware of some dissenting biologists who claim they've been "marginalized" by neo-evolutionists, but that type of thing goes on all the time in ALL the sciences). That is part of the self-correcting nature of science. So this "sacred cow" concept is bogus, unless that label applies to any scientific theory that has yet to be unseated by new evidence. And, as someone else has pointed out, the theory of Evolution went through a major modification in the 1930's (the evolutionary synthesis). Also, with the discovery of the structure and function of DNA, if there was ever an opportunity to demolish evolutionary theory, that was it. But no, in fact the field of molecular genetics strongly supports evolutionary theory, in ways no one previously expected. It is now one of the strongest lines of evidence for evolution.
I mean, ask yourself "why is evolution constantly in the public eye here in the US?", because it rarely is elsewhere. It's not we scientists doing that. It is the religious community. So, if you want to claim evolution is some "sacred cow" because scientist are constantly having to defend it, it is only because so many non-scientist are repeatedly given the public forum in the state and federal courts, the legislative bodies, and the boards of education. There they are allowed voice their opinions and beliefs about a science they poorly understand (at best) or deliberately misrepresent, and are allowed to do so without having to present any credible scientific evidence.
Do you know of any other science that has to put up with that? And it's been going on in the US for over 100 years. It is all because of religiously motivated dissent, not the actual science.
flaws in evolutionary theory
I know this is not the main point of this post, but you know, I'm damn sick and tired of seeing this idiotic phrase. No scientific theory claims to have a universal data set, yet, for critics of Evolution, this is somehow "expected". Evolutionary theory is no more flawed than the atomic theory of matter, but do you ever hear/read the word "flawed" with that or any other scientific theory? No you don't. However, both explain observed natural phenomena and make predictions about what one should expect to occur. And neither have currently faced any evidence that would overturn them, but rather have been increasingly bolstered by observations and experimentation. In fact, it has been postulated that if and when there is a measurement of dark matter, the atomic theory will probably have to be revised. There is no such prospect for the theory of Evolution as things stand currently. Unlike IDiocy and creationism, the theory of Evolution, being that it is scientific, allows for the possibility that new experiments or observations could radically alter it.
If creationist and ID clowns are hell-bent on going after "flawed" theories maybe they would like to chime in and resolve gravitational theory with quantum theory.
Wonder why they don't?
Oh, that's right, neither of them based on or have anything to do with science. As I said, it's all religiously motivated dissent.
I strongly believe in the scientific method, it is the interpretation of data that concerns me.
You state you are not a scientist, so I have no idea what this means or what is your point is here. If you disagree with interpretations you can always submit your interpretations to scientific peer-reviewed journals. Many of them take letters too.
Spirula has very eloquently made the case for the scientific basis for accepting evolution as fact supported by a rigorous theoretical framework that is, in turn, supported by overwhelming empirical, comparative, and experimental evidence.
ReplyDeleteTo add a little, note that scientists are generally fiercely competitive and would love nothing more than to upset accepted theory if the evidence warrants doing so. The implication that scientists would cooperate to preserve a "sacred cow" is antithetical to the nature of science.
So, can an atheist be other than an "evolutionist"? I suppose so, but they could not claim scientific support for the same until such time as contradictory evidence is published in peer-reviewed literature. An atheist can just as well believe in E.S.P. (note doing so doesn't require belief in a god), but they would in like manner be holding a view for which there is no scientific support.
To Brian Worley:
ReplyDeleteI am 74 years old this year and have been an atheist most all of my life, probably because my parents did not force christianity down my throat as a child.
As an 8 year old boy I and my friends used look through the windows of a Penticostal.(sp).
church that was in the neihborhood and kill ourselves laughing at the fools rolling around on the floor crying etc. We called them "Holy Rollers".
I was an atheist without even realizing the fact long before I even thought about Evolution. Evolution was not taught to us in high school in those days and neither was religion even mentioned. I believe I was fortunate.
As to your question whether atheism and evolution are married, I don't think they were even going together in my day. I would say #2 is an answer that makes more sense to me. I don't think I need to identify my scientific position because I didn't have to think about them as even being relative until just recently.
This may sound dumb to you but it wasn't until I had a computer some 10 years ago that I really began to wonder if there were anybody else like me out there.
I Googled Atheism and was astounded by the response I got. I now do daily research on the subject of atheism and am pleased to find that there are really some people that think before they speak. The closest thing to being a christian I ever was is that they asked that question on forms from government. They were probably doing some research
on our belief systems. They don't even ask that question anymore here in Canada.
I feel extremely pleased that I have never had that
70 lb monkey on my back. I feel a helluva lot more healthy because of it.
I grew to my ripe old age not ever having been in jail or been involved with any "satanic cult". According to
christian beliefs I'm going to "Lava Lake" forever.
I'm not the least bit worried about hell because I was never taught to be worried. Lucky me.
I believe that the TOE (Darwinsim, evo-devo, or whatever you like to call it) is the best explanation of how life on this planet developed.
ReplyDeleteIt does indeed seem as though a majority of people who identify themselves as atheists also share this view.
I would not, however, use the term “marriage” to relate the two concepts. They do not now, nor have they ever gone together by necessity. There is a high correlation, yes. I think this is because atheists tend to be skeptics and demand evidence to back up any and all claims of truth. The facts behind the scientific theory of evolution provide a lot of convincing evidence if one takes the time to look at them.
I think to say that atheism and evolution are ‘married’ is to buy into the strawman constructed by the fundamentalist Christians to make both atheism and evolution seem evil and persecutory toward them and their god.
Spirula and Shaggy Maniac,
ReplyDeleteThank you for well-informed, well-written rebuttals! You said it with more authority and eloquence than I could have.
It would be interesting if all high schools taught a class specifically about evolution. If people understood it better, then they would be better armed to argue against it, so you would think creationists would want it taught. Silly naive me, though... they don't want such a thing. Instead of admitting they don't want people to know the scientific reasoning behind evolutionary theory, they pretend that teaching it is equal to brainwashing, and/or that the science is so wrong it should not be taught in a secular public setting. Sigh... ridiculous!
People need to learn the facts and the vocabulary surrounding a subject before they can debate it. But of course, honest intellectual debate is not what creationists (and their compromising ID pals) are interested in. If every high schooler had to take a class on evolution, perhaps we'd at least see more intelligent debates... or even better, public acceptance of the theory.
A final thought from me: I really hate the misleading notions that creationists and IDers spread about scientists and the nature of science. For example, they imply (or openly state) that scientists want to protect theories for selfish purposes, rather than the advancement of knowledge. They pretend that "scientific theory" just means someone's crazy idea. They ignore the rigorous peer-review process and the modification of generally-accepted ideas. Finally, they portray scientists as smug, elitist, out-of-touch, pie-in-the-sky jerks. They run an ugly smear campaign that has hurt the general public's understanding of science, and that pisses me off.
Let us challenge the myth of conventional wisdom and scientific objectivity. William Broad and Nicholas Wade wrote "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science" 25 years ago. Note what Robert H. Ebert, M.D., Former Dean, Harvard Medical School says on the back cover of this book.
