The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by melatonin


You mean it destroyed your parade. Get it right.
And gave a good set of symbolism to point to.
Symbolism I might add more than a few people posting here AGREE with.
So sorry it didn't play into your hand.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I forget who said it, but it was in one of the debates Atheist Sam Harris was in and inspired him to think maybe Atheists should change their name.

The guy said "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" Off the cuff I would think it was Theodore Dalrymple but not certain.

Was really a good comeback and Harris admitted it (imagine that)

So he say an interesting thing here and like most Atheists, he catches on that Christians are starting to get a handle on this semantics crap they always use. I did a search of Atheist websites in a debate about whether or not it is a religion. Inspite of the US courts saying it is, almost EVERY website I have seen where Atheists are the subject, ALL they talk about is Christians and Evolution. Naturally of course the typical in your face anger and detest of us was ignored but I found that very curious they always say they aren't a philosophy they have no belief or product to pitch.

Yet they all seem to be the Un-Cola or 7/Up of Religions all selling Un/God or No/God.

Then I see even Sam Harris acknowledges this BUT ONLY TO A POINT, then goes right back into denial mode, here see below.

ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one.

Then he goes on to suggest they shouldn't have a name, they should stay under the radar to acheive their objectives,.


Mmmmmm you see what I see anyone?

- Con

Originally posted by Sublime620
/me wonders how someone can get so angry over a band.

Who's angry?

I just think tool sucks, and discussion by tool is even suckier. I actually like a lot of colonial music. 'The National' are cool.

I much prefer con's pictures. They are probably worth the bandwidth.

Originally posted by con
Then he goes on to suggest they shouldn't have a name, they should stay under the radar to acheive their objectives,.

IIRC, Sam got quite a bit of criticism for that actually. Many atheists viewed it as him suggesting that because atheism is viewed negatively by many people in the US, we should find a new label.

Reminds me of other forms of 'brand' relabelling.

But I guess to you means that atheists are attempting to conspire to disappear from view, maybe use the 'jedi' label on census forms, then jump out and go 'nobody expects the atheist inquisition'.

Not really gonna work if that was the plan.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Conspiriology


It's more semantic wrangling.....................
Ugh. I hate that when people that can't prove their stance any other way they resort to semantic wrangling.
Without fail.

And regardless the contrarian here is not going to do anything but continue his wrangling. Til he gets back up to further muddy the waters away from the fact he has been caught wanting.

Tactics? Yes I know em.
But using tactics does not make right.
Just means you can twist things to your favor and SEEM to be right.



[edit on 13-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Conspiriology


well...there is such a thing as activist anti-racism. The A in a-THEISM resembles that. Of course the A means non, but some people use it as anti.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Thanks, but I dont have the time to do that....I just wanted to post something (maybe it was covered, maybe not)....actually, I think I replied to you on accident in the first place....

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

It's more semantic wrangling.....................
Ugh. I hate that when people that can't prove their stance any other way they resort to semantic wrangling.
Without fail.

And regardless the contrarian here is not going to do anything but continue his wrangling. Til he gets back up to further muddy the waters away from the fact he has been caught wanting.

Tactics? Yes I know em.
But using tactics does not make right.
Just means you can twist things to your favor and SEEM to be right.



[edit on 13-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

HA HA Yeah is that what it's called? LOL It's very frustrating because it makes them so slippery. I don't know what the hell to call it so I call it "Teflon doublespeak" and see all the Atheist/evolutionist career forum warriors using it all the time. MIMS has to be the most dependant on it I have EVER seen. He does it Constantly. For instance he will say "They accept that their is no God" But he will NEVER say they "Believe" their is no God so he won't get tripped up on haveing a Belief system.

So wrangling is it eh

mmmmm

- Con

reply to post by beach2197


I would have to agree with the accident idea.
As I accept the possibility of whatever existing.
But it's kewl. Like I said I understand.

Originally posted by melatonin

But I guess to you means that atheists are attempting to conspire to disappear from view, maybe use the 'jedi' label on census forms, then jump out and go 'nobody expects the atheist inquisition'.

Not really gonna work if that was the plan.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

No what it means is, that while he acknowledges they DO have a lable or foot to match to the fetish, even going as far as using the example of Racism to illustrate, HE STILL DENIES BEING A THING!

The fact is, when you see astologers you don't see a group of ANTI Astrology people or A-Astrologists.

Now when you take that and couple it with Atheisms attachment to evolution, YOU can call it what ever you like but THATS a THING and it seems to have a philosophy a Religion they worked very hard trying to get admitted to the family of Science. In fact they often use the word in place of Science. I am sure they would love to have that become the replacement word for "God" if they could find a way to do it.

