Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Theoretical Skeptic on October 31, 2020, 05:03:16 PM
-
Okay, this is probably not going to work, but I heard this crazy idea that to have a dialogue between two opposing groups you should start with where you agree and take it from there. I know . . . I always thought that you were supposed to start off with the theist making excellent points from a rational perspective in a reasonable manner and the opposition was supposed to repeatedly call you a poo poo head and plug their ears shouting "Nah! Nah! Nah!"
That's the way I've grown accustomed to anyway.
That's right, you heard me.
Now!
Uh, well, I don't see it working for a couple reasons. 1. We aren't groups. I don't represent theism, I just happen to be theist. And 2. Since atheists like to pretend that they are independent, critical thinkers instead of brainwashed poster children for group think I can assume that you all don't speak on behalf of any atheist collective either.
Let's cut to the chase in an attempt at starting off a dialogue. Just to see what happens. Starting. Right. Now!
What do atheists and theists - strike that - what do believers and unbelievers have in common?
Pretty much anything any other group of people would have in common. We're born, we live, we die. We are every age, size, color, nationality, etc. Some of us political, some not. Some rich, poor, some educated, some not, some this, some that, the other and what have you and so forth.
We both have our religious tendencies. Religious being a strict adherence to a set of principles or beliefs. You don't agree or at least aren't educated enough on the subject to realize that money, gambling, knitting, art, television, or anything else can be your god so let's just skip that and you can live in denial that things like the soul, spirit, heavens, hell, sin, aren't real and keep denying you have religion, faith and belief, and you can go on thinking traditional Biblical interpretations you've probably founded your disbelief on are misrepresentations of the Bible, most of which comes from Greek philosophers that you probably know little about. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. The latter also taught evolution, along with other Greek philosophers like Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras; which you probably also didn't know.
Hmmm. So, that's pretty much what we have in common. We disagree.
-
TS,
Okay, this is probably not going to work, but I heard this crazy idea that to have a dialogue between two opposing groups you should start with where you agree and take it from there. I know . . . I always thought that you were supposed to start off with the theist making excellent points from a rational perspective in a reasonable manner and the opposition was supposed to repeatedly call you a poo poo head and plug their ears shouting "Nah! Nah! Nah!"
That's the way I've grown accustomed to anyway.
That's right, you heard me.
Now!
Not here you haven’t. Why not start with these “excellent” points of yours to find out though?
Uh, well, I don't see it working for a couple reasons. 1. We aren't groups. I don't represent theism, I just happen to be theist. And 2. Since atheists like to pretend that they are independent, critical thinkers instead of brainwashed poster children for group think I can assume that you all don't speak on behalf of any atheist collective either.
Ah, the fallacy of poisoning the well.
Let's cut to the chase in an attempt at starting off a dialogue. Just to see what happens. Starting. Right. Now!
Go for it cowboy!
What do atheists and theists - strike that - what do believers and unbelievers have in common?
Pretty much anything any other group of people would have in common. We're born, we live, we die. We are every age, size, color, nationality, etc. Some of us political, some not. Some rich, poor, some educated, some not, some this, some that, the other and what have you and so forth.
Erm…
We both have our religious tendencies. Religious being a strict adherence to a set of principles or beliefs.
That’s not what “religious” means.
You don't agree or at least aren't educated enough on the subject to realize that money, gambling, knitting, art, television, or anything else can be your god so let's just skip that and you can live in denial that things like the soul, spirit, heavens, hell, sin, aren't real and keep denying you have religion, faith and belief, and you can go on thinking traditional Biblical interpretations you've probably founded your disbelief on are misrepresentations of the Bible, most of which comes from Greek philosophers that you probably know little about. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. The latter also taught evolution, along with other Greek philosophers like Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras; which you probably also didn't know.
You told us that you were going to start a dialogue, then posted an incoherent and reason-free rant.
Hmmm. So, that's pretty much what we have in common. We disagree.
Yes, but atheism is disagreement for reasons. So far at least your theism is all “what” and no “why”. By all means try again though if you actually would like to start a dialogue as you claimed. Why not begin with telling us why you believe whatever it is that you do believe?
-
most of which comes from Greek philosophers that you probably know little about. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. The latter also taught evolution, along with other Greek philosophers like Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras; which you probably also didn't know.
Hmmm. So, that's pretty much what we have in common. We disagree.
Well, I did, and I'm pretty sure a number of educated chaps here did as well. Though Aristotle's ideas can be seen as only loosely pre-figuring modern ideas on evolution. More a precursor of Lamarck.
As for some of our regulars not knowing about certain ancient philosophers - stick around and NearlySane, bluehillside himself, and a number of others may yet surprise you. You seem to have come here setting yourself up as the fount of all wisdom, and then start having tantrums when your arguments are dissected and handed back to you in a sling.
-
Okay, this is probably not going to work, but I heard this crazy idea that to have a dialogue between two opposing groups you should start with where you agree and take it from there. I know . . . I always thought that you were supposed to start off with the theist making excellent points from a rational perspective in a reasonable manner and the opposition was supposed to repeatedly call you a poo poo head and plug their ears shouting "Nah! Nah! Nah!"
That's the way I've grown accustomed to anyway.
That's right, you heard me.
Now!
Uh, well, I don't see it working for a couple reasons. 1. We aren't groups. I don't represent theism, I just happen to be theist. And 2. Since atheists like to pretend that they are independent, critical thinkers instead of brainwashed poster children for group think I can assume that you all don't speak on behalf of any atheist collective either.
Let's cut to the chase in an attempt at starting off a dialogue. Just to see what happens. Starting. Right. Now!
What do atheists and theists - strike that - what do believers and unbelievers have in common?
Pretty much anything any other group of people would have in common. We're born, we live, we die. We are every age, size, color, nationality, etc. Some of us political, some not. Some rich, poor, some educated, some not, some this, some that, the other and what have you and so forth.
We both have our religious tendencies. Religious being a strict adherence to a set of principles or beliefs. You don't agree or at least aren't educated enough on the subject to realize that money, gambling, knitting, art, television, or anything else can be your god so let's just skip that and you can live in denial that things like the soul, spirit, heavens, hell, sin, aren't real and keep denying you have religion, faith and belief, and you can go on thinking traditional Biblical interpretations you've probably founded your disbelief on are misrepresentations of the Bible, most of which comes from Greek philosophers that you probably know little about. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. The latter also taught evolution, along with other Greek philosophers like Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras; which you probably also didn't know.
Hmmm. So, that's pretty much what we have in common. We disagree.
When you have something sensible to say I'll be more than happy to respond. Keep repeating stupid don't do it for me. Sorry.
-
Theoretical Skeptic link=topic=17954.msg817476#msg817476 date=1604163796]
Okay, this is probably not going to work,
I agree - it probably won't. As far as I can see - and you posted earlier on that you hav joined many forums over the years - you have never quite got the hang of writing an OP that does in fact start a good discussion. From my experience of over 15 years on several message boards, and from my experience with various discussion groups over the years, I have learnt to spot the opening posts which are going nowhere. I am, however, happy to be proved wrong if I find I am in this case.
-
Ignoring the various bits from the OP that seem to contradict its declared aim, I agree that theism and atheism are not what I see as significant differences. I met one of my best friends who is a theist because of posting on here. I love him dearly.
There are others who I like and respect, Anchorman, Gabriella (whether violent or not). I don't think atheism shows anything other than not believing in a god. Many atheists are arses.
-
TS,
Not here you haven’t.
Yes I have. You do realize that when an atheist makes an excellent point I can see that even though we don't agree? There's nothing I can say to you, I suspect, that you wouldn't dismiss without knowing jack shit about it. Am I wrong? I haven't seen it yet. Now, I've been busy with other stuff and it is possible I've missed it, but your responses to me are standard, predictable, smug, arrogant, atheist (and I don't care if you're atheist or not) answers to which I have always and continue to respond to in kind.
We can play that game until the proverbial return of the bovine.
Why not start with these “excellent” points of yours to find out though?
I'm continuing forward. If you think about it just in the post to which you've responded I've made the allusion the traditional meaning of the soul, spirit, sin, hell, faith, etc. which we could discuss.
You, probably being familiar with the traditional pagan soul adopted by apostate Christianity from ancient Babylonian teachings through Socrates would rightly dismiss as nonsense but a more literal interpretation you would wave your hand in smug self righteous indignation as Jehovah's Witness gobbledygook without actually saying anything at all.
Ah, the fallacy of poisoning the well.
Go for it cowboy!
Yeah. Like that.
That’s not what “religious” means.
Oxford: treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship. "I have a religious aversion to reading manuals"
You told us that you were going to start a dialogue, then posted an incoherent and reason-free rant.
I posted excellent content in a smug and self righteous verbosity. When in Rome.
Yes, but atheism is disagreement for reasons. So far at least your theism is all “what” and no “why”. By all means try again though if you actually would like to start a dialogue as you claimed. Why not begin with telling us why you believe whatever it is that you do believe?
It doesn't matter. Makes no difference. None of your business. I'm here to talk about atheism vs theism and in the Christian forum the Bible. I figure we should get to know one another in this forum first. But I think we know each other well enough. This isn't our first rodeo.
-
When you have something sensible to say I'll be more than happy to respond. Keep repeating stupid don't do it for me. Sorry.
Was you waiting for that?
-
Well, I did, and I'm pretty sure a number of educated chaps here did as well.
They did?
Though Aristotle's ideas can be seen as only loosely prefiguring modern ideas on evolution. More a precursor of Lamarck.
Well, that isn't terribly relevant, though, is it? The same could be said of the evolution I was taught in middle school. The same can be said of today's evolution on the morrow.
As for some of our regulars not knowing about certain ancient philosophers - stick around and NearlySane, bluehillside himself, and a number of others may yet surprise you.