ReplyDelete"Betrayers of the Truth is an important book, for it challenges the conventional wisdom of objectivity in science...It is not an indictment of all scientists, but rather a thoughtful, well-written and well-documented analysis of how fraud and self-delusion can occur in a system which too often is claimed to be immune to such deviations"
Is it so hard to fathom that big money, political pressures and career security threats can lead to corruption? I am being very vanilla here. I know what I am speaking about, you don't have to be a scientist to know this! I experienced these types of things in the ministry and you probably have also similar pressures in your fields of work. The book publically opened a can of worms 25 years ago! Want to speak of more current concerns? The Union of Concerned Scientist website is a good place to start (especially the page about scientific integrity). Look, I am not a Ralph Nader type of crusader. But too many labor under the naive assumption of scientific integrity. Nobody has yet rebutted this to the contrary. I have just touched the tip of a known iceberg.
Yes, much nonsense originates with Christians. Nobody denies this. The Big Bang has some strong non-religious challenges to it. Science is a rather large field. It isn't immune to corruption and I suppose it never will be.
Brian
ReplyDeleteWhat other theory explains the immense body of evidence we have, from the fossil record to bacteria adapting right in front of our eyes? Evolution and atheism are only "married" in that they are both descriptions of reality. The only thing that would cause the end of atheism is concrete evidence of a deity, which so far doesn't exist.
I have clearly stated my objective in the article and comments. I'm not interested in dividing the focus of this article at this time. Let me ask the readers of what serious challenges that they have looked into??? I am curious if people even know of competing ideologies?
ReplyDeleteAnybody (atheist) that marries these two is very short sited in my opinion. Yes evolution and atheism are descriptions of reality but each stands on its own foundation because they ARE NOT MARRIED!!!!
Hello Brian. I hope you don’t mind my wading in here but I wanted to respond to one or two items.
ReplyDelete“To all commenters (sic): Please indicate initially with one of the following two answers how you would answer the question about this "marriage between evolution and atheism". 1) Marry them 2) Don't marry and identify your scientific position.”
This smacks of False Dichotomy. Why should we accept that there can only be two positions here? Why does there have to be a position identified with atheism? I accept the scientific conclusions of the theory of evolution but not because I am an atheist. I accept it because science has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated it’s validity. Whether or not I believe in a deity has nothing to do with the matter. Indeed there are a vast number of christians who also accept the theory as fact. To “marry” one to another is to create a stereotype, which is unacceptable no matter how well intentioned.
“Let us challenge the myth of conventional wisdom and scientific objectivity. William Broad and Nicholas Wade wrote "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science" 25 years ago. Note what Robert H. Ebert, M.D., Former Dean, Harvard Medical School says on the back cover of this book.”
Fraud can be found in all disciplines, not just scientific ones. This in no way invalidates the work performed by honest people. The fact that someone(s) can take a valid precept and use it to dishonest advantage does not mean that every one is doing it. Christians make this same claim when confronted with the misdeeds of their clergy and they are right in doing so. The fact that ministers and youth leaders are being caught violating children in no way implies that all clergy are child molesting deviants.
I won’t comment on the “theory” part of your post as some of my colleagues have already done so and quite well.
This is an interesting discussion you’ve opened up here Brian.
All I know is this subject is really boring.
ReplyDeleteHuey,
ReplyDeleteI like they way you think, evidenced by the way that you write here. This false dichotomy is what I want to rid the atheist community of. I will say it another way, JUST BECAUSE WE ARE ATHEIST......don't assume that it means you are a card carrying evolutionist! These are two different ideas. Just visit a forum for yourself and notice when evolution and atheism are mentioned....you will see people bring both of these ideas to gether and thus "marry them".
No one has commented about this false dichotomy being an obstacle for Christians considering leaving the faith. Some of these might say, yea this Bible has become intolerable and I am embarassed to identify with it. But I (those considering leaving faith) don't want to identify themself as holding to evolution. That is WAY TOO MUCH to swallow for someone trying to walk away from faith. Yes, in time they might come to accept evolution but DON'T place these two (atheism and evolution) as a take all or nothing proposition. Why can't people see this????
Huey, I need to to speak of this fraud because many assume that science is immune to this, well it isn't and maybe science is more prone to corruption than other professions. Examples are the pill, breasts implants, smoking (anyone see "The Insider" movie?) I hope you see the point.
About theory, until dictionaries "update" the term and common usage catches up to this...then the theory definition that I'm using still holds. I appreciate what was said here about theory and can accept it without a quarrel. With that said, common usage of a term is still what the greater society works with.
I still want people to say upfront: IF you think these two concepts should be married, give your reasoning. If not say that you agree that they should NOT be married.
All this Scientific Theological Talk is a bunch of boring Shit.
ReplyDeleteYou people must live in a goddamn science lab or library.
You all remind me of some College Professor who gives some boring lecture that puts people like me to sleep.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI believe the cartoons are on TV for your entertainment value! Your shallowness won't be exposed.
Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a scientific theory.
ReplyDeletePlease make this clear.
They understand that evolution is just a theory; I won’t insult those who have forgotten what the definition of what a theory is.
ReplyDeleteStatements like these always annoy me.. I don't understand, have you forgotten what the definition of a scientific theory is?
Reading it the first time I was a bit mystified at what the rhetorical question was referring to, thinking it was about the oft misunderstood difference between the colloquial use of the english word "theory" (ie. hypothesis) and the term "scientific theory".
But upon further reading, I began to realize that I think Brian has once again stumbled into confusing the two terms, especially using the pat phrase that suggests "oh LOL, that's just a theory"
Could you clear up this confusion for us Brian? Which term did you actually mean to use in your post?
About atheism being married to evolution, really nothing could be more ridiculous in my mind. I didn't really start researching evolution until the past few years when I realized that I never had to take any college level biology since my studies were in the life sciences. Rather, my background was in engineering which requires us to study physics, math and chemistry. Personally I was highly interested in psychology and film as well and studied both fields in college also.
But biology, I realized my knowledge was pretty lacking in some areas, particularly something as important as evolutionary and genetic biology. I knew basic you basic plant and animal bio, quite a bit of human brain and physiology, but evolutionary bio is a whole field altogether.
Anyway, while I grew up atheist and skeptical I never really studied evolution in depth as a kid. Of course I loved watching nature shows on PBS... seriously, as a kid, you watch some science programs on TV, then you read some stories about noah loading all the animals of the earth into a wooden boat. Which are you going to decide is an accurate description of your world?
Usually I read the posts from Brian with some interest as they are fairly even-handed and provide some interesting discussion. That is probably the reason why I was a bit baffled by this post as it seems like Brian will attack science and scientists for being less than honest, evolution for being some sort of "sacred cow", and so on, but he doesn't point out anything specifically wrong with evolution itself. He'll point to certain websites of disgruntled scientists, but dance around evolution itself.
