Most Americans Believe In Creation

Wikipedia places the worlds population of atheists at 2.5%. With another 12.7 % agnostic.

So what is it again that atheists don't believe? Belief right? Or do they believe in disbelief? Why is that so hard to keep straight?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


So a 5 year old chart and a graph that shows that the number of people in America that accept purely naturalistic evolution is increasing... Um...what does any of this have to do with evolution being the fact of the matter of biodiversity? How does this prove your idiotic claims and idiotic signature message which misquotes and quote mines Darwin's book?

You are a bigot, an ignoramus, and an unrepentant liar. You are clearly lying by not only taking the subtitle of a book out of the context of the book itself but you are actually changing the form of one of those words to turn it into a distortion of everything that the abolitionist, anti-imperialist Darwin stood for.

Once more I ask you to answer these questions (which I'm sure I've asked you half a dozen times today:


Question 1: Where is the evidence in Darwin's writings that he was a racist? No, the subtitle of a book isn't enough to draw a conclusion about the material contained within.

Question 2: Where is the evidence of negative social impact with regard to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Question 3: Where is the evidence that Darwin's writings and scientific findings influenced any dictatorship? Please provide direct quotes from these dictators.

Question 4: Why would it be dangerous to teach children actual, fact-based science?

Question 5: Do you or do you not agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best way to explain the diversity of life found upon planet Earth?

Question 6: How is evolution a racist ideology?

Question 7: How is atheism in opposition to humanity?

reply to post by randyvs

Originally posted by randyvs
Wikipedia places the worlds population of atheists at 2.5%. With another 12.7 % agnostic.

Wikipedia is not a scientific source. And it also brings up an interesting point right here on the page which discusses atheist demographics

Statistics on atheism are often difficult to represent accurately for a variety of reasons. Atheism is a position compatible with other forms of identity. Some atheists also consider themselves Agnostic, Buddhist, Jains, Taoist or hold other related philosophical beliefs. Therefore, given limited poll options, some may use other terms to describe their identity. Some politically motivated organizations that report or gather population statistics may, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent atheists. Survey designs may bias results due to the nature of elements such as the wording of questions and the available response options. Also, many atheists, particularly former Catholics and former Mormons, are still counted as Christians in church rosters, although surveys generally ask samples of the population and do not look in church rosters. Other Christians believe that "once a person is [truly] saved, that person is always saved", a doctrine known as eternal security.[citation needed] Statistics are generally collected on the assumption that religion is a categorical variable. Instruments have been designed to measure attitudes toward religion, including one that was used by L. L. Thurstone. This may be a particularly important consideration among people who have neutral attitudes, as it is more likely prevailing social norms will influence the responses of such people on survey questions which effectively force respondents to categorize themselves either as belonging to a particular religion or belonging to no religion. A negative perception of atheists and pressure from family and peers may also cause some atheists to disassociate themselves from atheism. Misunderstanding of the term may also be a reason some label themselves differently.

Now, I'll use Cambridge University's study into atheist populations for a better set of numbers.

“ ...the imperfect data which exists suggests that between 500 million and 750 million humans currently do not believe in God ...”

You can find more information there.

So what is it again that atheists don't believe?

Atheism = no belief in a deity.

Belief right? Or do they believe in disbelief? Why is that so hard to keep straight?

It's not hard to keep straight, you just like to ignite straw men.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
is evolution a racist ideology?

I will answer this question for you...

Yes !

if you would like to hold a normal style conversation with me all I request of anyone is they address me in paragraph form and minimal deconstructing quotes. And preferably no quotes at all until data is required.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


this is from 2008 in the times entitled "Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour"
www.timesonline.co.uk...

but the upshot is that by 2040 there will only be about 180,000 christians left in the uk

its a bit more difficult to see what's happening with islam (that whole pesky getting killed if you leave thing) kind of skews the numbers but there are islamic sources that say it is suffering a similar decline

its possible all muslims are atheists by now, their just waiting for someone else to say something

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


No one has ever accused Americans of being an educated populace.

Creation, like religion in general is a joke, just like the people who practice it.

to expand on my last post...

if I choose to respond and deem it worthy of non-circular logic now that would be a different story.

btw... I like your sig BigTimeCheater

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I have no problem accepting the numbers Cambridge comes up with over Wiki any day my man. I was really just tossing that out there. Not as anything I would choose to be married to.

What I have a hard time with is how genetic information amoung individuals of a species can ever result in the development of a NEW species? Just because there are slight variations over succesive generations. The time it would take for evolution just to get started would be infinite.

reply to post by randyvs


Well, it actually depends on the reproduction rate and 'litter' size of the species. Humans reproduce 1-5 times per generation. The amount of variation is about 180 unique mutations. Let's take the median of human reproduction, 3, and apply that to mutations. 3 children per couple, each child and each member of the couple has 180 mutations of their own. Do you see how, over successive generations this could lead to changes?