Other than noting that their nonsensical musings have been adopted by apostate theism and horribly transmogrified the meaning of the Bible in the eyes of the ignorant there isn't much to say.
You seem to have come here setting yourself up as the fount of all wisdom, and then start having tantrums when your arguments are dissected and handed back to you in a sling.
Yeah . . . I think that's a sort of defense mechanism. I'm coming off of a Christian forum which I absolutely hated. One of you posting there actually invited me here months ago but there was some problem with registering that has since then worked itself out. So I kind of act like a jerk when I perceive atheists in a forum are doing the same, but a bit more in this case because of being so repressed on the so called Christian forum full of atheists. Not that I'm complaining about that, I rarely have discussions with Christians. I'm far more interested in atheists.
-
I agree - it probably won't. As far as I can see - and you posted earlier on that you hav joined many forums over the years - you have never quite got the hang of writing an OP that does in fact start a good discussion. From my experience of over 15 years on several message boards, and from my experience with various discussion groups over the years, I have learnt to spot the opening posts which are going nowhere. I am, however, happy to be proved wrong if I find I am in this case.
Well, you know, you are always welcome to steer the passengers surviving the train wreck in a more positive area. Soul, hell, sin, faith, spirit, belief . . . nothing to say of these?
According to the Bible the soul is the life / blood of any breathing creature. It is mortal. Hell is the common grave. Sin means to miss the mark. Speeding, for example, is a sin. Being late for work is a sin against your employer. Spirit is any invisible active force like breath, wind, mental inclination, you have faith your spouse, in money.
No thoughts?
Where do you think we might agree? Is group think a theistic as well as an atheistic characteristic?
What is faith, belief and truth? Latin credit?
Has there ever been a people in the history of mankind that weren't in some sense of the word, religious? Most world religions are not theistic. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism. Hinduism and Scientology leave belief in a god up to the individual. Many Christians and Jews are atheists and only adhere to some formal paradigm for cultural reasons.
-
TS,
Yes I have. You do realize that when an atheist makes an excellent point I can see that even though we don't agree? There's nothing I can say to you, I suspect, that you wouldn't dismiss without knowing jack shit about it. Am I wrong? I haven't seen it yet. Now, I've been busy with other stuff and it is possible I've missed it, but your responses to me are standard, predictable, smug, arrogant, atheist (and I don't care if you're atheist or not) answers to which I have always and continue to respond to in kind.
Yes you are wrong. You make various claims and assertions. Sometimes you don’t bother with arguments to justify them, so there’s no reason to take them seriously. On other occasions you have attempted arguments to justify them, and when you’ve done that I’ve explained why those arguments are wrong. That’s not to say that you haven’t got other arguments in the locker that you haven’t tried yet, and nor is it to say that any such arguments will necessarily be wrong too. So far though, throwing pejorative terms at the person who's undone you rather than attempting to rebut the falsifications you’ve been given points only to your insecurities.
We can play that game until the proverbial return of the bovine.
When faith meets reason there is no game: it's over before it starts.
I'm continuing forward. If you think about it just in the post to which you've responded I've made the allusion the traditional meaning of the soul, spirit, sin, hell, faith, etc. which we could discuss.
We could, but to do that we’d have to sort out your abuse of language first. Essentially you take terms used in religious contexts that have been borrowed for colloquial purposes (“god”, divine” etc) and then seek to claim them to be epistemically equivalent. It’s a bizarre approach – presumably if I called my dog “faithful” that would make her religious too in your ontology – and you can’t just get away with it as a Trojan horse for the terms you actually intend in a religious discussion.
You, probably being familiar with the traditional pagan soul adopted by apostate Christianity from ancient Babylonian teachings through Socrates would rightly dismiss as nonsense but a more literal interpretation you would wave your hand in smug self righteous indignation as Jehovah's Witness gobbledygook without actually saying anything at all.
I don’t need to say anything about “it”. All I have to do is to reason that the arguments you try to justify your JW beliefs are wrong – so far, a trivially simple thing to do.
Yeah. Like that.
Pretty mild given your tirades I’d have though, but ok…
Oxford: treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship. "I have a religious aversion to reading manuals"
I have a “faithful” dog. Which denomination does that make her a member of would you say? How about my “divine” piece of cheesecake? Or maybe the “mystery” of the way my wife always knows what I will think before I think it?
Fun as it is just pretending that colloquial uses of terms somehow makes them equivalent to their theistic usages, it’s a still non-starter for reasons that really should be dawning on you by now.
I posted excellent content in a smug and self righteous verbosity. When in Rome.
Given your abuse of language I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that you claim your reason free ranting to be “excellent”.
It doesn't matter. Makes no difference. None of your business. I'm here to talk about atheism vs theism and in the Christian forum the Bible. I figure we should get to know one another in this forum first. But I think we know each other well enough. This isn't our first rodeo.
It matters hugely. If you can’t produce coherent and logically sound arguments to justify your beliefs (and, so far at least, you can’t) then you give me no reason to take them seriously. Worse, you give yourself no reason to take them seriously either.
Does that not give you pause? It should you know – really it should.
-
It doesn't matter. Makes no difference. None of your business. I'm here to talk about atheism vs theism...
So, perhaps you could explain to a mere mortal why it is that you think your opinion about what atheists know and why they believe what they do, is relevant but your own beliefs and the reasons for them are irrelevant and none of our business?
Oh, I get it, perhaps I should take your approach and just make shit up about what you know, what you believe, and why you believe it and that will magically result in a dialogue?
::)
-
Was you waiting for that?
You keep pitching them, I'll keep hitting them!
-
So, perhaps you could explain to a mere mortal why it is that you think your opinion about what atheists know and why they believe what they do, is relevant but your own beliefs and the reasons for them are irrelevant and none of our business?
Sure. I care about what you believe. You don't care about what I believe.
Oh, I get it, perhaps I should take your approach and just make shit up about what you know, what you believe, and why you believe it and that will magically result in a dialogue?
Shocked! Shocked I am at this outrageous and slanderous gobbledygook.
Anyway. Even if I were just making shit up that would at least require some effort, unlike the horrendous manner in which I've been maligned and disrespected since my humble arrival here, I can tell you!
You guys know I'm just pullin' your chain, don't you? To an extent. Sort of making fun of the stereotypical opposition associated with we men of science fiction? Huh?! C'mon. Let's see a smile on those grumpy ol' fundamental atheist mugs, huh? Sure! No skin off my stiff upper lip.
-
You keep pitching them, I'll keep hitting them!
Hey batter, batter . . . swing!
-
TS,
Yes you are wrong.
Specifically or just in general?
You make various claims and assertions.
Everything everyone says here regarding theism is opinion. You say I'm wrong. I say you are wrong. That's the game. Don't think I don't know who you are.
Sometimes you don’t bother with arguments to justify them, so there’s no reason to take them seriously.
Again, specifically or are you operating on the assumption that whatever I say about the Bible and God and gods is false? According to you whatever I have to say about the aforementioned subjects is wrong. My lengthy posts on historicity and Genesis chapter one, for example. I don't recall a well informed rebuttal of any of that. I just recall people like you, in some sense, saying I was wrong. I don't recall an argument, really. Do we need to revisit those?
I don't think so because, well, I'm just wrong, correct?
On other occasions you have attempted arguments to justify them, and when you’ve done that I’ve explained why those arguments are wrong.
You may have to refresh my memory. I don't recall that. I'm not familiar with everyone here yet, but all I recall is people saying things like I'm wrong. No explanation. Just wrong.
That’s not to say that you haven’t got other arguments in the locker that you haven’t tried yet, and nor is it to say that any such arguments will necessarily be wrong too. So far though, throwing pejorative terms at the person who's undone you rather than attempting to rebut the falsifications you’ve been given points only to your insecurities.
[Laughs] Okay. Well, I'll have to try to remember that.
When faith meets reason there is no game: it's over before it starts.
Now I think you are telling the truth as you see it. No argument from you. I'm just wrong. Not much point in it, is there? Except for perhaps that I see and am willing to acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong and you are right. That's why I call you (fundamentalist militant atheists as a collective) ideologues. Now, in my nearly 30 years of debating these atheists I've actually come across a few that were well informed outside of tradition and capable of making good points. Arguments. I'm not saying it isn't here, I'm just saying I haven't seen it. But I'm still interested in hearing your argument. So . . . anytime. [looks at watch]
We could, but to do that we’d have to sort out your abuse of language first.
No, I have to correct your ignorance of language, which is why that is what I first attempted to do, announcing at that time that it was a futile excursion.
Essentially you take terms used in religious contexts that have been borrowed for colloquial purposes (“god”, divine” etc) and then seek to claim them to be epistemically equivalent. It’s a bizarre approach – presumably if I called my dog “faithful” that would make her religious too in your ontology – and you can’t just get away with it as a Trojan horse for the terms you actually intend in a religious discussion.
[Sigh] Colloquial and metaphoric applications of the word God doesn't negate the meaning of the word. Examples of various Gods, gods, and goddesses are not meanings of the word. All you have to tell me is what does it take to be a god. If you say religious, supernatural, colloquial, metaphoric or give only examples of the word God (or god) you are not giving it's meaning. It's meaning is implicit in the application as well as the example but not given in it's use. To do so would be the same as saying that the meaning of the word man, prince, king, lord et cetera used in a similar way would be definitive of those words or negate their meaning.
The definition of atheism doesn't specify which God or gods are in question. The term disbelief or lack of belief isn't exclusively a religious connotation. The disbelief or lack of belief isn't a trust as in, for example, the Latin word credit, it's a question of existence. The only way an atheist can adhere to the term atheist by definition is to limit the use of the word God and gods thereby excluding most applications and negating the meaning of the word itself. The result is an ignorance, not only of the use of God and gods in a Biblical and theological structure but also the possibility that the concept of God and gods in their intended meaning in any language, primitive or otherwise, of any religious or secular application is erroneous. In other words, an atheist may have many gods in their lives which they don't even know are gods. This can be a problem if the atheist should become theist. So for Jehovah God of the Bible to say you shall have no other gods before me isn't a command to abstain from metaphoric or colloquial applications as can be seen in those very uses in context to the command itself. It begs the question what is or who are those gods?