Atheism is no more married to evolution that it is to superstition, magnetic healing or human sacrifice.
As has been stated time and time again, atheism is a non-position almost. A non-affiilation.
Basically as an atheist you're not religious. You're not any demonimation of christianity, you're not scientology, you're not buhhdist, you're shinto.. you're just not theist.
You're independent and you are free to choose from the buffet.
You're not tied to science just like you don't have to believe in math or history or english.
These are fields of study that you can examine at your leisure, plumb the knowledge of those who have come before you, what you make of the evidence and ideas is up to you.
Sure, the study of science reinforces skepticism, cross-referencing, independent investigation and that can easily lead one out of religion, but to say that somehow that the two are married or that if you are atheist you must state your scientific position is a completely skewed perception that seems left over from being pounded on the head by religious dogma.
I might as well add my position on superstition, my stance on history, whether or not I believe in lucky numbers, my sexual preferences, my stance on polygomy, my beliefs about abortion, whether or not I have any issue with the Iraq war.
Requiring some sort of stance on science due to atheism is a non-sequitor. I still can't quite wrap my head around it
You atheists are some boring ass mother fuckers. Talking about a bunch of overly educated zombies. You are all like a bunch of walking computers and encyclopedias that are constipated with facts and figures.
ReplyDeleteIf I ever have problems falling asleep at night I will be sure to call one of you and listen to you talk about theology and science.
penis envy much? anonymous?
ReplyDeletelol
wish i had a brain said...penis envy much? anonymous?
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck does that have to do with anything?
You made absolutely no fucking sense.
Anonymous this discussion, and any others that we have here, are intended for those that are interested in them and further, can follow them. Obviously you can do neither. You comments beg the question: if this is so boring and stupid to you, why are you here? It is tatamount to one of us going to a tent revival and publicly decrying the preacher as "boooooring!".
ReplyDeleteIf you are not able to involve yourself intellectually with this discussion, then I and the others invite you go elsewhere.
Huey......."why are you here?"
ReplyDeleteBecause I like giving you atheists a hard time because you are all so arrogant and full of shit.
That's why.
"so arrogant"
ReplyDeleteAy yes, the ultimate xtian insult. If you are incapable of responding intelligently to someone, then call them arrogant. Works every time. Not!
Go away little boy! Grown ups are talking here. You are a child aren't you? You certainly don't write your posts like an adult would.
Huey...."Ay yes, the ultimate xtian insult. If you are incapable of responding intelligently to someone, then call them arrogant. Works every time. Not!"
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think I am a Xtian? Tell you the truth, I am not a christian. I am not an atheist either.
What kills me about you goddamn atheists is that you think anyone who does not agree with any of you is automatically a christian. You are all just as damn arrogant as these christian pricks are. You atheists make all "Non-believers" look bad.
Huey........"Go away little boy! Grown ups are talking here. You are a child aren't you? You certainly don't write your posts like an adult would."
Actually Huey I am 38. I just don't act like a "Know It All" walking encyclopedia of facts and figures.
I also don't seek the approval of how I talk and act. I like being an obnoxious asshole to tell you the truth.
I don't conform to anyone's Goddamn rules to tell you the truth, so you can all just "KISS MY ASS"!!!!!
ReplyDeleteYes I am hijacking this post, so deal with it!!!!!
ReplyDeleteBesides, this subject needs to be livened up a bit besides all of this theological and scientific bullshit.
Ok, you want to talk about evolution, ok here's a possibility.
Maybe Adam did exist and Eve evolved from him when she crawled out of the end of his penis.
Or maybe Eve existed first and God impregnated her like he did Mary and that is how Adam was born.
There is my theory.
Discuss.
I don't think they are "married" to each other. If at some time the TOE is regarded as a non-credible explanation to the diversity of life on planet earth, it wouldn't necessarily mean that a god must exist.
ReplyDeleteIf a god of some sort was "discovered" that wouldn't necessarily "disprove" evolution.
There could be more alternatives in either set of circumstances than just the "either/or" dichotomy.
Here is some more possibilities of how evolution might have occurred.
ReplyDeleteEve had sex with a monkey so she gave birth to Adam, which would back up the claim that we all sprung from monkeys.
There you go. Does that make you evolution believing atheists happy?
Anonymous Christian:
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to bother posting, please at least click on the "Name/URL" radio button and type in a pseudonym.
The fact that you hate atheists is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. Let's keep it on topic, OK?
Sorry Brian I got sidetracked by an idiot little boy.
ReplyDeleteNow I see where you are going with this. So the perception that to be an atheist is to be an evolutionist and that this stereotype might prevent some christians who are "straddling the fence" from coming to our side (if such a term could be applied to us)? Guilt by association? Interesting. But I would postulate that such an individual is only trying to talk themselves out of leaving the faith rather than seriously considering the ramifications of becoming associated with evil evolutionists. But having never really been a christian to begin with, perhaps I mis-speak.
Where did my post go Webmaster.
ReplyDeleteI did what you asked.
You said: "If you're going to bother posting, please at least click on the "Name/URL" radio button and type in a pseudonym."
I did exactly what you asked me to do. Now why did you delete my post?
Anonymous: "You atheists are some boring ass mother fuckers."
ReplyDeleteAnd you're very fascinating...keep typing, we want to hear more about this elegant person named, anonymous.
Anonymous: "Talking about a bunch of overly educated zombies."
hum, zombie....
zom·bie (zŏm'bē) Pronunciation Key (n.)
1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States.
2.
a. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse.
b. A corpse revived in this way.
3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton.
4. A tall mixed drink made of various rums, liqueur, and fruit juice.
Let's see how each applies to an atheist.
(1). A snake god cult. No, that doesn't sound like an atheist. Remember, we don't buy into the man-made concept of god(s).
(2a or 2b). supernatural power or spell. No, this doesn't apply to atheists either. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural because there is NO EVIDENCE for anything supernatural...BTW, got any?
(3). One who looks or behaves like an automaton. Nope, this doesn't apply to apply to atheists. This applies more to religious people who follow a particular god, like an automaton---following a god they have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for.
(4). A rum drink. Now, I'll drink to that.
Anonymous: "If I ever have problems falling asleep at night I will be sure to call one of you and listen to you talk about theology and science."
Do you think you will be able to comprehend "big" words?
Cheers
Huey,
ReplyDeleteLeaving the faith can be easy on some folks, but for many it is a very difficult process. I get a letter about every 2-3 weeks where people tell me of their struggles. I try to listen to what they tell me!
Stronger Now,
I haven't even considered anyone coming forth with some god "proof". I am thinking rather if someone gives us a great scientific alternative to evolution. In this scenario, since evolution is disproved then atheism has to go also. Thus each position of evolution and atheism MUST stand on their own foundation. Isn't it reasonable if they both stand together, then they both would also fall together?
