The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by dave420


Dave, I could swing that right around and direct it towards unbelievers. So what is the moral of the story? We can completely take religion out of the equation for now, ignore alternative explanations for our origins like creationism, and focus only on the thread's original premise. This discussion really shouldn't even be about atheism vs. theism but, wouldn't you know it, you question evolution and the atheists emerge from the shadows with zeal to show once again this debate goes much further than just it's red herring, science.

reply to post by AshleyD


Dear Ash, questioning 'God' isn't the same as being an unbeliever.

What seems to be lost so often here, and there, is 'WHO's' God are we discussing????

This seems to be the crux of the issue. AND, not to pile on to what you believe, this is not the intent...but the belief in Christ isn't the ONLY religion in the world....and to claim that it is the ONLY righteous path, or maybe whatever terms are used, is not being open-minded, it is theist, and theist is a most particular and exclusionary way.

You will not dispute the fact, will you, that even within such an established 'truth' as Christianity claims, there are dozens of sects, broken branches that each profess to know the REAL truth, as they interpret it...and this goes on, and on....

I'm not a fan of Islam, nor am I very well-versed in the various sects, except from what has been prevalent in the media of late. It seems there are THREE major sects in Islam...this, a religion only about 700 years old.

Christionanity, about 2,000 years old, should have reconciled the rifts ages ago, but instead, it keeps splintering....

From what I know of Hindus or Buddhists, faiths that pre-date Christianity, there are fewer rifts....

The ancients had a belief in multiple Gods....the Greeks and the Egyptians come first to mind, let's not dismess the Sumerians either.

WHAT is the derivation of all of these beliefs??? They can't all be correct...except in the heart of the ones who CHOOSE to believe as they want.

Fine, believe what you want, it's your right. I happen to believe that I have eyes that are blue...if I raised a child from birth and told that child that whenever he saw what you and I call the color blue that it should be named 'red' then he would say it's 'red' every time he saw what you and I see as blue.

Shakespeare seems to be way ahead of his time!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Dear Ash, questioning 'God' isn't the same as being an unbeliever.

I never said it was.

This seems to be the crux of the issue. AND, not to pile on to what you believe, this is not the intent...but the belief in Christ isn't the ONLY religion in the world....and to claim that it is the ONLY righteous path, or maybe whatever terms are used, is not being open-minded, it is theist, and theist is a most particular and exclusionary way.

I'm aware and never claimed otherwise.

But again, when you discuss evolution, [Judeo-Christian] creationism is almost undoubtedly mentioned.

You will not dispute the fact, will you, that even within such an established 'truth' as Christianity claims, there are dozens of sects, broken branches that each profess to know the REAL truth, as they interpret it...and this goes on, and on....

Of course. I live in an actual above-ground house and not under a rock. Promise. But I am curious as to how this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

I'm not a fan of Islam, nor am I very well-versed in the various sects, except from what has been prevalent in the media of late. It seems there are THREE major sects in Islam...this, a religion only about 700 years old.

This is off topic and would cause me to go off into a major rant/tangent as to my thoughts on this. The denominational splits make me want to pull my hair out. Which is why I'm... nondenominational. But we could say the same thing along the lines of what you say above concerning Christianity. It also has two 'major' 'sects:' Catholic and Protestant. Then many more splinter sects. We could also toss in Mormonism for fun. But my critical thoughts on this are neither here nor there at the moment. Not sure what this has to do with what we were talking about.

The ancients had a belief in multiple Gods....the Greeks and the Egyptians come first to mind, let's not dismess the Sumerians either.

Can you update me on how this has anything to do with what we were talking about? It seems like I explained everything to you with a precision that leaves you going off on bunny trails about the ancients. It kind of seems like you got stuck and are now on a redirect of things that have nothing to do with this thread.

reply to post by AshleyD


You mentioned 'bunny trails'...clever, since Easter just passed...

You mentioned 'Mormonism'....but forgot to mention 'Jehovah's Witnesses'...which category to they lump into, Catholicsm or Protestant?

What about Baptists? Or....dare I say it....Scientology? They say they know Jesus, just is another way....or is that just an indoctrination technique? I'm not sure.

Accuse ME of taking something 'off-topic' will you!?!? Well, hello, pot calling the kettle....

[added] the 'bunny trail' you referred to was my point of ancient religions having served mankind for centuries. All of these 'new-fangled' gobbledygook things are latecomers to the party. Alice through the looking-glass kind of stuff.....