Sure, the speciation might take time, but it depends on a whole host of other factors such as geographic isolation, etc. Humans don't really have that part down right now.

Now compare that to rats. Think about how quickly they reproduce. In our lifetime we might see new species of rats.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
is evolution a racist ideology?

I will answer this question for you...

Yes !

That was not the question. The question is How is evolution a racist ideology?

You have misquoted me with intent to simplify the conversation for your own benefit and not have your position challenged. Please answer the full question. How is evolution a racist ideology?

if you would like to hold a normal style conversation with me all I request of anyone is they address me in paragraph form and minimal deconstructing quotes. And preferably no quotes at all until data is required.

Well...you're being a child now. And you call atheists 'green'. Ironic. In the words of the internet: lrn2internets. This is the internet. Like real life there is no formulation for a 'normal style conversation' as each individual has their own conversational style. People may alter their style slightly when they encounter individuals who use a radically different style, but it is of no import for one person to dictate to the other what a 'normal' conversation is. You are in no more position to dictate my style of response than I am to dictate your style. The only request I've made of you is to act like an adult individual and give me posts the attention they deserve rather than outright ignoring them. I haven't dictated that, I've merely requested it. Kindly. On multiple occasions. You haven't even answered the questions I've put forth repeatedly except for one instance where you changed a 'How' question into a 'yes or no' question to make things much easier for yourself.

Further, I have responded to you in paragraph form several times, you still ignored me. I've responded in a vast variety of forms to your posts, I even wrote one post addressed to you in the form of a standard letter. You have disregarded every single change in form.

Now, if you'd like a minimum of quote deconstruction, don't make quotes that contain so many independently false clauses within individual sentences. If you say 6 things wrong in a paragraph of 4 sentences, a paragraph response is going to be cumbersome. In fact, You've only gotten 4 things wrong in the course of 2 sentences. It would have been much easier for me to respond to each incorrect clause individually, and it might have been far more readable for other individuals rather than the wall of text I'm presenting now.

And finally, you don't get to restrict quotations. You immediately bring in situations where external quotations are required, specifically whenever you claim Darwin was a racist and an inspiration for Hitler. You have been routinely asked for proof that both of those claims are true, with each of your pitiful attempts to back up your claim being demolished. And by attempts my mean a use of the subtitle of "On The Origin of Species" which you have no misquoted in your signature, as well as a quote-mine from Darwin from "The Descent of Man". When you make these claims and someone provides an external quote as counter-evidence it is not improper, it is merely the easiest way to respond to a blatantly false claim.

In conclusion, this bit has been in paragraph form. I do not know if you will dismiss it as too long-winded, as you have done in the past with such statements, or if you'll simply ignore it or if you'll say it is a series of one-liners. You have used many tactics to weasel your way out of proper responses. To conclude, I would request you answer the following questions:


Question 1: Where is the evidence in Darwin's writings that he was a racist? No, the subtitle of a book isn't enough to draw a conclusion about the material contained within.

Question 2: Where is the evidence of negative social impact with regard to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Question 3: Where is the evidence that Darwin's writings and scientific findings influenced any dictatorship? Please provide direct quotes from these dictators.

Question 4: Why would it be dangerous to teach children actual, fact-based science?

Question 5: Do you or do you not agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best way to explain the diversity of life found upon planet Earth?

Question 6: How is evolution a racist ideology?

Question 7: How is atheism in opposition to humanity?

And introducing:
Question 8: Where is your evidence that all atheist are white Caucasian Anglophones?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
is evolution a racist ideology?

I will answer this question for you...

Yes !

if you would like to hold a normal style conversation with me all I request of anyone is they address me in paragraph form and minimal deconstructing quotes. And preferably no quotes at all until data is required.

How about you answer the questions? Seems like you do not want to reply to any of them.
You can read can't you? why does he need to re-phrase his sentences? I can read and understand his questions QUITE well.
If you can't argue just because his sentencing is not as you wish it were, don't post. Otherwise you might find yourself filtering 95% of the replies you get. Wich is probably what you're doing right now anyway.
Soar loser if i ever seen one.

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


Your most right but where is the evidence that "God" exists? In America you are technically allowed to say whatever you want.But I don't believe in god.

Originally posted by zombiesC4
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

Your most right but where is the evidence that "God" exists? In America you are technically allowed to say whatever you want.But I don't believe in god.

Everything that we know comes from our sensory organs receiving input. You see something? Well, you have the sensory input of "sight" telling you what you are seeing. Along the way the signal is changed, absorbed, and then sent to be understood. Since the mind is so contextual in the way it works, you will usually apply whatever it is that was seen into a previously known context. if you don't have a previously known context, then you have to create a new one.