NOW FOR EVERYONE:
This has been posted for 2 days now. I have challenged everyone: Let me ask the readers of what serious challenges (to evolution)that they have looked into??? I am curious if people even know of competing ideologies or theory? (scientific ones....not the ID or creationism dogmas)
Yet, no one has mentioned any!! If you expect me to feel that you have genuinely challenged, researched or pushed yourself then why can't YOU produce any??? I am waiting! And please don't give me any lame-duck theories either.
Christian view of Evolution:
ReplyDeleteBy Anonymous.
"Eve had sex with a monkey so she gave birth to Adam, which would back up the claim that we all sprung from monkeys."
Then anonymous asks: Does that make you evolution believing atheists happy?
I must say, YES!...a good belly-laugh always keeps us in good spirits!(i.e.."happy") Thanks for the laugh---and thanks, once again, for illustrating that most people who attempt to caricature Evolution haven't the slightest clue what Evolution actually means.
Here, let me try.....let me try to caricature "Creationism":
Maybe an over-grown magical flying ghost magically fashioned Adam and Eve out of dirt, placed them in a garden with a talking snake, and from there, the whole human race was cursed and spawned.
Does that make you Creation-believing Theists happy? Oh crap!....wait!...that IS what they believe. D'oh!
Fake Passerby....."Do you think you will be able to comprehend "big" words?"
ReplyDeleteI realize that most people who use big words do so in order to try and impress others to make them think they are "Highly Sophisticated" individuals. Most people who do so have low self esteem issues.
FYI, some of us are not impressed with your "BIG WORDS" so get over yourself.
Before you start saying that I am not as educated and superior as you, no that is not it. It's the fact that people like you annoy the hell out of me.
Marriage is a religious term, as far as I can tell. It is a contract between god and two (or more) people.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, it is lunacy to say that atheism and evolution are 'married'. I have neither verbal nor written covenant with an imaginary sky god that I uphold evolution nor has evolution agreed to anything to uphold my belief that god is a human invention.
There is a connection of sorts, as I think was mentioned, that both atheism and evolution share. That is our perceived reality based upon tangible evidence.
If evolution is proved wrong, great! but in doing so, someone is giving us a scientific theory that better fits all of the facts. It won't change my non-belief, unless you also have evidence of the existence of beer volcanoes in the afterlife.
Brian, A couple things about what you said...
ReplyDelete'Huey, I need to to speak of this fraud because many assume that science is immune to this, well it isn't and maybe science is more prone to corruption than other professions. Examples are the pill, breasts implants, smoking (anyone see "The Insider" movie?) I hope you see the point.'
I agree with you that science is not immune from corruption and self interests.. But consider this.. It is self-correcting. In time, the truth will come out and the theories thrown out or revised, depending on the error. Not very many things are like that in this world. It is a thing of beauty.
'About theory, until dictionaries "update" the term and common usage catches up to this...then the theory definition that I'm using still holds. I appreciate what was said here about theory and can accept it without a quarrel. With that said, common usage of a term is still what the greater society works with.'
You need to speak apples for apples. Therefore, you cannot use the common 'theory' when referring to scientific theory. If you want to translate it to some other word so that the layperson knows WTF we are talking about, that is a more appropriate way to do it.
"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."
--Wilstar
Brian, I intellectually revolt from threads where the author presents themselves as intellectually superior using their own words as validation. I see too many parallels to Christians who use the bible to prove itself.
ReplyDeleteOn this thread you posit your superior intellectualism, and wave your large library around, like a phallic symbol. Is that a challenge, should everyone pull out their libraries and compare sizes? It's not about size, really, poll the audience.
Then, you make an elitist remark suggesting that you will only respond to those whom you feel provide something significant - based on your intellectually superior judgment. That smacks of someone we would normally find sitting behind a pulpit.
You have clearly made the case that this thread is a shout-box for you, and if anyone disagrees with your point of view, well then, they are misinformed, are reading from the wrong material, or have not correctly used a word in the proper context - because everything presented "must" center and support your superior presuppositions.
While I find the topic you present to be somewhat interesting; I find the manner in which you present your material to be a repellant for me. It's condescending, with an air of egocentric arrogance and self-serving insincerity. You are seeking intellectual collusion, not validated conclusions, and it’s thinly veiled in your rhetoric.
There's an honest response to your thread.
common Sense said: "Fake Passerby....."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say "Fake Passerby?" Are you referring to the Catholic poster boy, named Marc/Taylor/Unblinded/etc who stole my pseudonym? This little kid can't even create an original pseudonym, let alone praise an original Jealous God.
common sense :"FYI, some of us are not impressed with your "BIG WORDS" so get over yourself."
I thought about calling you a "dumb ass motherfucker," but that would be stooping to your level.
common Sense: "I realize that most people who use big words do so in order to try and impress others to make them think they are "Highly Sophisticated" individuals. Most people who do so have low self esteem issues.
Like you "realize" there is a God or some supernatural force out there? I noticed you only answered one of the questions posed to you. What about the other one?
Do you have any EVIDENCE for YOUR supernatural god?
BTW, can you define God?
Cheers
Ernst,
ReplyDeleteYou project YOUR feelings about me and the article. Throw something upon the wall as they say and hope that it sticks...it seems that you hope that someone will buy into YOUR sour grapes. I am sure that several will follow. I expected this and recall the childhood jingle of sticks and stones may break my bones... I hope you enjoyed ranting.
I do not feel people are stupid, especially the majority of the ex-c normal crowd. If you don't like what the mailman brings then challenge the CONTENT. Those who cannot sling something at the mailman.
Why do you despise libraries? Books are books, I remind you that the Bible is a book. Books represent ideas and are often a healthy challenge to those seeking to make the world a better place.
I think that there is an ignorance in certainty in people that I find very repugnant. These are the types who are insecure about things. Tell me what have you contributed and what makes you opinion so worthy to be entertained?
You haven't added anything to this discussion period. You didn't respond to the main subject matter at hand which is the proposition: Evolution and Atheism Aren't Married.
I offered a fair challenge to people. I once believed in Christianity and challenged it....see what happened! If I were so damn smart, I would have figured it out much sooner than when I did.
Personally, I could care less what you think about me. I do care abouy what people with heart and good character think...these traits show in people. I like to make people think when I write, because when people think in life normally good things happen if they use sound judgement. What is so bad about this?
Now, can we get back to the topic, and avoid these pirating attempts?
Ernst where do you see Brian shouting down opposition? He has started an interesting debate and I am following it quite closely. He is using language as a tool for communicating a hypothesis that he has offered for discussion. In his post he has offered up terms that need to be clearly defined so that the rest of us may understand his meaning and respond appropriately. Part of a discussion of this nature is the necessary byplay of defining the terms that are to be a part of said discussion. That does not imply nor need the insulting appellation “phallic symbol”.
ReplyDeleteThere have been comments regarding the use of language, i.e.: large words, sophisticated terms, etc by you and others here. I have a problem with that. I am an intelligent person and I refuse to dumb myself down for individuals who are offended by that. We discuss concepts, ideas and viewpoints at this site and in order to make ourselves clearly understood by others, we use a broader word base than what is normally used in everyday conversation. Please find a way to deal with it. We don't need bullying jerks telling us "you think your so smart!" in a vain attempt to bring us down to their intellectual level.