[edit on 26-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker




Me taking it off topic? ME? All I did was reply to you then asked how on earth that had anything to do with the topic. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Yes, I was going to bring up JW's but hesitated because I know so little about them. And Baptist is protestant. Not sure how Scientology would be considered Christian just because they acknowledge Jesus in some fashion, etc. Islam acknowledges Jesus in some fashion, so do many others, but they are not Christian.

The point is, it doesn't matter and is off topic.

However, before telling someone they are off topic or something they are saying is irrelevant, I still like answering their points just to avoid the accusation of diversion. Then I will point out the fact it is irrelevant.

Anyways, no need to get offended. You were the one who started talking about the ancients and denominations. Unless they believe in evolution, I don't see the point. Pretty sure Catholicism believes in theistic evolution these days. Not sure about the others.

The gullibility of Evolutionists. The title of this thread is most definately bait. It doesn't even ask the question, which would be a little more moderate, instead it asserts. Then, evolutionists are on the defense from the get-go, because they must first explain why they're not gullible. Then, they are at a disadvantage , because they have to admit that there are flaws in their theory by virtue of it's not a very old theory, of course there is going to be gaps, which folks like AshleyD here can quickly(but illogically) fill with God. Believers have no reason to provide any kind of proof, evidence, or fact to support their belief, because their belief requires none, whereas Evolution does. In this sort of thread the burden is all on Evolutionists and that's not fair.If we turn the argument around then we're being off-topic. I would much prefer the title of this thread be, Are Evolutionists Gullible? It is far more moderate and invites a rational discussion, as opposed to asserting something that can easily be disproved.

Just a quick question that apparently needs to be asked: Everyone is aware of the fact there is more to this thread's original premise than just the title, correct? Even the O.P. was done in a two-part comment. Everyone seems to be so stuck on the title of the thread. In my current nicotine-withdrawl state I would love to take the opportunity to now list about ten alternative titles to this thread but it would result in a warning.

Use your imagination.

But as IR has said previously, if you truly believe this thread was 'bait' then consider yourself 'baited.' Having been 'baited' = 'gullibility.'

Carry on.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Sorry, Ash...you're a dear heart, and your intentions are clear in their purity.

However, when one considers the extant of human history, not just before 'Christ', but afterwards as well, one must conclude that there is no 'god' actively intervening in Human events. It is the humans who perpetrate evil...not the devil, or some other construct or 'scapegoat'.

True, there have been incredibly beautiful creations by Humans...Art, Poetry, etc. Oh, and religion...a beautiful creation by humans (in its inital form...too bad religion gets twisted and turned by those who crave power later on....).

It comes down to this: We humans have intelligence, but are for some reason (anti-reason?) still saddled with notions of story-telling, old lore that we seem to think is stil true, regardless of the evidence being so obviously presented every day!! THere's a word for it, and I just can't think of it!! Not conspiracy....no, not that....it's....it's....fiction that tries to manifest as truth. I know!!! Mythology!!

reply to post by AshleyD
yes I see that you also addressed famous hoaxs. Is this supposed to reinforce the notion of being gullible? I also noticed your wording of gullible and hypocrisy when describing believing in evolution. I believe that concept swings both ways, we can argue the same qualities are possessed by someone who has taken the "leap of faith". I care not about hoaxs, mistakes, misrepresentations etc. My belief in Atheism and evolution is neither supported or refuted by examples such as these. No school of thought is infallible, and to believe one is is,well, gullible.

I don't consider myself baited, because despite the intentions of the title, I am not trying to assert my belief in defense of your assertion that I am gullible for believing in it. You seem like a pretty intelligent person Ash, I find it hard to believe that you are frustrated or suprised at the focus on the title. I imagine you worded it pretty carefully, and if you didn't consciously choose it as bait, then you were at least aware that the title would most likely be focused on by the people you are ASSERTING are gullible.If I put out a thread stating all believers are Idiots, youw ould likely focus on the title too, since my claim seems so absurd to you that anything I said to support it would fall on deaf ears. Just like those guys in the other thread getting all bent out of shape about DAwkins"Religion is the root of all evil" movie, even though they frequently leave out the question mark in the title, changing the context of the title signifigantly. The point is, the title of things say a lot about the content, and choosing that title puts evolutionists on the defensive before they even hear what you have to say, and it is not unreasonable for them to be that way. If I put out a thread like the one I mentioned earlier, we owuld probably see similar reactions from the faithful, and who could blame them? Im insulting them and their beliefs!