So the theists try to explain this away by dividing all other gods in comparison to the One True God as being false as opposed to the true, but that doesn't make sense because some were true (Moses, Jesus, the Judges of Israel) and some weren't. Satan, Molech, Ashtoreth, Dagon et cetera. The tactic of the atheist is to say no literal god ever existed, (by extension excluding any colloquial or metaphoric application) which doesn't make sense because, at least to them, Moses, Jesus and the Judges of Israel existed in a literal sense.
And that doesn't even begin to address the complications of such an argument presents to Shintoism and Hinduism. The latter which was addressed briefly by Sriram in our discussions of gods and the former which I myself brought up. I think. If I didn't then I am now.
It can certainly be argued that ultimately, at least given the very common misconception, pedantic and as far as I'm concerned we've given it more than enough time.
I don’t need to say anything about “it”. All I have to do is to reason that the arguments you try to justify your JW beliefs are wrong – so far, a trivially simple thing to do.
Yeah, sure. You just keep repeating that you are right and I'm wrong. No reason to give any reason. No real argument. Who's going to disagree with you? Pat yourself on the back for being obstinately obtuse with just the right smug self righteous ideological dispossession. Typical atheist tactic.
I have a “faithful” dog. Which denomination does that make her a member of would you say?
Why would you make such an ignorant statement? You suggest that to be faithful exclusively applies to the theistic or religious?
How about my “divine” piece of cheesecake?
Venerated colloquially or metaphorically speaking? What about your "devil's food" cake? Implicit in the Devil's existence? Angel food cake? What does devil mean? Slanderer. Angel? Messenger. What's that got to do with cake? Dark. Light. It's nonsensical.
Damn these words!
Or maybe the “mystery” of the way my wife always knows what I will think before I think it?
I dare say it's not such a mystery.
Fun as it is just pretending that colloquial uses of terms somehow makes them equivalent to their theistic usages, it’s a still non-starter for reasons that really should be dawning on you by now.
If I were mentally challenged the equivalent would be lost upon me but it isn't, you see. It's lost upon you. That's okay, though, because we can carry on as if the specific God in question regarding atheism and theism, for that matter, is as limited as you suggest. I told you you wouldn't get it. I know that when you say God you mean one specific God or application of God's most commonly known in Western culture.
Given your abuse of language I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that you claim your reason free ranting to be “excellent”.
HEY! Don't knock my ability to rant in a most excellent fashion! Nor underestimate the, uh, the . . . whatsit? Jovial operation of error. Try to Google that, my illusive argumentative, and I'll show you a green dog, see if I don't!
It matters hugely. If you can’t produce coherent and logically sound arguments to justify your beliefs (and, so far at least, you can’t) then you give me no reason to take them seriously. Worse, you give yourself no reason to take them seriously either.
Does that not give you pause? It should you know – really it should.
Man! (colloquially speaking) I thought I was arrogant!
-
Ignoring the various bits from the OP that seem to contradict its declared aim, I agree that theism and atheism are not what I see as significant differences. I met one of my best friends who is a theist because of posting on here. I love him dearly.
There are others who I like and respect, Anchorman, Gabriella (whether violent or not). I don't think atheism shows anything other than not believing in a god. Many atheists are arses.
As are many theists. Including myself.
Do you think it's political? Social? Can it be compared to political party divisions? The atheist vs. theist thing, I mean.
I don't vote. Don't influence legislation in any way. What if all believers were of that ilk? You wouldn't have much to say in opposition if, not unlike comparisons having been made here with theists, if we believed in leprechauns, ghosts, fairies? Unless we made it political? Or do you think it's about quantity? Number of believers compared to unbelievers. Which is impossible to accurately number in my opinion.
I mean, you can say being atheists just means not believing in gods, but you also think that being theist means just believing in gods. It matters little? That seems hard to believe. All the fuss for nothing?
-
TS
Your first post in response to me included the Latin, quis custodias etc ..., and I thought that was interesting because the ony time I have seen that sig line is from one poster on one forum , and I thought, therefore, that your posts would be interesting. Since the person concerned is of a rational, scientific and technological turn of mind, although with a small area of suspension of disbelief, that person is most definitely not you. If that is not correct, please explain.
-
TS
Your first post in response to me included the Latin, quis custodias etc ..., and I thought that was interesting because the ony time I have seen that sig line is from one poster on one forum , and I thought, therefore, that your posts would be interesting. Since the person concerned is of a rational, scientific and technological turn of mind, although with a small area of suspension of disbelief, that person is most definitely not you. If that is not correct, please explain.
It's a common enough phrase. Surely you wouldn't have jumped to such a conclusion. Had I posted on another forum with that sig line you wouldn't have thought I was scientific for any reason other than that sort of hasty conclusion.
The theory of evolution is a myth.
-
It's a common enough phrase. Surely you wouldn't have jumped to such a conclusion. Had I posted on another forum with that sig line you wouldn't have thought I was scientific for any reason other than that sort of hasty conclusion.
The theory of evolution is a myth.
Yes, it could be said to have been slightly naive of me to make that connection! However, at my age I can place some blame on the internet with which some of my contemporaries and I have to run fast on the spot to avoid falling too far behind with its use.
Havve you, during your thirty years of angtagonising as many atheists - and theists - as you can, found a forum where you actually liked the other forum members?
-
Yes, it could be said to have been slightly naive of me to make that connection! However, at my age I can place some blame on the internet with which some of my contemporaries and I have to run fast on the spot to avoid falling too far behind with its use.
Havve you, during your thirty years of angtagonising as many atheists - and theists - as you can, found a forum where you actually liked the other forum members?
Do I seem a disagreeable antagonist to you, Susan? I don't think I've ever been on a forum where I didn't like at least two other members, usually more and I am pleased to be able to say that there have been many cases where that was mutual. If I seem antagonistic don't let that throw you off. It could be a debate tactic to either provoke an emotional response weakening my opponents, or the opposite desired effect of creating in the opponent the need to challenge me due to their disliking of me.
I used to post my real name, address and telephone number on my posts because atheists would criticize me for hiding behind anonymity. I've had atheist forum members mail me postcards from England, I've had believers and unbelievers call me on the telephone from around the U.S. and have had very pleasant conversations with them. I've also had death threats, cyber attacks and been banned from many forums. Sometimes justifiably so and sometimes not. On more than one occasion a dozen or so atheist members protesting my having been unfairly banned and even in one case following me to my own forum.
The thing about me is I am fair and I'm straight forward. I see my own flaws and the flaws in my belief system throughout it's history and I don't in any way try and cover that up or be oblivious to it.
However, I didn't come here to exercise my formidable ego or play games. Nor did I come to make friends or enemies. Don't let my petty ego get in the way of a good discussion and if there is anything I can do for you don't hesitate to ask. I may disagree strongly with you all and I may taunt you unmerciful but I hope to grow to respect and admire you aside from all of that. It isn't personal and consider the possibility that I see atheism itself as antagonizing.
-
Okay, this is probably not going to work, but I heard this crazy idea that to have a dialogue between two opposing groups you should start with where you agree and take it from there.
Fine - let's start from the places where theists and atheists agree - the most obvious being that if there are n purported gods, atheists do not believe in n gods while theists (if monotheist) do not believe in n-1 gods n-a small number gods (if not monotheistic). Given that there are thousands of purported gods this means that theists and atheists agree in their lack of believe in almost every god you can think of.
-
Sure. I care about what you believe.
Obviously not, otherwise you'd be finding out what it was, rather than making it up.
You don't care about what I believe.
There you go again. How do you know?
You guys know I'm just pullin' your chain, don't you?
However, I didn't come here to...play games.
Make up your mind.
-
NTS
I don't see the contradiction in the 2 statements.
TS says he did not come here to play games - so that means that wasn't his intention when he joined.
That does not contradict his statement that in the to and fro of posting and responding he may in the moment post things to provoke either for amusement or to get a response or express his personality. Every poster on here is expressing their personality - it would be boring if they weren't. TS also says he has an ego - pretty much every poster on here seems to be the same.
I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.
ETA: After reading Susan's post I guess I should add that I don't buy into TS's view of himself as brilliant - but it's still a good read and lots of new info I did not know about the Bible.
-
That is, according to the Word document I have copied this onto, 336 words. However, as the Cryptic crossword seems rather hard this weekend and I’ve decided not to do my up-and-down-the-Close walk, even though the sun is out, I’ll spend some time responding.
Do I seem a disagreeable antagonist to you, Susan? I don't think I've ever been on a forum where I didn't like at least two other members, usually more and I am pleased to be able to say that there have been many cases where that was mutual.
I think it is more a case that it sounds as if you are starting with attack and arrogance because you are accustomed to being responded to as most responses here have been, i.e. with logic and reason.If I seem antagonistic don't let that throw you off. It could be a debate tactic to either provoke an emotional response weakening my opponents, or the opposite desired effect of creating in the opponent the need to challenge me due to their disliking of me.
That sounds as if you are placing yourself in a victim role. In other words you are not here for an interesting discussion regardless of whether there is agreement or not at the end of it, but to win a battle. Why not try a change of tactics Give the members of the forum you have joined the benefit of any doubt you might have about them, and respond with a quiet confidence rather than an aggressive tone.I’ve had atheist forum members mail me postcards from England, I've had believers and unbelievers call me on the telephone from around the U.S. and have had very pleasant conversations with them. I've also had death threats, cyber attacks and been banned from many forums.
then I would say that you give reading and posting far too important a place in your life. It is a hobby, not ‘real life’.The thing about me is I am fair and I'm straight forward. I see my own flaws and the flaws in my belief system throughout it's history and I don't in any way try and cover that up or be oblivious to it.