Brian has evidenced himself to be well educated and certainly is capable of using the articulacy that comes with such an education. Why should he pretend otherwise? To make you and others feel good about themselves? I wouldn’t and I would not expect or even want him to. He is simply using his personal lexicon to make himself clearly understood. He does not need these asinine insults from those who do not possess his vocabulary nor should he be expected to apologize for being intelligent enough to use the tools he has spent a lifetime acquiring.
Yes Ernst, your reply is an honest one, for a bulling dolt. Ill conceived and off topic, it does nothing to address the subject of the discussion. Being incapable of responding to the sophisticated nature of this thread, you respond with an ad hominem fallacy. Yes I started this paragraph with one of my own but your verbal tirade requires correction.
Darthwonka, “marriage” is a term that has a colloquial meaning beyond the dictionary’s entry. That meaning is what Brian is using and I do not feel it is “lunacy” as you suggest. I do like your (and other’s) assertion that atheism and evolution are connected in that both are based on tangible evidence or lack of it, as is the case for atheism. I personally do not feel that they are “married” though I do believe that the stereotyped perception of such does exist. In a side note, I whole-heartedly agree with “thing of beauty”.
P.S.: If you find the beer volcanoes, be sure to witness to me! I will be a willing convert!
P.P.S.: Brian I realize that I am repeating your last post to a certain extent but it looks we were both typing a the same time. It's 11:22 here in the Seattle area. What time is it in Latvia?
Huey,
ReplyDeleteLatvia is 7 hours in front of EST and 10 ahead of Seattle. I have those weird hours that parents with infants often have. Normally, I am on an island having to fend for myself against those who seek to derail discussions. So thank you Passerby, Huey, it was nice that Boom chimned in as well! I enjoyed the sarcasm and wit! Maybe they will accuse you of showing off!...lol
Brian,
ReplyDeleteWhy, for the sake of your argument, don't you specify the scientific alternative to evolution that you are implying exists?
Of course atheism and evolution have distinct foundations and do not necessitate the other.
If there is a rational, evidence-based alternative to evolution that we ought to consider, do us all a favor and spell it out. Or are you just blowing smoke?
Cheers
OK EVERYONE
ReplyDeleteI have been sitting on this information and took all the stuff from some of you to prove a point. That is that evolution and atheism need to stand and fall on their own merits. Placing them together isn't a good idea at all! I also wanted to challenge the naive assumption of objectivity in science. I am interested in science and found these to be interesting. These guys can speak for themselves and don't need some Exminister defending them. I do think an introduction is a good idea!
I found it interesting that nobody could even name competing theories or challenges after all this time. I have placed weblinks at the end of this article on Exminister. Remember what I had said about misinformation and misrepresentation as you review these.
Evolution covers a lot of ground. Tom Van Flandern audio interview should be listened to, he addresses the Big Bang and you can see his impressive bio.
The McCanney website is a little difficult to navigate. I thought it best to start where the provided link does. You might need to dig a little, excellent material! He also has an impressive bio!
I get irritated about some of the reviews of Vine Deloria Jr.'s great book, Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry. I doubt some of these read the same book that I had read!!!! I think everyone should read this book! Laura Lee's website link, which I have provided gives a proper review of this book. Vine passed away a few years ago and thus unable to defend those who LABEL him somehow believing in ID. Those who do so failed to read his "Efforts at Synthesis Chapter" or have reading comprehension issues. I had to keep re-reading p. 186 myself, that paragraph beginning with "How can there be design"(I have my own reading comprehension problems..lol). PS: Order the book from this link, I get ZERO$$ from this, but Exchristian will get credit for this.
So here are a few people with different perspectives. These are some of the scientist and a starting place. Since nobody named any of the above, I would find it odd that someone might be ready to attack what they say. I hope you don't fall into the trap of letting someone else do your thinking for you and stop at some "review". Read what they say FOR YOURSELF. You may disagree with what they say, but at least you now know of some NON CHRISTIAN alternatives/challenges to evolution.
PS: My links aren't pretty at the bottom of the page.
Brain Worley said:
ReplyDeleteEvolution and Atheism shouldn’t be packaged together
---
Brian,
As Aspentroll pointed out to us, one can be an atheist without even knowing a thing about evolution.
After all, if you never were exposed to a belief in a god and you also had never heard of evolution, you could very well grow up an atheist that isn't tied to an explanation of our existence, via evolution. One could just not think about where we came from and be content in the not-knowing etc..
I don't think atheism and evolution are 'married' per se.
They just happen to be the most common combination we see today.
i.e. If you're an atheist, you most likely accept evolution to.
If scientists came along with a more valid "scientific theory" to explain where we came from, I'm sure most atheist wouldn't fight tooth&nail about it.
We sure are far more accepting of new knowledge than xtians would be, or ever were in their history !!
Now Brian, I'm not sure if you actually are speaking of 'evolution' itself, or you actually mean "abiogenesis" instead?
Are you looking for alternatives to how life got started on earth?
Are you looking for other explanations for how humans got started on this earth?
Do you perhaps offer a theory where life became more and more complex on this earth, but the mechanisms that the theory of evolution states was used in this process, are incorrect?
Would these alternate theories you speak about, dismiss an increasing complexity of life on this earth?
i.e. That each life form we find fossils of, are actually non-evolved life forms, and instead, they each just died out and were replaced (somehow) by something new?
Perhaps you do mean to discover how modern 'looking' humans came about, while dismissing evolution (or anything similar) as being the process that put us here.
Perhaps you mean to discover how the first life got started.
Okay, I'm not sure what you're looking for but would it be something along these lines....
Up until not so long ago, there was a popular theory that the first building blocks of life did not form here on earth, but instead came from a comet, that came from who-knows-where, crashing into the earth.
Of course, that leaves us with the problem of where this first 'seed' came from and what was it's cause.
Then of course, you have the aliens-did-it scenario.
Aliens from some distant place traveled in spaceships and either planted that first 'seed' on earth, or instead deposited humans and animals here intact.
Even if this were true, it obviously doesn't solve the problem of where the aliens came from and what caused them into existence.
So, we still land up back with a god-did-it versus evolution or again, some unknown means that you are implying here Brian.
I see you just posted, so I'll stop here now.
ATF (Who is willing to weigh other theories, but they better be DAMN GOOD ONE's)
This is the link Brian was talking about: Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry .
ReplyDeleteTo Brian: on Astronomer Tom Van Flandern
ReplyDeleteI downloaded the huge 22MB info picture from http://metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
It says quite a bit about his ideas, but this one in particular caught my eye
"He believes the data from Mars taken by NASA show possible evidence of intelligent life, which may have been disrupted by an exploding planet. The structure known as the Face on Mars appears sculpted warrants further exploration....."
While this man seems to have great credentials and I even might buy into gravity waves traveling faster than light can, the Face on Mars is quite another issue.