- Con

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

well...there is such a thing as activist anti-racism. The A in a-THEISM resembles that. Of course the A means non, but some people use it as anti.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Skyfloating]

Well here is what I mean. I had a tough time with this one phrase they like to use "If Atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby"

That and many like it is the doublespeak. I cracked myself up writing this rebuttal but you might get the idea what I am talking about because if it were true THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT ATHEISTS WOULD BE DOING if stamp collecting were a religion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


- Con






[edit on 13-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


It doesn't change the fact that it's not a religion. You are talking about the atheists that you have come into contact with.

Most atheists don't talk about religion or bring up the topic. It's not on their minds.

So yes, some may have made a hobby or "religion" of being not religious, but most just don't even consider it.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

It doesn't change the fact that it's not a religion. You are talking about the atheists that you have come into contact with.

Most atheists don't talk about religion or bring up the topic. It's not on their minds.

So yes, some may have made a hobby or "religion" of being not religious, but most just don't even consider it.

IT IS A RELIGION if it wasn't they wouldn't all have a name attached to them all spouting the same thing.

Your Argument isn't with me though it is with the Supreme Court.

The reason they don't want to be called a religion is so WE can't use sepration of church and state, like they do to us.

It is so WE can't kick evolution out of public schools to convert more to Atheism like they did to us kicking out Intelligent design saying it is a religion merely because it suggests intelligent creation rather then *Poof* life is here and we are all some happy accident.

It is so They, can remove GOD from the equation and replace him with MAN.

That is why the defend Their religion (evolution) with as much religious fervor as Christians. That is why they are as dogmatic as terminallly self righteous and as intolerant of other religions as they say Christians are. They are everything thing they hate about Us (Christians) .
Atheism is Religion only inside out.

If it looks like a duck then Atheism is just another Duck

Only this one is looking in the mirror

- Con

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
No what it means is, that while he acknowledges they DO have a lable or foot to match to the fetish, even going as far as using the example of Racism to illustrate, HE STILL DENIES BEING A THING!

The fact is, when you see astologers you don't see a group of ANTI Astrology people or A-Astrologists.

I'm not sure I follow. What I gathered from Sam is that he thinks atheism is viewed negatively, carrying certain overtones. Indeed, he suggested that he has never viewed himself as an atheist. Yet, he clearly is.

So, he doesn't think we should have any label at all. As opposed to previous ideas like 'brights' (ugh) etc. The issue he sees is that it allows others to marginalise atheists.

TBH, who cares. It might be an issue in the US. But it's not over here in europe. You'll catch up eventually.

Now when you take that and couple it with Atheisms attachment to evolution, YOU can call it what ever you like but THATS a THING and it seems to have a philosophy a Religion they worked very hard trying to get admitted to the family of Science. In fact they often use the word in place of Science. I am sure they would love to have that become the replacement word for "God" if they could find a way to do it.

- Con

It's hard to make a philosophy out of a disbelief in one proposal, so we have more expansive systems like secular humanism etc. In some ways, what Sam says is correct, why should we label ourselves for refusing to accept a belief in deities? In fact, atheism was originally used as a derogatory term between theists. But, again, who cares.

Just like other groups who have taken negative words to use to their own ends, we can use the term 'atheism'. It is a label that can help people who are losing their faith to note they are not alone.

You also continually mix methodological naturalism, philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism, and atheism. Methodological naturalism is that which science is based on - it focuses on the natural, but it doesn't speak to the non-natural (this is what people like frankie bacon wanted). Philosophical naturalism is a philosophy suggesting that all that exists is the natural world. Atheism is the non-belief in deities.

You could be an atheist who holds to methodological naturalism, but believes in stuff beyond the natural/material, just not deities.

You could be an atheist who is a philosophical naturalist.

You could be a theist who is a methodological naturalist.

You can call this all teflon double-speak, semantics, or whatever. But it is what it is.

reply to post by Conspiriology


Theism - acceptance of a God.

Atheism - not accepting a God.

You are putting all Atheists into one group. The only thing that classifies them together is that they all believe there is no God. So, with that being said, what they do believe in is still up for grabs.

You cannot tell an entire group what they believe.

I am agnostic, are you saying that I am part of a religion? I would laugh at that.

Originally posted by melatonin
.

NO My point is,, it IS spiritual.