Straightforwardness is good and far better than sly hints and nudges which always reflect badly on the person, not the intended recipient, but I certainy don’t think your posts has shown much in the way of fairness so far.I may disagree strongly with you all and I may taunt you unmerciful
Try expressing it not only firmly but with courtesy. but I hope to grow to respect and admire you aside from all of that. It isn't personal and consider the possibility that I see atheism itself as antagonizing.
In my opinion, you have already made it personal, i.e. emphasising how brilliant you are, or rather believing that is what you are doing. I think you are already finding that this is one forum where that doesn’t work.
I will just point out that every word I ead or post I hear via Synthetic Dave, which is the best synthetic voice I have ever heard, since it sounds like someone speaking received pronunciation with equal pitch and tone for everything.
Edited to remove last sentences which I had not intended.
There are a couple of grammatical errors above, but I'm afraid I'm going to leave them there.
-
Ignoring the various bits from the OP that seem to contradict its declared aim, I agree that theism and atheism are not what I see as significant differences. I met one of my best friends who is a theist because of posting on here. I love him dearly.
There are others who I like and respect, Anchorman, Gabriella (whether violent or not). I don't think atheism shows anything other than not believing in a god. Many atheists are arses.
Would agree that there are no significant differences between atheists and theists. When I was an atheist I think I discussed religion about the same amount as I do now as a theist. As a theist I might read alternative meanings and narratives into things that I might not have done before, but as an atheist I still had a lot of spirituality in the sense of getting caught up in idealistic notions and values of right and wrong, bravery, loyalty, heroics, honour etc.
Thanks NS - I like and respect you too.
-
NTS
I don't see the contradiction in the 2 statements.
TS says he did not come here to play games - so that means that wasn't his intention when he joined.
That does not contradict his statement that in the to and fro of posting and responding he may in the moment post things to provoke either for amusement or to get a response or express his personality. Every poster on here is expressing their personality - it would be boring if they weren't. TS also says he has an ego - pretty much every poster on here seems to be the same.
I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.
ETA: After reading Susan's post I guess I should add that I don't buy into TS's view of himself as brilliant - but it's still a good read and lots of new info I did not know about the Bible.
I would take what TS says about the Bible with a very large pinch of salt. Ask Anchorman
-
NTS
I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.
Let's hope it doesn't just become an exchange of hot air. The topic so far indicates to me that being ignostic is more appropriate i.e. that the 'god' object of belief should be better defined to avoid confusion in discussion. If the individual believes in what the words Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman etc represents then he/she should give some indication what it means to them. It may not be the same as what it meant to the originators of those words.
-
I would take what TS says about the Bible with a very large pinch of salt. Ask Anchorman
Ah ok. I haven't read the Bible thread in the Christianity section but in other posts he quotes stuff. Are you saying his quotes are not accurate or out of context or were you referring to the Bible thread that I haven't read? Might go have a look at it now. I don't know a lot about the Bible but it's interesting getting different perspectives.
-
Let's hope it doesn't just become an exchange of hot air. The topic so far indicates to me that being ignostic is more appropriate i.e. that the 'god' object of belief should be better defined to avoid confusion in discussion. If the individual believes in what the words Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman etc represents then he/she should give some indication what it means to them. It may not be the same as what it meant to the originators of those words.
Yes true. But not sure if it's possible to get a definition everyone will agree on so probably the term will remain unknowable.
God is a very individual concept and it would be impossible to put into words all the feelings, hopes, ideals that the concept conjures up for each individual. Also words can be construed and interpreted in so many different ways so it's probably best to stick to basics, as more words that are used to describe the concept means the endless possible meanings of those words. I did an A'Level in English and I remember analysing just one line of poetry or a sentence in a story could take up a half a page as you try to think of all the various ideas the poet or author is trying to convey and imagery they are trying to conjure up to evoke mutiple feelings and ideas in the reader.
Similarly, the basic concept of God for me is something unique, eternal, everlasting ie. no beginning no end, not of this world ie supernatural, therefore incomprehensible. There are aspects or attributes that people can relate to but each aspect has multiple meanings or interpretations.
-
Fine - let's start from the places where theists and atheists agree - the most obvious being that if there are n purported gods, atheists do not believe in n gods while theists (if monotheist) do not believe in n-1 gods n-a small number gods (if not monotheistic). Given that there are thousands of purported gods this means that theists and atheists agree in their lack of believe in almost every god you can think of.
Okay. That's a good point. On that we agree. But for the sake of clarification I would point out that the emphasis here should be on the word believe rather than gods. I think you have to be careful not to lump all theists into a Christian box. Shintoism, for example, has the fairly recent addition of the Nihongi and Kojiki. Both of which in the past I've posted, illustrated, proofread and corrected the text of on previous websites I've run. They have what they used to call eight million gods, which has now become countless gods by their own estimation. These gods - these two quasi sacred texts, in fact - were created as mythological instruction primarily to Japan's youth. They weren't meant to be taken literally.
The ancient Jews and early Christians were neither monotheistic or polytheistic. They were, like myself and JWs, henotheistic. Though generally described as polytheistic I think henotheistic actually applies to Shintoism as well. The point being that there is a difference between belief in gods in a literal sense as in existing and the belief that there are gods in the strict sense that a god doesn't have to exist to be a god.
Both atheist and theist will acknowledge the exitance of gods in this sense. So, the ancient Jews of the Bible would venerate the concept of gods in the strict sense that I've been criticised for presenting when they followed the "valueless gods" of the surrounding nations, like their sacrificing their Children by fire to those types of gods. Gods are often only a mascot of sorts. A symbolic representation of that sort of behaviour. (trying to write British English. Maybe I shouldn't. I have enough trouble with American English) The resulting practices could be sexual, social, cultural, material.
Though the Jews and Christians believed Jehovah to exist in a literal sense, it wasn't necessarily the case with the "false" gods they went after. More often than not it was symbolic representation resulting in bad behavior.
-
Obviously not, otherwise you'd be finding out what it was, rather than making it up.
There you go again. How do you know?
Make up your mind.
Very well. Tell me what you believe.
-
Ah ok. I haven't read the Bible thread in the Christianity section but in other posts he quotes stuff. Are you saying his quotes are not accurate or out of context or were you referring to the Bible thread that I haven't read? Might go have a look at it now. I don't know a lot about the Bible but it's interesting getting different perspectives.
From the various phrases he uses, it would appear that he's quoting the Watchtower 'translation'. Certainly his views agree in many respects with the Jehovah's Witnesses, which he admits.
His whole approach is largely 'pre-critical', and he seems to know practically nothing of the findings of the 'critical period' of biblical research e.g. as detailed in Albert Schweitzer's book 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus' (originally called From Reimarus to Wrede). It would be nice think that he was acquainted with the work of Julius Wellhausen regarding the Old Testament, or at least, more recently Richard Elliott Friedman. But I suspect he isn't. His approach is largely that of the literalist believer.
And his attitude to historical research is also a pile of pants.
-
TS
Hey! Here's a first - I agree with what you say about the henotheistic beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.
-
As are many theists. Including myself.
Do you think it's political? Social? Can it be compared to political party divisions? The atheist vs. theist thing, I mean.
I don't vote. Don't influence legislation in any way. What if all believers were of that ilk? You wouldn't have much to say in opposition if, not unlike comparisons having been made here with theists, if we believed in leprechauns, ghosts, fairies? Unless we made it political? Or do you think it's about quantity? Number of believers compared to unbelievers. Which is impossible to accurately number in my opinion.
I mean, you can say being atheists just means not believing in gods, but you also think that being theist means just believing in gods. It matters little? That seems hard to believe. All the fuss for nothing?
I think being a theist itself does just mean that. I treat people as individuals and whether they are atheist or theist only tells me one almost completely unimportant thing.
-
NTS
I don't see the contradiction in the 2 statements.
TS says he did not come here to play games - so that means that wasn't his intention when he joined.
That does not contradict his statement that in the to and fro of posting and responding he may in the moment post things to provoke either for amusement or to get a response or express his personality. Every poster on here is expressing their personality - it would be boring if they weren't. TS also says he has an ego - pretty much every poster on here seems to be the same.
I might not agree with some/ a lot of what TS says but I mostly find his style of writing enjoyable/ entertaining to read. I think there's a flow to it - kind of like a breeze has blown in.
Yeah! How'd ya' like me now?!
Seriously, I've seen a lot of very intelligent unbelievers criticizing theism in a way that would seem juvenile and facetious. It's a transmogrification. Mocking. I don't see much wrong with it. To me it expresses their contempt in a manner which they see worthy of what they criticize. I don't like putting on a show. I have a similar approach, only on the other side of the fence. Take it for what it is. I see an ugly trend taking shape here, though. The discussion is becoming more and more about me. I don't want that at all, believe it or not.
ETA: After reading Susan's post I guess I should add that I don't buy into TS's view of himself as brilliant - but it's still a good read and lots of new info I did not know about the Bible.
Someone else further down in the thread makes the same point and it baffles me. I consider myself to have the intellectual capacity of, say - Winnie The Pooh - and I stole that line from an old British Sitcom. Nothing I say is particularly clever or original. Most of the meat of it would be familiar with, as I've pointed out, JW children of a very young age.
A great deal of my own thinking comes not from any intellectual ability but from a unique willingness to look at everything through unbiased critical skepticism. Thus the name Theoretical Skeptic. Most people, believer and unbeliever alike, are rigid in their beliefs and will promote them almost as if they were infallible. As if they were wrong or were to misstep reality would crash in around them. I don't think like that. I have had, from a very early age, a profound distrust of authority and the general consensus. This is reflected in my belief in politics, religion - everything.
-
I think it is more a case that it sounds as if you are starting with attack and arrogance because you are accustomed to being responded to as most responses here have been, i.e. with logic and reason.