For several years now many conspiracy minded folks have proclaimed a cover-up from NASA about that so called 'face' on Mars.
Because of the popularity of this face rumor, even Mike Shermer (of Skeptic Magazine) took the trouble to investigate the matter.
I do believe there are websites that address this rumor and will show one some other photo's taken from other angles, that clearly shows this face NOT a face at all.
It was the angle of the camera and the shadow effects from that angle that give it a face appearance.
Also, keep in mind that we humans are pattern seekers and have an inane 'talent' to seek out face patterns, which is something we develop as infants and for good reason to.
In addition, it has often been portrayed in Sci-Fi films that aliens would be bipeds, like us.
They do this for obvious reasons in films, but it is common science knowledge that if we do find other intelligent life forms out there, they most likely would be nothing like us physically.
So one has to now speculate as to the chances of aliens on Mars (at any time) having a face that greatly resembles our own.
I'll withhold further thoughts on this, until I read more through your links Brian.
ATF (Who thinks any life on mars today would be very very TINY and I don't mean miniature humans either)
Brian, it's possible I am totally wrong about reading your thread. So, I'll expound upon my previous post, so that there is more clarity.
ReplyDeleteBrian: "Human nature being what it is will see to it that some people feel the need to straighten out this exminister."
Read literally, and in context with the original thread, it's a warning statement for those who may dissent on views expressed with the original post.
Brian: "Maybe we will always disagree upon how we approach things, but isn’t great that we live with the freedom to do so?"
Read "literally", and in context in the original thread, it's a statement that it's okay to disagree on definitions, facts, gods, aliens, etc., because we have that freedom.
Brian: "Spare yourself the effort of trying to convince me of your viewpoint."
Read literally, and in context with the original thread, it's a statement to suggest that there isn't going to be an attempt to come to a common understanding of knowledge on a topic.
The requisite appears to suggest, you have no compulsion to defend any statement made by you; you want direct answers to your questions and statements from posters, so you can critique them and provide your case-closed opinion.
Brian: "Brian is not here to discuss the matter, he will not be moved in any manner."
Read "literally", and in context with the original thread, when the author provides an opinion, case-closed, means, case-closed, don't whine, don't get mad or frustrated, just accept it.
Brian: "I enjoy the process of thinking as much as I do the results of it."
Read "literally", and in context with the original thread, you enjoy thinking for yourself, and your results of thinking - alone.
Brian: "I have a rather large library and have read or have access to many of those that you might use to try to convince me with."
Read "literally", and in context with the original thread, it means, not only do you think for yourself and you don't need any help in that area, your library is large and therefore, you are more equipped to think than let's say, others who don't have a large library.
Brian: "I am always open to enlightenment and do welcome your opinions if you have something significant to say."
Read "literally", and in context with the original thread, you assert, that your thinking and library alone establish yourself as one who is already enlightened enough to know what is significant and what isn't.
This opens the door for you to disengage those who want to come to a common understanding of knowledge; you have already suggested that you don't care to be moved. Communication is supposed to be about an exchange of ideas, that requires a constant flow of information; not, I'll give you my opinion, without describing "why", and then tell you to just accept it and move on.
Intellectual respect goes both ways; why would anyone "respect" someone, who declares themselves to be judge of significance and importance - when responses are directly related to the thread's content and author's statements.
Brian: "I probably won’t respond to the diatribes I expect to get for this, but I am interested in your well thought out opinions on the subject matter that I have addressed with this article."
Read "literally", and in context with the original thread, it suggests; the author would like to see comments made "about" the thread content, however, when the content is addressed, they will be selective on what they engage in communication on, based on their established intellect and library.
Now, if there is some other, in-context, interpretation of Brian's comments, well then, it appears we all get to sleep well tonight.
However, based on the "literal", and in-context, words used on this thread's "Closing Thoughts" section, I consider them to be expressed with pugnacious "alacrity".
If one wants to focus on these words further, then I have no problem with large words, use them as professionally and profoundly as you like. Actually, I think large words are the key to brevity which is appreciated by many. However, a rich vocabulary (or library) doesn't suggest a high-neural capacity to synthesize information into knowledge.
I made an honest assessment of the author's post. If Huey, feels like speaking on behalf of the author, then of course, that begs a few questions.
Personally, I hope we can get past this, because I have some whopper follow up questions on this thread, once I perceive some equanimity.
If respect and sincerity to engage in a dialectic, is not forthcoming or possible, then, I don't see how this thread would benefit a poster who expects to be provided a sincere response, unless they are willing to just accept what they are told by the author and selected comments, based on the author's approval alone.
I left that type of thinking behind many years ago. Brian, this is your thread, I respect that. The point of this post is to cite the poignant parts of the original post, as previously discussed in my post.
If someone other than the author would like to discuss this, then it would seem more profitable to focus on the author's original post and provide insight - that's what I did.
Again, if there is no response, then I'll interpret that as a sign that there is not to be dialectic, but more of an opinionated session where there is a thread owner in charge of their virtual fiefdom.
It would save me a lot of time on this site, to just skip to the bottom of a thread and read the author's intent, whether it be open-dialectic (argument, debate, etc.), or just selective engagement where the author chooses who they care to dignify with a response. It would surely, dictate the quality and time I would take in providing a response.
I'm a big boy; just tell me how you are going to approach the responses that contest your views, as published on this thread. I'll make this promise, if you don't spell it out, I can assure you I will not be returning to this thread - bank on it.
Hello, Brain. There's one thing that bothers me about this article and it's when you mentioned that Christianity should be married to Creationism. Although I have read your "You can't have it both ways" article with how faith and reason can't work together, I can see how it may be possible for Christians to believe in evolution. But with regards to Creationism, why must it be a mandatory belief for Christians? From my understand, Creationism slowly came out of the Reformation when the Bible began to be interpreted more literally. One more thing, with Creationism and those who believe the bible is 100% literal, I have yet to meet someone who is Creationist and a Christian who isn't all pick-and-choose about what parts of the bible are indeed literal in the same fashion the faith and reason types you mentioned in your other article are pick-and-choose about what parts of the Bible should still be embraced and taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteNo Brian you made "honest assessment" on the author, not his post. I was not the only one to catch that. If you wish to be taken seriously here and it seems that you do, then make an honest assessment on what he had to say.
ReplyDeleteI would also ask how does coming to his defense beg questions? You were sidetracked by your personal opinion of the author, using insulting terminology, and then claimed that you were only being honest about thread that he started. That is what I addressed. I felt that you needed to be put back on track. But instead of discussing the subject matter, you merely discected his statements in an vain attempt to justify you previous virtrolic.
If you truely have "whoppers" to ask, please get past this and ask them.
As a reminder to everyone:
ReplyDeleteI wanted to introduce these guys, I found them interesting in a subject area that I cannot speak much about. Their viewpoints, theories or whatever you might say or think about them are matters frankly that most people like myself are inept to defend, these guys can speak for themselves. Yes, you can tell me if you think these guys are whatever.....but if (your view is negative)you are that confident then invite them to debate you if you feel that they are in error.