For example, you see what is actually a badger. since you only know about animals that size that are dogs, you naturally would describe it as "dog like". But if it had a head that was completely foreign, you would have no easy context which to apply it to, and might just say "like a dog, with a jacked up head".

The evidence you are looking for with "God" is available. But it is only available using sensory organs that are far, far more subtle than sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. To try to tune in to these sensory inputs while under the barrage of the primary senses is like trying to hear someone's heartbeat in their chest while they are screaming at a concert. The stronger senses just overpower the more subtle senses.

I am sorry...that is the best i can do for you.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
is evolution a racist ideology?

I will answer this question for you...

Yes !

if you would like to hold a normal style conversation with me all I request of anyone is they address me in paragraph form and minimal deconstructing quotes. And preferably no quotes at all until data is required.

Now you're just evading the questions again. All those questions are at the very basis of your claims! If you are unable to answer them, all your points are kinda debunked as they lack any real evidence as backup.

Continue to evade those question as you please, but don't be surprised if we laugh at your arguments that lack anything even remotely resembling evidence.

Question 1: Where is the evidence in Darwin's writings that he was a racist? No, the subtitle of a book isn't enough to draw a conclusion about the material contained within.

Question 2: Where is the evidence of negative social impact with regard to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Question 3: Where is the evidence that Darwin's writings and scientific findings influenced any dictatorship? Please provide direct quotes from these dictators.

Question 4: Why would it be dangerous to teach children actual, fact-based science?

Question 5: Do you or do you not agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best way to explain the diversity of life found upon planet Earth?

Question 6: How is evolution a racist ideology?

Question 7: How is atheism in opposition to humanity?

And introducing:
Question 8: Where is your evidence that all atheist are white Caucasian Anglophones?

I claim you don't have any real evidence to back up those claims. Disagree? Well, prove me wrong!

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
You are religious. Your religion is atheism.

Was reading and chuckling quite happily until I saw this.

Please ingest the only worthy (and oft used answer).

Calling atheism religion is no different to calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

With regards to the rest of your doctrine. You have faith, I believe in faith it is observable everyday.
However faith does not equate to automatic truth. Believing or wishing does not make ones belief or wish the truth.

Step off the path and find your way.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Calling atheism religion is no different to calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is the most deceptive religion because it is a path too, all roads lead to somewhere or any train of thought for that matter, one can not say they do not believe in something when in fact the statement is the belief.

Atheism speaks with a forked tongue, the most abominable of ignorance which hides in the darkness.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Atheism speaks with a forked tongue, the most abominable of ignorance which lives in darkness of the light of the truth.

This is great because not only is it about 1000% off topic but its also a baseless generalization for which you provided neither logical argumentation nor evidence.

What does Creationism and the number of Americans who believe in it have to do with atheism? What has you so obsessed with atheism that you are constantly making these baseless accusations against all atheists? You don't see me going around calling all theists ignorant do you? And yet you made an entire thread dedicated to how atheists are the arrogant ones. You called us thieves, arrogant and now you're saying we're a religion all without a shred of evidence.

By the way Evolution is true regardless of whether god(s) exist or not, which is why many theists accept evolution. I don't understand why Creationists seem to place myth as more trustworthy than actual evidence. What if I decided to stop believing the scientific ideas on how lightning forms and instead believed that Zeus actually forged and threw the bolts himself, I think even Creationists would laugh at me then whilst being oblivious to the irony.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Calling atheism religion is no different to calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is the most deceptive religion because it is a path too, all roads lead to somewhere or any train of thought for that matter, one can not say they do not believe in something when in fact the statement is the belief.

Um...what does that have to do with Noncompatible's air-tight explanation of how atheism is not a religion? Other variations are: being bald isn't a hair color; not having the cold isn't an illness, walking around without encountering an individual is not stalking that individual, etc. If all trains of thought to be thought of as religion, then...that's just silly. You can't refer to any train of thought as a religion. I'm looking forward to some pasta for lunch, how is that a religion? I know that train of thought is going to lead me somewhere, a pasta lunch with my girlfriend.

And now, introducing Question 9: How is "I do not accept your proposed idea" a belief?

Atheism speaks with a forked tongue, the most abominable of ignorance which hides in the darkness.

Question 10: Where is your evidence that atheism is "the most abominable ignorance which hides in the darkness"?

In fact, it seems to be that your problem is with atheists staying out of the darkness and speaking publicly, so what's the deal?

Edit
Oh, and another question.
Question 11: How is atheism "deceptive"?

edit on 28/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Added "question 11"

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
This is great because not only is it about 1000% off topic

hi Titen :waves:

this was a response to the poster above me, I guess if we were reading each post we could understand that, but just so everyone knows... it was a reply to the post above me.

A reply not backed up by any evidence, rationality, or logic. You don't even bother backing up your statements. Why? Because you KNOW they're baseless rants and nothing more!