I'm sorry, but that seems like a far too easy conclusion for you to have drawn from our exchanges so far. It's typical though. As long as I agree with your take on things then that could only be perceived as logic and reason. Any deviation of that would naturally be illogical and unreasonable. You're going to have to do better than that to impress me.
That sounds as if you are placing yourself in a victim role. In other words you are not here for an interesting discussion regardless of whether there is agreement or not at the end of it, but to win a battle.
The only real victory in this sort of exchange is an interesting discussion. To expect agreement would be foolish and compromise the interesting discussion.
Why not try a change of tactics Give the members of the forum you have joined the benefit of any doubt you might have about them, and respond with a quiet confidence rather than an aggressive tone.
Since you've asked politely I will do exactly that from here on out.
Then I would say that you give reading and posting far too important a place in your life. It is a hobby, not ‘real life’.
There was a time long ago when I gave it far too important a place in my life. Not any more.
Straightforwardness is good and far better than sly hints and nudges which always reflect badly on the person, not the intended recipient, but I certainy don’t think your posts has shown much in the way of fairness so far.
That isn't good in my eyes. Fairness is extremely important to me.
Try expressing it not only firmly but with courtesy.
As you wish.
In my opinion, you have already made it personal, i.e. emphasising how brilliant you are, or rather believing that is what you are doing.
That was certainly never my intention. I don't look at it like that.
I think you are already finding that this is one forum where that doesn’t work.
Let's not get carried away. I think you may overestimate the forum.
-
I would take what TS says about the Bible with a very large pinch of salt. Ask Anchorman
My personal advice is to take everything everyone says with a very large pinch of salt. That would include you, myself and Anchorman as well.
-
Let's hope it doesn't just become an exchange of hot air. The topic so far indicates to me that being ignostic is more appropriate i.e. that the 'god' object of belief should be better defined to avoid confusion in discussion. If the individual believes in what the words Elohim, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman etc represents then he/she should give some indication what it means to them. It may not be the same as what it meant to the originators of those words.
I agree and I think I've tried to do that. I've pointed out that my concept of gods is different, and how it is different and I've concluded that subject by compromising or taking into account that the majority of the posters here differ from me in that regard.
-
Ah ok. I haven't read the Bible thread in the Christianity section but in other posts he quotes stuff. Are you saying his quotes are not accurate or out of context or were you referring to the Bible thread that I haven't read? Might go have a look at it now. I don't know a lot about the Bible but it's interesting getting different perspectives.
I've heard DU's sort of criticism before and I think it means that it's his opinion that I shouldn't be taken at all serious. Steve Wells, the owner of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible once invited me to post on his blog, Dwindling In Unbelief, telling me he would like a believer's perspective since he had a lack thereof, then when I posted a couple responses he told his readers to ignore me because that's what he was going to do.
People, huh? I can't figure them out.
-
Similarly, the basic concept of God for me is something unique, eternal, everlasting ie. no beginning no end, not of this world ie supernatural, therefore incomprehensible. There are aspects or attributes that people can relate to but each aspect has multiple meanings or interpretations.
But, you see, that's just one specific God.
-
TS
Hey! Here's a first - I agree with what you say about the henotheistic beliefs of the ancient Hebrews.
Really? Well, there ya' go. We do have things in common. Of course, you'll forgive me if my fragile old brain hasn't allowed me to familiarize myself with the regular posters here yet. Avatars are very helpful, but still. Are you an unbeliever or believer?
-
The discussion is becoming more and more about me. I don't want that at all, believe it or not.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-
I think being a theist itself does just mean that. I treat people as individuals and whether they are atheist or theist only tells me one almost completely unimportant thing.
Yes. I agree that theist and atheist doesn't include anything other than their intended meaning, but being one or the other has various effects on who we are, how we think, what we do to some extent, don't you think?
-
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
We shall see.
-
TS,
Specifically or just in general?
Specifically the matter you asked whether you were wrong about.
Everything everyone says here regarding theism is opinion. You say I'm wrong. I say you are wrong. That's the game. Don't think I don't know who you are.
No it isn’t. Sometimes people only assert their beliefs to be true; sometimes people provide arguments to justify them. These are epistemically different positions that you cannot just reduce to “it’s all opinion”.
Again, specifically or are you operating on the assumption that whatever I say about the Bible and God and gods is false? According to you whatever I have to say about the aforementioned subjects is wrong. My lengthy posts on historicity and Genesis chapter one, for example. I don't recall a well informed rebuttal of any of that. I just recall people like you, in some sense, saying I was wrong. I don't recall an argument, really. Do we need to revisit those?
I don't think so because, well, I'm just wrong, correct?
You’ve missed the point. What I actually asked you wasn’t about your textural analysis of Genesis - it was whether you believed its factual claims to be true. You said that you do, but you’re unable to explain why. I don’t just assume that whatever you say about the Bible/God is false – what I identify though is your inability to justify your beliefs rationally so you give me no reason to think you’re right.
You may have to refresh my memory. I don't recall that. I'm not familiar with everyone here yet, but all I recall is people saying things like I'm wrong. No explanation. Just wrong.
That’s plainly not true. Whenever I identify that you’re wrong about something I take the trouble to explain to you why you’re wrong. To take an example, I’ve explained to you why diluting terms like “god” so far that they become stripped of their delineating theistic meaning so as hide behind your deracinated version is cheating. You could have tried to rebut that with a counter-argument of your own but instead you repeat the initial mistake, presumably in the hope the problem will just go away.
[Laughs] Okay. Well, I'll have to try to remember that.
Yes. If you do have an argument that isn’t wrong to justify your beliefs, why not tell us what it is? Why keep is a secret? Why paint yourself as just another faith head, epistemically indistinguishable from the leprechaunist?
Now I think you are telling the truth as you see it. No argument from you. I'm just wrong. Not much point in it, is there? Except for perhaps that I see and am willing to acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong and you are right. That's why I call you (fundamentalist militant atheists as a collective) ideologues. Now, in my nearly 30 years of debating these atheists I've actually come across a few that were well informed outside of tradition and capable of making good points. Arguments. I'm not saying it isn't here, I'm just saying I haven't seen it. But I'm still interested in hearing your argument. So . . . anytime. [looks at watch]
Again, yes you have seen the argument. There is no method to distinguish faith claims from just guessing; there is a method to distinguish reasoned claims from just guessing – it’s called logic, and it’s verifiable with real world applications. Try comparing jumping out of a 20th storey window because it’s your faith that you’ll land safely with my reasoned argument that it won’t end well. Reducing all epistemic claims to equivalence (“OK, I might be guessing but so are you”) is sometime known as “going nuclear”. Here’s why it’s a bad idea:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
No, I have to correct your ignorance of language, which is why that is what I first attempted to do, announcing at that time that it was a futile excursion.
Not even close. It’s not a correction to keep eructating the claim that words with multiple meanings can be treated as if they mean the same thing.
[Sigh] Colloquial and metaphoric applications of the word God doesn't negate the meaning of the word. Examples of various Gods, gods, and goddesses are not meanings of the word. All you have to tell me is what does it take to be a god. If you say religious, supernatural, colloquial, metaphoric or give only examples of the word God (or god) you are not giving it's meaning. It's meaning is implicit in the application as well as the example but not given in it's use. To do so would be the same as saying that the meaning of the word man, prince, king, lord et cetera used in a similar way would be definitive of those words or negate their meaning.
(Bigger sigh…) Yes colloquial use of the term “god” do “negate” the religious meaning. This relationship between language and reality really has got you foxed still hasn’t it. If someone wants to say “I believe in god” they intend that term to have a meaning – and when the context is religious that meaning requires his god to have some basic religious properties (typically non-materiality for example). What he isn’t saying though is that those same properties somehow become invested in an object that someone happens to think to be very good or to “venerate”. If you expand the contextual meaning of "god" to include any other meaning the statement “I believe in god” becomes white noise. Which use of the term “god” is the speaker trying to tell us he believes in?
The definition of atheism doesn't specify which God or gods are in question. The term disbelief or lack of belief isn't exclusively a religious connotation.
Yes it is. It’s an epistemic response to the claims religious people make about their religious gods. Disagreeing with someone’s opinion about Clapton on the other hand doesn’t thereby make me an atheist – it just means we have different tastes in music.
The disbelief or lack of belief isn't a trust as in, for example, the Latin word credit, it's a question of existence. The only way an atheist can adhere to the term atheist by definition is to limit the use of the word God and gods thereby excluding most applications and negating the meaning of the word itself.
This is more of the same nonsense. Atheism is merely a response to the claims religious people make about their religious gods. Different, colloquial uses of the term “god” have no relevance to that.
The result is an ignorance, not only of the use of God and gods in a Biblical and theological structure but also the possibility that the concept of God and gods in their intended meaning in any language, primitive or otherwise, of any religious or secular application is erroneous.
Oh dear. The atheist can only respond to the claims about gods that are bought to his attention. More to the point, atheists can only respond to the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs in those gods. That’s it – nothing more, nothing less. Yes I am “ignorant” of most of the countless gods people have claimed over the millennia (as are you), but that has no impact on my atheism. Atheism isn’t the statement “there are no gods”; it’s just the statement “I have no good reason to think there to be gods”. That’s why I’m an atheist. What aren't you?
In other words, an atheist may have many gods in their lives which they don't even know are gods.
Yes, but until someone can justify that speculation the atheist has no reason to think that to be the case and so proceeds accordingly.
This can be a problem if the atheist should become theist. So for Jehovah God of the Bible to say you shall have no other gods before me isn't a command to abstain from metaphoric or colloquial applications as can be seen in those very uses in context to the command itself. It begs the question what is or who are those gods?
That’s a second order problem, relevant only if you have persuasive reasons to think them to exist at all.