ATF,
You mention Mike Shermer (of Skeptic Magazine). I had enjoyed reading his views until he got into the 911 subject. Specifically the WTC7 building, I can't help but think that someone asked him to do a "whitewash job" on the matter. In so doing (his 911 views, he lost his great amount of credibility/esteem that I once held for him. Yes, this is my view, I know that I really hurt him by taking down his web-link on my site because of this...lol {This last part is VERY tongue and cheek humor).
Ernst, I see you posted something that I didn't read. After your first post I lost interest in you. If someone else reads his post and thinks he has something valid to say then tell me and I will address it....fair enough?
Ziggy,
I am so glad to speak about some other aspects of the article. If anyone should be offended by this article, it should be those Christians.
The Bible states creation as a 6 day event. If someone takes that those days and changes it into a longer time period than 24 hours then they go from being a literal fundamentalist to a "philosophical Christian" because they departed from a literal interpretation. That is my take on it. Either way, they still claim to believe in creationism. Yes, they like to have it both ways! I find it amusing that they claim that people need the Holy Spirit's guidance to understand these things, so evidentially the Holy Spirit must be drinking a spirit because he guides one believer to think a 6 day creation and another the Gap theory interpretation the next day which is an evolution compromise which I allude to in the article.
Huey
ReplyDeleteI think we have this synchronicity timing down pat in typing comments at the same time. I think you were addressing Ernst with your last comments, tell me if I am wrong. In the confusion, I did go and read Ernst post (well most of it) and came to the conclusion that Huey was referring to Ernst.
Ernst, what I mean is that I was not interested in someone trying to teach me evolutionary theory again. Nor was I interested in getting some lecture from those who insist that I needed to agree with evolution. It is like in high school days when you ask a girl out on a date, if she says no a few times then you should understand and accept her verdict! Not sit an grind upon her in hopes that she changes her mind from your persistance. Some people are just like this and people like myself "back them off". I think I am a stand up guy and nobody has accused me of avoiding controversy. Sometimes people disagree and you just need to move forward. Some people are medicated and on drugs and will just suck the energy out of you IF YOU LET THEM. I choose not to allow myself be a victim. I need that energy for positive/constructive ventures. So I hope this might clarify these subject matters for the forseeable future!
*blink* *blink* I hope that Huey was addressing Ernst and not me.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I made an error in my last post. I meant can see how it may be impossible for Christians to believe in evolution, not possible. I hope that didn't confuse you in any way, Brian. That's what I meant there. Anyway, thanks for your reply because that does clear up the matter with me.
Sorry, I was typing that rather quickly at 1:00 in the morning, yawning all the while. I did not give it my usual editing. I apologize for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteMy sincere apoligies Ziggy, it was Ernst. I had just returned from spending the day with friends and I was exhausted and should have let Ernst's latest post go until morning, when I could think more clearly.
ReplyDeleteBrian stated, "As I earlier stated, evolution and atheism aren’t married, but Christianity and creationism should be!"
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with this statement, I understand that what I am suggesting, is that I prefer to accept a Christian only as a Christian if they accept the literal bible as holy doctrine.
Doctrinal Christians, by definition and their belief, must accept the marriage between Creationism and their form of Christian belief (Christianity). If a Christian denies the marriage, but suggests they are a doctrinally based Christian - they are confused.
However, there are what I consider cultural Christians, who tend to pick and choose things from the bible as they need, but their real source of belief comes from the authority of people they know.
To suggest a Christian should accept the marriage of their Christian belief and Creationism, is akin to suggesting Christians be defined by a single form of Christianity based on a sole source authority (literal bible).
A better test of what it means to be a True Christian may be to ask; can a Christian be a Christian without a bible?
I tend to believe, a Christian can be a Christian without a bible - it's a self-proclaimed title, suggesting self-allegiance to a cause or movement. And, there are as many reasons "why" people support a cause as there are causes to be found.
Therefore, while I prefer that all Christians be married to their doctrine, so that I can immediately "infer" a Creationist - I understand it's me seeking to find ease of identity and understanding in a much more complex cultural dynamic.
Current reality tells us, that there will always be more cultural Christians than doctrinal, as, children align themselves to religious groups much earlier than their ability to grasp strict doctrinal interpretation. Many Christians live their entire lives without truly understanding biblical doctrine.
In the same sense, I agree that atheism and evolution aren't married. There is a parallel between cultural Christians and cultural atheists.
In my understanding, there is no such thing as a doctrinal atheist, unless one is going to refer to all atheists as anti-Christians, or anti-theists who purport to follow some universally accepted atheist manifesto.
Those who suggest there is such a thing as doctrinal atheists, typically include Christian apologists. They wrap a political agenda around the core tenet of atheism; lack of belief in a god or gods, and stick a label on it.
Let me suggest, that I'm not keen on the process of wrapping the core, because such a process renders labels like; religious atheist, militant atheist, political atheist, etc.
If a person is going to talk about atheism in "general", then it seems to be more honest to talk about the "core" of atheism, and not identify all atheists according to some preferred wrapper.
A cultural atheist describes an individual who holds the core tenet; lack of belief in a god or gods, based on culture alone - no doctrine.
In much the same sense, a cultural Christian and an atheist could very well, be the product of their cultural environment. The major difference however, is that a cultural Christian must be able to trace their belief back to a trusted religious agent in their culture, where, an atheist doesn't. A cultural atheist doesn't require a leader to lack belief in a god or gods.
Just as a cultural atheist, by the core tenet; lack of belief in a god or gods, doesn't require "doctrine", they don't require "evolution".
It takes a "deliberate" act, to wrap the core tenet of atheism with; doctrine, politics, philosophy, economics, science, etc., to present the illusion of marriages. I'll suggest that those who engage in such activity are attempting to profit in some manner.
We are all born, cultural atheists. While young, we become wrapped, by our environmental factors, whether there is Christian influence, Hindu influence, no religious influence, etc.
Over time, I stripped off the cultural wrappers, to find my origins - cultural atheist. I don't need science, politics, religion, etc., as a wrapper (marriage), to provide "more" meaning for what I am, and have always been at my core.
Beyond, my core, I acknowledge things like; facts, truths, principles, imagination, fantasy, etc., such that I can understand my immediate reality, but they do not represent me and my "core" position.
While I am open to accepting facts, beliefs, evolution, etc., for observation and even acceptance at times, I will only accept those things that do not conflict with already held facts.
In the end, no matter how many facts, I hold or believe, regarding science, in many different contexts, those facts are meaningless to my core position - atheist, lack of belief in a god or gods.
My core position, along with the acceptance of one "fact", based on my reality, will prevent me from ever defining the word god as having more significance or power than the word alone.
The fact that I have to be as significant as that which I assert exists. If someone suggests they know a supernatural god, they are inherently suggesting they are equally "significant", because they have connected with, and understand this supernatural god.
Nothing I will ever do will be more or less than I am, in terms of significance or meaning.