Like having School Spirit You have a Religous spirit whether you believe it or not SOMETHING makes YOU guys more passionate about defending evolution then had Ashley made a thread called the gullibility of life insurance with a bunch of A-insurance people coming out of the woodwork spouting off a bunch of crap about securities and the empiracle evidence supporting the rule of 72.

Or a group that is so NOT interested in life insurance that proving they do NOT want any is all they seem to do while arguing with the very people that sell it.

C'mon man you don't see this???


I mean it's really weird

- Con

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Nope. Each a-insurance person may have his own idea about what is better than the current system. That is why you cannot classify their a-religion as religion. They simply don't believe what a group believes. However, what each individual believes is not specified.

Some atheists may believe in evolution. Some may believe that we are a spec in a pitri dish. Some may just not believe in God and that's all. It doesn't matter. They can't be classified as a religion because they don't all hold the same beliefs.

Again, the only thing they have that's similar is their non-belief in God. That is not a religion, that is a group that disagrees with another group.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Theism - acceptance of a God.

Atheism - not accepting a God.

You are putting all Atheists into one group. The only thing that classifies them together is that they all believe there is no God. So, with that being said, what they do believe in is still up for grabs.

You cannot tell an entire group what they believe.

I am agnostic, are you saying that I am part of a religion? I would laugh at that.

No I am not, what I am saying is the anything connected to a GOD does NOT a religion make. Just like a Building with a steeple does NOT a church make. A church is the people and if you want to know what a religion is, then that would be what ever separates you from GOD.

To be more specific, in Christianity, if you want to know what separates you from being closer to god then think about what it is you are most involved in and then QUIT doing it. If you can't then THAT is what separates you from getting closer to God and that is what blinds you from seeing him EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK.

If I am doing drugs, then THAT'S MY RELIGION and if I can't quit, then THAT's WHAT KEEPS ME FROM GOD.

If Science is your religion same thing.

You don't have to believe in GOD to have a religion but if all you are involved in is worshipping a theory then what you worship is your god

That is your religion.

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
NO My point is,, it IS spiritual.

Like having School Spirit You have a Religous spirit whether you believe it or not SOMETHING makes YOU guys more passionate about defending evolution then had Ashley made a thread called the gullibility of life insurance with a bunch of A-insurance people coming out of the woodwork to spouting off a bunch of crap about securities and the empiracle evidence supporting rule of 72.

Well, this is a dicussion (must fix my s button, heh) forum. If you make a post about something, people might disagree.

Ash has done this twice now. She makes a thread which is then used as a logical absurdity. If all agree, she proves the point. If people disagree, she proves the point. In hers and others minds, of course.

Or a group that is so not interested in life insurance that proving they do NOT want any is all they seem to do while arguing with the very people that sell it.

C'mon man you don't see this???


I mean it's really weird

Well, I don't know why atheists really want to argue about the validity of the bible etc. I tend not to go there, as it bores me silly. I have only very rarely, or when pushed, or when a little highlighting of bible issues is relevant in the discussion, gone to such places. But I tend not to.

I've asked a few atheists why, and they tell me they just want to discuss it. Free speech and all that. Maybe many of these people were brought up in faith and hold some anger at their indoctrination, and feel a need to hit back in some way (psychobabble? Heh). Maybe they have got sick of being surrounded by faith in the US, I can't really answer.

I was never indoctrinated, or brought up in such conditions. So I don't know. I was left to develop my own mind and opinion.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Yes, but you can't classify atheists as a religion. You are not sure of what their beliefs are.

Definition of Religion

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Not all atheists have the same idea, or an idea at all about the above issues. So atheists in that sense cannot all be classified in a similar religion. That's not fair to do.

So basically then, anyone who believes in ID is part of the same religion. Nevermind which faith you really are part of, you're all in the same boat. That means Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Satan Worshipers, etc.

You're all the same religion! No, you're not.

Originally posted by melatonin
Ash has done this twice now. She makes a thread which is then used as a logical absurdity. If all agree, she proves the point. If people disagree, she proves the point. In hers and others minds, of course.

Now that's not true, Mel. You have every right to bring up points concerning evolution to verify your beliefs, therefore showing yourself to not be gullible.

My last two threads both contain pages worth of evidence validating the original speculation. I specified about not wanting to turn this into a creationism vs. evolution debate but that never meant evolutionists could not provide evidence defending themselves.

But don't be surprised if others debate your evidence due to the fact:

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, this is a dicussion forum. If you make a post about something, people might disagree.

And some of my questions regarding specific evolutionary evidence and arguments were either side stepped or avoided altogether so I dropped it.