So the theists try to explain this away by dividing all other gods in comparison to the One True God as being false as opposed to the true, but that doesn't make sense because some were true (Moses, Jesus, the Judges of Israel) and some weren't. Satan, Molech, Ashtoreth, Dagon et cetera. The tactic of the atheist is to say no literal god ever existed, (by extension excluding any colloquial or metaphoric application) which doesn't make sense because, at least to them, Moses, Jesus and the Judges of Israel existed in a literal sense.
Atheism does not say that gods don’t exist/have never existed at all. That would be a statement of certainty that’s would be impossible to justify. That’s why an atheist need only confine himself to the statement, “I have no good reasons to think that gods do or have ever existed”. Sure as an atheist I proceed as if there are/were no gods, but epistemically that’s not what atheism requires.
I’ve corrected you on this several time now – why then do you keep misrepresenting atheism?
And that doesn't even begin to address the complications of such an argument presents to Shintoism and Hinduism. The latter which was addressed briefly by Sriram in our discussions of gods and the former which I myself brought up. I think. If I didn't then I am now.
It can certainly be argued that ultimately, at least given the very common misconception, pedantic and as far as I'm concerned we've given it more than enough time.
?
Yeah, sure. You just keep repeating that you are right and I'm wrong. No reason to give any reason. No real argument. Who's going to disagree with you? Pat yourself on the back for being obstinately obtuse with just the right smug self righteous ideological dispossession. Typical atheist tactic.
No I don’t. When I tell you that you’re wrong I also tell you why you’re wrong. Ironically, your charge of repetition describes you rather than me – when you’re given falsifying arguments, why won’t you try to rebut them with reasoning of your own rather than the same falsified assertions?
Why would you make such an ignorant statement? You suggest that to be faithful exclusively applies to the theistic or religious?
“Faith” is a term religious people use in a context. I was merely showing you that your tactic of dragging multiple meanings into one so as to make meaningful contextualised discussion impossible applies equally to this term as much as it does to “god”, “divine” etc.
Venerated colloquially or metaphorically speaking? What about your "devil's food" cake? Implicit in the Devil's existence? Angel food cake? What does devil mean? Slanderer. Angel? Messenger. What's that got to do with cake? Dark. Light. It's nonsensical.
Damn these words!
No, words are fine. What isn’t fine though is homogenising their sometimes multiple meanings as Trojan horses for specifically religious discussions.
I dare say it's not such a mystery.
That’s what she says.
If I were mentally challenged the equivalent would be lost upon me but it isn't, you see. It's lost upon you. That's okay, though, because we can carry on as if the specific God in question regarding atheism and theism, for that matter, is as limited as you suggest. I told you you wouldn't get it. I know that when you say God you mean one specific God or application of God's most commonly known in Western culture.
Ah, and there’s the straw man – another fallacy. I’ve not said that theism/atheism concerns a specific god at all, as you know full well. What I’ve actually said is that if you want to discuss god(s) in a religious context, then you need to use that term in its religious sense. If instead you want to talk about Clapton though then start a correspondence in Rolling Stone with no religious context at all. Just smashing different meanings together is called a category error – (yet) another fallacy.
HEY! Don't knock my ability to rant in a most excellent fashion! Nor underestimate the, uh, the . . . whatsit? Jovial operation of error. Try to Google that, my illusive argumentative, and I'll show you a green dog, see if I don't!
I didn’t knock it – you’re very competent at reason-free ranting (and at describing same as “excellent points”). That’s not a good thing though.
Man! (colloquially speaking) I thought I was arrogant!
With reason. If you can’t produce coherent and cogent reasons to justify your beliefs to others though, why would it not give you pause that you can’t justify them to yourself either?
-
Yes. I agree that theist and atheist doesn't include anything other than their intended meaning, but being one or the other has various effects on who we are, how we think, what we do to some extent, don't you think?
in and of itself, no.
-
Yeah! How'd ya' like me now?!
Seriously, I've seen a lot of very intelligent unbelievers criticizing theism in a way that would seem juvenile and facetious. It's a transmogrification. Mocking. I don't see much wrong with it. To me it expresses their contempt in a manner which they see worthy of what they criticize. I don't like putting on a show. I have a similar approach, only on the other side of the fence. Take it for what it is. I see an ugly trend taking shape here, though. The discussion is becoming more and more about me. I don't want that at all, believe it or not.
Someone else further down in the thread makes the same point and it baffles me. I consider myself to have the intellectual capacity of, say - Winnie The Pooh - and I stole that line from an old British Sitcom. Nothing I say is particularly clever or original. Most of the meat of it would be familiar with, as I've pointed out, JW children of a very young age.
A great deal of my own thinking comes not from any intellectual ability but from a uniquely and I think rare willingness to look at everything through unbiased critical skepticism. Thus the name Theoretical Skeptic. Most people, believer and unbeliever alike, are rigid in their beliefs and will promote them almost as if they were infallible. As if they were wrong or were to misstep reality would crash in around them. I don't think like that. I have had, from a very early age, a profound distrust of authority and the general consensus. This is reflected in my belief in politics, religion - everything.
British humour is often a mix of intelligence, juvelinity and facetiousness. But yes the latter two can get a bit irritating when trying to have a discussion.
-
But, you see, that's just one specific God.
Yes - that's why I said I was explaining my concept. I can't speak for anyone else's concepts.
My point was that discussion is fun but it's all theoretical so we can just end up getting nowhere. Religions often contain various stories for the purpose of illustration but each story will be interpreted slightly differently by the reader and will have a unique meaning to them based on their own unique interpretations of their life experiences.
-
I'm sorry, but that seems like a far too easy conclusion for you to have drawn from our exchanges so far. It's typical though.
If you had taken a bit longer before writing a response, you'd have noticed that I edited my post because that was not a courteous thing to say. I had not realised it was still there when I posted - I thought I had in fact deleted it.As long as I agree with your take on things then that could only be perceived as logic and reason. Any deviation of that would naturally be illogical and unreasonable. You're going to have to do better than that to impress me.
I never write to impress anybodyand that includes you! You delude yourself if you think otherwise.
I will respond to the rest of your post later.
-
I have listened to the rest of your post. I see there is one thing to respond to: No, I do not think I over-estimate the forum.
-
TS,
The theory of evolution is a myth.
You might want to remember that you said that if ever you or a loved one need a life-saving medical treatment that exists only because of the practical application of the evolutionary theory you assert to be “a myth”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
-
The theory of evolution is a myth.
Are you saying that the theory us a myth or that evolution is a myth?
I ask because I have seen that phrase used before but it turns out when asked to clarify, it was meant that evolution is a myth, not the theory.
Regards.
-
Similarly, the basic concept of God for me is something unique, eternal, everlasting ie. no beginning no end, not of this world ie supernatural, therefore incomprehensible. There are aspects or attributes that people can relate to but each aspect has multiple meanings or interpretations.
Yes, that is one of the problems with incomprehensible concepts, they are mind forged but pretty impossible to defend rationally. Many organised religions attempt to instil such concepts into the minds of converts to the extent that it forms part of their 'self' and can motivate them to become self assertive. For some, intellectual debate is not the way. I notice that you have a quote from Rumi. Here is another 'God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.'
-
The theory of evolution is a myth.
Really? And your evidence for this being?
And what do you actually mean - the 'theory' usually ascribed to evolution is the theory of natural selection. Is that what you mean? Or are you actually suggesting that evolution (in other words the change in heritable characteristics in species over generations) is a myth. If the latter, good luck with demonstrating that evolution doesn't happen. I think you are onto a losing battle if you try that.
-
Really? Well, there ya' go. We do have things in common. Of course, you'll forgive me if my fragile old brain hasn't allowed me to familiarize myself with the regular posters here yet. Avatars are very helpful, but still. Are you an unbeliever or believer?
Unbeliever
-
TS,
You might want to remember that you said that if ever you or a loved one need a life-saving medical treatment that exists only because of the practical application of the evolutionary theory you assert to be “a myth”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
Alchemy has played a significant role in the development of modern chemistry, medicine and psychology. The etymology of the modern word, chemistry, comes from the Arabic alkīmiyā (al 'the' + kīmiyā), which comes from the ancient Greek word chēmeía, meaning "black magic." Source (http://www.biofuelnet.ca/nce/2015/05/28/alchemy-tradition-spanning-millennia-became-modern-chemistry/#:~:text=Alchemy%20has%20played%20a%20significant,%2C%20meaning%20%E2%80%9Cblack%20magic%E2%80%9D.)
Cancer: The Forbidden Cures (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXRbDXgPwq0)
-
Are you saying that the theory us a myth or that evolution is a myth?
I ask because I have seen that phrase used before but it turns out when asked to clarify, it was meant that evolution is a myth, not the theory.
Regards.
Like most people I was introduced to the theory of evolution in public school. I didn't become a believer until many years later and to me, at the time, evolution seemed a more ridiculous concept than religion. It is interesting to me that all of my friends and family, except my mother, have always been atheists who don't believe in evolution to this day.
I don't see what the difference between the terms evolution and theory of evolution are. To me they are the same thing.
-
TS,
Alchemy has played a significant role in the development of modern chemistry, medicine and psychology. The etymology of the modern word, chemistry, comes from the Arabic alkīmiyā (al 'the' + kīmiyā), which comes from the ancient Greek word chēmeía, meaning "black magic." Source
Cancer: The Forbidden Cures
Alchemy is referred to as a protoscience – it stands in relation to chemistry as astrology stands to astronomy. In the 18h century though rigour and discipline were applied to various such folk beliefs about the world so the earlier, comparatively crude attempts at understanding and predicting the observed universe fell away. They were replaced with fields of knowledge that gave us penicillin and the space shuttle rather than burning sage leaves and thinking the stars were torches behind windows in the sky.
Like most people I was introduced to the theory of evolution in public school. I didn't become a believer until many years later and to me, at the time, evolution seemed a more ridiculous concept than religion.