The moment I suggest I know a god, becomes the moment, I am equally significant as such a god - how could I be less than a god, if I were capable of understanding a god.
There doesn't need to be multiple theories of science to support the core tenet of atheism.
We started out as cultural atheists, and we learned to wrap ourselves. I learned over time, the wrapping didn't fit the gift. Since then, I have learned to just accept the gift, without the wrapping.
Many people, can't come to those terms because of psychological and social security needs, they can't see their core identity; all they can understand is a single identity, that is given meaning, by the number and quality of wrappers around the gift. To attempt to remove a layer is akin to mentally challenging a persons' self-meaning in life.
Huey: "No Brian you made "honest assessment" on the author, not his post."
ReplyDeleteAre you talking to Brian, or me, Ernst? I cited the author's words, please tell everyone you understand this concept.
Huey: "I was not the only one to catch that."
Catch what? I stated my opinion, about the “thread”, and some just fell off their chair. So, I cited the exact words from the “thread” to show support, and now you have “caught” me in the act? Nice.
Huey: "If you wish to be taken seriously here and it seems that you do, then make an honest assessment on what he had to say."
I do not take you seriously, Huey, you are not the blog administrator, nor have you cited the author's words, in order to establish your position. But, thanks for the rhetoric.
Huey: "I would also ask how does coming to his defense beg questions?"
You are not the author; do you purport to have ESP? I cited the author's words, in Closing Thoughts, not 'your' words. I know, it's quite deep, perhaps you should think on it for a while.
Huey: "You were sidetracked by your personal opinion of the author, using insulting terminology, and then claimed that you were only being honest about thread that he started. That is what I addressed. I felt that you needed to be put back on track."
Sidetracked? I cited the author's words, you may want to go back and read the posts.
While you are at it, read;
Chucky Jesus: "Oh jeez...where does one start? I'll start with the end paragraph. Could your intent be more conflicted?? "Spare yourself the effort of trying to convince me of your viewpoint." (now that's real open-minded, huh?) vs. "but I am interested in your well thought out opinions on the subject matter." Which is it?"
Huey: "But instead of discussing the subject matter, you merely discected his statements in an vain attempt to justify you previous virtrolic."
Vain attempt? I feel totally justified, that my initial post, was supported via citing the author's words.
If you don't feel that the words support my initial post, and the observations of others who have made comment as well, then do me a favor.
Cite the exact words I did, or anyone else for that matter, and come up with a different position, in context.
Huey: "If you truely have "whoppers" to ask, please get past this and ask them."
:-) Huey, perhaps you have missed the entirety of my post. I have no problem with asking questions, nor supporting statements I make on posts, using citations.
However, I do have a problem posting on a thread, where the blog author literally presents themselves at war with anyone who may provide a controversial or out of the box view, to let's say; evolution and atheism aren't married, etc.
Now, I could sit here and dissect your post, and note your erroneous mental marriage between me and some non-intellectual conspiracy, to lower verbal standards, and how that lowers your identity and the quality of this thread’s content in some manner. However, I am not here to "beat you down"; I'll just let you represent yourself - and all the impetus and supreme profundity that follow.
If you feel the need to post a response, do everyone a favor, and cite the words you don't agree with, and draw a conclusion that is supportable.
Until then, give the author some space, to present and administer this blog thread, based on "their" point of view.
It may only be a matter of semantics, but I am the administrator of this blog. Brian Worley, however, is the author of this article. The views and opinions expressed in this article or any article or comments on this blog are entirely those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe views and opinions of the blog administrator are expressed in those articles and comments specifically written by the blog administrator.
Semantics explained, let the discussion continue.
WM, I'm humbled, thanks for the amplification.
ReplyDeleteEvolution and atheism aren't married. Neither are Christianity and creationism.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Christian, and I believe in evolution (I'm a scientist, how could I not), or at least I feel the theory is supported by the evidence. Now think: if you were living back when the Bible was first formed, you wouldn't believe some "crackpot" theory about mutations and natural selection. Science had simply not advanced that far yet. It's like me saying that we're actually controlled by a master alien race who plants everything in our minds (not saying that this is true). So God had to paraphrase, so to speak, poetically, so humankind could understand. The Bible is largely poetical. It's like English class in high school. You take things literally, you aren't going to get the full meaning.
(following paragraph is unrelated to the previous one)
The fact that there are other creation myths that are similar and that so many stories from the Bible can be found in earlier sources only...gives more sources of support (although some of these stories are truly mythical).
I suggest reading Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson (not Christian affiliated, in case you were suspicious), it's a great book. It also has some great stuff about religion.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteIn another article, I mention that Christians usually want you to read someone else's book. The Bible is your book, and it is the basis of the Christian belief system. I can see why Christians want to distance themselves FROM WHAT THEY BELIEVE. I belive that my assessment was correct about Christians in this post. I don't plan on allowing Christians to have it both ways!
Roger,
ReplyDeleteYou are probably a well intentioned guy. It takes some nerve to come to this website with the view that you hold and try to defend it. The point that you seek to make, I believe, is a very disingenuous one for any Christian to make.
I have been waiting for a response from you. I do respect your evolution view, but not your claim upon Christianity. To claim evolution as a Christian, you have to compromise or disrespect your very own Bible. Christianity is married to creationism, if not then Christians need to concede that the Bible is just a book of literature or they need to (police dissenters and practice legitimate church discipline).
I would ask you if you believed the Bible IS THE WORD OF GOD, but I already know the answer. You must believe that the Bible CONTAINS THE WORD OF GOD. The other parts must be.....(Fill in the blank).
This begs the question, when is a skeptic that maybe is genuinely interested in exploring the Christian faith to know when the part they are reading is God's words, and when it is just plain ole' literature? I hope you don't answer by saying the New Testament words of Jesus that are in red letters.
Maybe the philosophical Christians need to get their erring fundamentalist brothers straightened out? I think what I am saying here is very reasonable, don't you?
If you want respect from me or the skeptic community then you should go to all book sellers and ask them to place the Bible in the Literature section of the bookstores. Also turn your back upon and surrender the 501.c 3 tax excemption status that is fraudulently used. That money could be used for much better purposes than promote dogma! I just find it difficult to converse with a position that doesn't believe what they confess to believing!
I am a reasonable guy, please enlighten me on what I have overlooked?
i don't get these ron paul fanatics.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
The atheist core; lacks belief in a god or gods.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian core; the belief in the existence and divinity of a man named Christ.
It’s ironic that one can wrap religion around the core of atheism; and reject another person for not wrapping their core belief with doctrine.
Where is this requirement that suggests everyone "should" wrap an additional layer around the core of what it means to be an atheist or Christian?
Just making conversation; I don't accept that a Divine Christ ever lived, because I have no reason to believe or evidence. While I find little connection with people who hold this belief, I am more at odds with them based on their weaponization of Christianity - religion.
Religion is an additional layer that politicizes a core position or belief.
What is it that makes your religion of atheism, somehow, less striking than the religion of Christianity, in terms of religiosity?
Just trying to get your point of view.