Why on earth would you (or anyone) think that?
It is interesting to me that all of my friends and family, except my mother, have always been atheists who don't believe in evolution to this day.
Really? Do they also not believe in the theories of gravity and of germs causing disease? After all, if you’re going to be an evidence-denier in one field of knowledge on what basis would you not also be an evidence-denier in any other?
I don't see what the difference between the terms evolution and theory of evolution are. To me they are the same thing.
It’s simple enough: evolution is the observation of what happens; the ToE is the explanation of how it happens. If it helps, think of the analogy with gravity: gravity is the observation that (say) apples fall to the ground; the theory of gravity is the explanation of why they fall.
-
Like most people I was introduced to the theory of evolution in public school. I didn't become a believer until many years later and to me, at the time, evolution seemed a more ridiculous concept than religion. It is interesting to me that all of my friends and family, except my mother, have always been atheists who don't believe in evolution to this day.
I don't see what the difference between the terms evolution and theory of evolution are. To me they are the same thing.
So, you are dismissing something you know nothing about (as demonstrated by your last sentence) because of personal incredulity (a fallacy). Do you dismiss everything in science that's counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics and relativity maybe) that you don't understand, or is it just evolution?
FYI (just in case you want to correct your ignorance): evolution is an observed fact, the theory of evolution explains the fact and is backed up by an abundance of evidence.
-
Really? And your evidence for this being?
I have nothing against science, but it has never been an interest of mine. I rejected evolution when I was taught it throughout school. I don't normally answer questions with just links, but given it isn't an interest of mine I will just give you some links which I have considered as evidence against evolution over the years.
Watchtower: Evolution Versus Creation (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/evolution-versus-creation/)
Watchtower: Creation Book (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ce)
David Berlinski: Rebellious Intellectual Defies Darwinism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740)
David Berlinski: Uncommon Knowledge - The Deniable Darwin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEaJDksxls)
And boy, y'all's gonna hate this. I don't agree with pretty much anything he has to say about the Bible and dinosaurs but I like this. Kent Hovind: 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIWwfEq2-U)
And what do you actually mean - the 'theory' usually ascribed to evolution is the theory of natural selection. Is that what you mean? Or are you actually suggesting that evolution (in other words the change in heritable characteristics in species over generations) is a myth. If the latter, good luck with demonstrating that evolution doesn't happen. I think you are onto a losing battle if you try that.
Debating Evolution doesn't interest me. In the past on atheist forums I've eventually taken on the position that if you want to discuss evolution with me you have to teach it to me and I will ask questions of a skeptical nature. This with the stipulation that God isn't mentioned and you do it in your own words, not links or reading lists. I've discovered that even when atheist proposition to teach me evolution they only really want to convince me there isn't a God.
I don't mix the two. If anyone is interested in such an exchange start a new thread and PM me so I know the thread exists.
-
Bluehill and NTTS see my response to Davey.
-
TS,
I have nothing against science, but it has never been an interest of mine. I rejected evolution when I was taught it throughout school. I don't normally answer questions with just links, but given it isn't an interest of mine I will just give you some links which I have considered as evidence against evolution over the years.
Watchtower: Evolution Versus Creation
Watchtower: Creation Book
David Berlinski: Rebellious Intellectual Defies Darwinism
David Berlinski: Uncommon Knowledge - The Deniable Darwin
And boy, y'all's gonna hate this. I don't agree with pretty much anything he has to say about the Bible and dinosaurs but I like this. Kent Hovind: 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid
Debating Evolution doesn't interest me. In the past on atheist forums I've eventually taken on the position that if you want to discuss evolution with me you have to teach it to me and I will ask questions of a skeptical nature. This with the stipulation that God isn't mentioned and you do it in your own words, not links or reading lists. I've discovered that even when atheist proposition to teach me evolution they only really want to convince me there isn't a God.
I don't mix the two. If anyone is interested in such an exchange start a new thread and PM me so I know the thread exists.
If by your own admission you’re ignorant of the science on what basis do you dismiss it? The links refer to people and to arguments that are just as ignorant – so you’re proposing that ignorance upon ignorance is a sound basis to dismiss something. Does this not trouble you at all?
If you want to be taught about evolution (and, more particularly, about the ToE) there are people here who can help you with that. There are plenty of online resources available to you too. Why then dismiss it until you at least try to understand it?
-
I have nothing against science, but it has never been an interest of mine. I rejected evolution when I was taught it throughout school. I don't normally answer questions with just links, but given it isn't an interest of mine I will just give you some links which I have considered as evidence against evolution over the years.
Watchtower: Evolution Versus Creation (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/evolution-versus-creation/)
Watchtower: Creation Book (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ce)
David Berlinski: Rebellious Intellectual Defies Darwinism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740)
David Berlinski: Uncommon Knowledge - The Deniable Darwin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEaJDksxls)
And boy, y'all's gonna hate this. I don't agree with pretty much anything he has to say about the Bible and dinosaurs but I like this. Kent Hovind: 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIWwfEq2-U)
Sorry I asked for evidence - you know the stuff that is demonstrated through objective and repeatable observation. I didn't ask for unevidenced assertion which is what you have provided.
And the notion that you freely admit to having no interest in science suggests you are a stranger to the very notion of what evidence means.
-
Debating Evolution doesn't interest me. In the past on atheist forums I've eventually taken on the position that if you want to discuss evolution with me you have to teach it to me and I will ask questions of a skeptical nature. This with the stipulation that God isn't mentioned and you do it in your own words, not links or reading lists. I've discovered that even when atheist proposition to teach me evolution they only really want to convince me there isn't a God.
I don't mix the two. If anyone is interested in such an exchange start a new thread and PM me so I know the thread exists.
So you dismiss evolution on a message board then claim you have no interest in debating evolution - a case of double standards me thinks.
And you still haven't explained what you mean. Do you mean that:
1. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a myth or
2. That evolution is a myth
Those two aren't the same thing.
-
Sorry I asked for evidence - you know the stuff that is demonstrated through objective and repeatable observation. I didn't ask for unevidenced assertion which is what you have provided.
And the notion that you freely admit to having no interest in science suggests you are a stranger to the very notion of what evidence means.
No. It suggest that I have no interest in science.
-
So you dismiss evolution on a message board then claim you have no interest in debating evolution - a case of double standards me thinks.
And you still haven't explained what you mean. Do you mean that:
1. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a myth or
2. That evolution is a myth
Those two aren't the same thing.
You read my proposition. Teach me, a skeptic, with the conditions I mentioned or don't bother me on the subject. In a new thread.
-
TS
If that first Watchtower book is a later version of "Did Mankind get here by Evolution or Creation?", and you think this presents a reasoned scientific argument against evolution, then your standards are to say the least nebulous and about as scientific as Old Moore's Almanac.
I read that JW book in my teens and I thought some of arguments put forward showed no real understanding of the subject, and where the authors weren't deliberately quoting out of context, they showed an offence to logic verging on imbecility.
-
TS,
You read my proposition. Teach me, a skeptic, with the conditions I mentioned or don't bother me on the subject. In a new thread.
If you want to be taught something, that's fine. The question though concerned why you think it's fine to dismiss something as "a myth" when, by your own admission, you know nothing about it.
-
TS
If that first Watchtower book is a later version of "Did Mankind get here by Evolution or Creation?", and you think this presents a reasoned scientific argument against evolution, then your standards are to say the least nebulous and about as scientific as Old Moore's Almanac.
I read that JW book in my teens and I thought some of arguments put forward showed no real understanding of the subject, and where the authors weren't deliberately quoting out of context, they showed an offence to logic verging on imbecility.
People on this forum have a real bad habit of dismissing everything they don't agree with simply as imbecility. You read my proposition on a discussion of evolution in a new thread. Hey, take me up on it.
-
TS,
If you want to be taught something, that's fine. The question though concerned why you think it's fine to dismiss something as "a myth" when, by your own admission, you know nothing about it.
You should talk. Teach me or drop it. That's all I have to say.
-
TS,
You should talk. Teach me or drop it. That's all I have to say.
What would you like to know? The basic underpinnings of the ToE? Why Hovind et al get it wrong? Answers to FAQs about evolution/the ToE?
And again, why call something " a myth" when you know nothing abut it?
-
TS,
What would you like to know? The basic underpinnings of the ToE? Why Hovind et al get it wrong? Answers to FAQs about evolution/the ToE?
And again, why call something " a myth" when you know nothing abut it?
I know enough about it. Start a new thread, teach me, in your own words.
-
You should talk. Teach me or drop it. That's all I have to say.
Oh, if only that was in fact all you have to say ...
Your arrogance appears to know no bounds.
-
You should talk. Teach me or drop it. That's all I have to say.
How is it possible to claim that something you say you don't understand is a myth.
-
I know enough about it.
Obviously not. Not only did you not know the difference between the phenomenon and the theory but you linked to the hideous watchtower site, which I made the mistake of visiting and skimming through. I felt the need for a hot shower afterwards to wash off the stench of bullshit and dishonest misrepresentation.
Start a new thread, teach me, in your own words.
Whereas the principle of evolution by natural selection is fairly simple, if you want to learn about the details and the evidence that supports it, then there's a lot to learn and doing it on a message board with no links is just a silly condition obviously designed to make it impractical.
The fact is that you made an obviously false claim that "the theory of evolution is a myth" (even if you think it's wrong, that doesn't change the fact that it's a scientific theory, not a myth) from a position of ignorance and now you're running away from the subject.
-
TS,
I know enough about it. Start a new thread, teach me, in your own words.
You want a course in evolutionary biology? First, it’s a big subject that I’m not qualified to teach, and second why on earth should I invest a huge amount of my time even I was qualified? It’s simple enough – just buy a book and read it. Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True” is as good a place to start as any.
If you do that and still have specific questions I’ll be pleased to do my best to answer them. In the meantime though, on what basis do you blithely tell us that “evolution is a myth” when you know nothing of it? What fraction of understanding is that you think you have than justifies discounting a vast body of knowledge that’s overwhelmingly well-evidenced in multiple independent fields of study, and that has many real world applications – some of which could even save your life one day?
TS (Reply 69):
People on this forum have a real bad habit of dismissing everything they don't agree with simply as imbecility...
Also TS (Reply 18):
The theory of evolution is a myth.
Hmmm…
-
a vast body of knowledge that’s overwhelmingly well-evidenced in multiple independent fields of study, and that has many real world applications – some of which could even save your life one day?
Excrement.
-
Excrement.
Good description of your knowledge of the subject. Don't blame other people for your appalling ignorance.
-
Excrement.
But since you've effectively said you know so little about the subject, apart from the noisome sewage eructated by Watchtower Inc, I suggest that such a 'judgment' is premature.
See, I've got the advantage on you - I've actually read the scientifically illiterate tripe from the Watchtower market stall, and have also read the writings of genuine scientists.
For me the best of all writers on evolution is the wonderful Stephen J. Gould, palaeontologist, essayist on wide ranging subjects, and a man of the widest culture. He even managed to find scientific import in baseball and the statistical relevance in the sale of Hershey Bars. Yes, guess what - he was AMERICAN. Your country should be proud of him.
-
Good description of your knowledge of the subject. Don't blame other people for your appalling ignorance.
Eugenics for the modern man. See there was a schism. Two groups embraced the nonsense. Racists and atheists. Accountability was the issue with the latter. So with the advent of the steam powered ships and the subsequent international travel the prudish elite of western civilization got their first real look at exotic animals sent from abroad for their amusement. This at a time when even piano legs were covered for decency. They took to dressing chimps in clothes and making comparisons to dark skinned people in the artwork alongside the aforementioned Flintstones. When the nonsense of evolution caught on the phony intellectual atheists of that time embraced it to dispense with their bothersome accountability before the religious nuts and their idea of God who still ran the show.
-
But since you've effectively said you know so little about the subject, apart from the noisome sewage eructated by Watchtower Inc, I suggest that such a 'judgment' is premature.
The sewage of the Watchtower is preferable to that of Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Darwin the failed preacher running around trying to find any snake oil cure for his poor daughter, and the Nazis.
See, I've got the advantage on you - I've actually read the scientifically illiterate tripe from the Watchtower market stall, and have also read the writings of genuine scientists.
I don't think your scientific expertise compares to Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, has done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants for the past 30 years, for 21 of those years with the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany. Also an elder in the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Byron Leon Meadows works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. He is currently involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather and other planetary phenomena. Also an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses.
Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey of Flagstaff, Arizona. For 30 years doing work in scientific research in various
fields of geology including planetary geology. He has had dozens of research articles and geologic maps of Mars published in accredited scientific journals,
and is also a JW.
Paula Kincheloe has several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. In addition to studies in DNA,
RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways she is also a volunteer Bible instructor for Russian speaking communities as a JW.
Enrique Hernandez-Lemus is a full time minister with the JW's and also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. His secular
work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as gravothermal catastrophe, a mechanism of star growth. He has also worked with the complexity in DNA sequences.
For me the best of all writers on evolution is the wonderful Stephen J. Gould, palaeontologist, essayist on wide ranging subjects, and a man of the widest culture. He even managed to find scientific import in baseball and the statistical relevance in the sale of Hershey Bars. Yes, guess what - he was AMERICAN. Your country should be proud of him.
Gould preached Theodosius Dobzhansky as "the greatest evolutionist of our century" but Dobzhansky dismissed Gould's argument on mutations as irrelevant.
Guess where I learned that.
-
Eugenics for the modern man. See there was a schism. Two groups embraced the nonsense. Racists and atheists. Accountability was the issue with the latter. So with the advent of the steam powered ships and the subsequent international travel the prudish elite of western civilization got their first real look at exotic animals sent from abroad for their amusement. This at a time when even piano legs were covered for decency. They took to dressing chimps in clothes and making comparisons to dark skinned people in the artwork alongside the aforementioned Flintstones.
The distortions and misapplications of the theory has nothing whatsoever to do with its actual content and the copious evidence that supports it. For example, the discovery of DNA could have falsified it entirely but instead we could make the case for evolution from DNA alone, without any other evidence at all.
You seem so totally indoctrinated that I doubt you'll have the courage to read it but this article explains some of the genetic evidence for human-ape common ancestry: Genesis and the Genome (pdf) (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Venema.pdf). Amongst the gems is the fact that humans have a mutated version of the gene for making egg yoke, located in the same place as the functioning gene in chickens and that we can reproduce the evolutionary relationship between humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans, that had been deduced from other evidence, using the disabling mutations of broken olfactory receptor (sense of smell) genes. It gives just a tiny window into a tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution.
And I think you'll find that the covering of piano legs is a myth - try a quick google.
When the nonsense of evolution caught on the phony intellectual atheists of that time embraced it to dispense with their bothersome accountability before the religious nuts and their idea of God who still ran the show.
You continue to dismiss as nonsense something that you have no knowledge of. What's more, atheists don't need evolution to dismiss baseless, primitive superstitions about god(s).
I'll leave you with a creationist who's honest enough to admit that evolution is backed up by "gobs and gobs" of evidence and that his rejection of it is entirely a matter of faith: The truth about evolution (http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html).
-
I don't think your scientific expertise compares to Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, has done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants for the past 30 years, for 21 of those years with the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany. Also an elder in the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Byron Leon Meadows works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. He is currently involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather and other planetary phenomena. Also an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses.
Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey of Flagstaff, Arizona. For 30 years doing work in scientific research in various
fields of geology including planetary geology. He has had dozens of research articles and geologic maps of Mars published in accredited scientific journals,
and is also a JW.
Paula Kincheloe has several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. In addition to studies in DNA,
RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways she is also a volunteer Bible instructor for Russian speaking communities as a JW.
Enrique Hernandez-Lemus is a full time minister with the JW's and also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. His secular
work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as gravothermal catastrophe, a mechanism of star growth. He has also worked with the complexity in DNA sequences.
::)
Project Steve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve).
-
I don't think your scientific expertise compares to Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, has done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants for the past 30 years, for 21 of those years with the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany. Also an elder in the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Byron Leon Meadows works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. He is currently involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather and other planetary phenomena. Also an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses.
Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey of Flagstaff, Arizona. For 30 years doing work in scientific research in various
fields of geology including planetary geology. He has had dozens of research articles and geologic maps of Mars published in accredited scientific journals,
and is also a JW.
Paula Kincheloe has several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. In addition to studies in DNA,
RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways she is also a volunteer Bible instructor for Russian speaking communities as a JW.
Enrique Hernandez-Lemus is a full time minister with the JW's and also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. His secular
work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as gravothermal catastrophe, a mechanism of star growth. He has also worked with the complexity in DNA sequences.
Are any of these individuals evolutionary biologists TS? I certain don't believe that being an expert in laser physics really means you are also an expert in evolutionary biology, does it?
And of course you will find some scientists and engineers that are also JW - so what. There are always exceptions that prove the rule and there are many studies that have found that scientists are disproportionately likely to be non religious and atheist compared to the general population and this becomes more evident for the most eminent scientists. But that doesn't mean that all scientists are non religious or atheist - that would be a bonkers claim, just that they are more likely to be.
And while on the subject of eminence in science - are any of the people you mentioned particularly eminent or leading in their fields - I don't think so. They are notable as being scientists who are also JWs - they are not particularly notable as professional scientists (of which there are countless thousands).
So when you said to DickyU:
'I don't think your scientific expertise compares to ...'
That may be true for him (I don't think he is a professional scientist). However I am, and although their fields are somewhat different to mine I think my scientific expertise in my field is at the very least comparable to those individuals in theirs using the scientific-wide gold standard of your work being important enough to be cited by your scientific peers. So for example Bryon Leon Meadows ResearchGate page indicates that his 12 research works have been cited 57 times. My ResearchGate profile indicates that my 189 research works have been cited 6,201 times.
-
In terms of their credibility as scientists let's look at their publications on Web of Science - the gold standard database for research publications:
Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, has done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants for the past 30 years, for 21 of those years with the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany.
In those claimed 30 years he has published just 17 papers, the most recent in 2003. He is not a current active researcher.
Byron Leon Meadows works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. He is currently involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather and other planetary phenomena.
He has just 2 publications on the database, both in 2007 - his work has been cited just 10 times by his peers.
Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the U.S. Geological Survey of Flagstaff, Arizona. For 30 years doing work in scientific research in various
fields of geology including planetary geology. He has had dozens of research articles and geologic maps of Mars published in accredited scientific journals,
Yup - he has 77 papers over the past 25 years, although nothing since 2016, suggesting he is no longer active. Typically mid author of many authors on his papers, which is the least important authors are place - convention is that the key authors to a piece of work are first or last on the author list. 4000-ish citations so, yes, a credible scientist in his field, but that isn't evolutionary biology.
Paula Kincheloe has several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. In addition to studies in DNA,
RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways
Not a single published paper - she seems to be in a technical support role, not an active researcher.
Enrique Hernandez-Lemus is a full time minister with the JW's and also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. His secular
work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as gravothermal catastrophe, a mechanism of star growth. He has also worked with the complexity in DNA sequences.
77 publications over past 12 years, so a good rate, but relatively low citations, just over 1000. Also he works in a field where high numbers of publication with very large numbers of authors is the norm and there is an expectation of high levels of citations. So, yes a credible researcher, but far from leading, and again in a field that isn't evolutionary biology.
So of these five, only two are even credible as researchers and one of those no longer seems to be active and neither are evolutionary biologists. If this is the best the JWs can put forward in terms of credible scientists then that speaks volumes.