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

Originally posted by Gigatronix
yes I see that you also addressed famous hoaxs. Is this supposed to reinforce the notion of being gullible?

Absolutely. Especially when you see what happened with these examples, how long they were passed around as fact, how they were used in politics and education, how they were passed on by their peers, etc. Either they were in on it (deceitful) or unaware (gullible). I went with the nicer of the two points: Gullibility.

I also noticed your wording of gullible and hypocrisy when describing believing in evolution. I believe that concept swings both ways, we can argue the same qualities are possessed by someone who has taken the "leap of faith".

Sure. Which is why someone made a spin off thread. I also briefly touched upon this point in the original posts and throughout the thread about how some creationists swallow some very bogus evidence. This thread focused on the gullibility of evolutionists while the other focused on creationists.

I care not about hoaxs, mistakes, misrepresentations etc.

That's fine but I do. From both sides. Mistakes are fine. We're human. But hoaxes and misrepresentations are something that should never, ever happen without rebuke.

You seem like a pretty intelligent person Ash, I find it hard to believe that you are frustrated or suprised at the focus on the title.

Well, it does seem to have been brought up a little too much. From new comers who might not realize it was brought up previously is fine. However, those who have been keeping up with this thread and keeping bringing it up over and over again is pretty silly. To me, that comes across as just whining especially when they already received their apology or admission it could have been better title. Not that I disagree with the title at all- I stand fully by my opinion evolutionists are gullible. On the other hand, it's sad we couldn't have had a more intellectual debate on the matter because we were so obsessed with the title.

I imagine you worded it pretty carefully, and if you didn't consciously choose it as bait, then you were at least aware that the title would most likely be focused on by the people you are ASSERTING are gullible.

Honestly, no. It really was just thrown out there. I preferred the 'Evolution Delusion' but thank goodness I stayed away from that one.

If I put out a thread stating all believers are Idiots, youw ould likely focus on the title too, since my claim seems so absurd to you that anything I said to support it would fall on deaf ears.

I see what you're saying but in my case, no. I typically deal on the issues and not so much the thread titles. And in the case I see a title like that (which I often do) I simply roll my eyes and move along if it is clear their intentions are to bait. On the other end, if they have a horrendous thread title but bring up good points then I give them the benefit of the doubt and continue by debating their actual points.

Im insulting them and their beliefs!

Interesting how you insinuate evolution is a belief by using the analogy of religious believers. That's pretty much what Con and I have been saying on this thread. They don't take it as an attack on their science- they take it as an attack on their beliefs.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by AshleyD]

Oops.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Im insulting them and their beliefs!

Interesting how you insinuate evolution is a belief by using the analogy of religious believers. That's pretty much what Con and I have been saying on this thread. They don't take it as an attack on their science- they take it as an attack on their beliefs.

Exactly! As I stated in the OP of my thread on airbrushing history Evolution is the scientific support system for atheism. It is more than a theory, I'll concede maybe not for everyone, but like it or not Darwinism becomes a world view like it did for Joesph Stalin. The above exchange is evidence of this.


[edit on 3/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


After some though, I'm going to actually agree with you.

Atheists are in fact walking oxymorons. They claim to subscribe to no belief but then take to the streets arguing their beliefs versus others.

Anyone who isn't 100% sure, or really just doesn't care, is really agnostic.

I'm not sure I can agree with putting evolution and Stalin in the same sentence though.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Anyone who isn't 100% sure, or really just doesn't care, is really agnostic.

And therefore Dawkins is agnostic.

I'm an atheist, you could say an agnostic atheist if you like. But I don't have a belief in gods/godesses/invisible pink unicorns.

I guess you don't either. Are you really atheist?

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
but like it or not Darwinism becomes a world view like it did for Joesph Stalin.

Except that Stalin rejected Darwinism and had his own pseudoscience, Lysenkoism, sending scientists who challenged it to gulags and death, and implementing this science in agriculture leading millions into famine. But you know this already.

Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place.

Stalin 1906

I'm going to call a spade a spade here - you are now lying. And your jesus dude don't like that. Always amazes me how some Xians can so easily claim the moral high ground, but so transparently lie for jesus.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I am 100% agnostic. I generally don't even care to get into these discussions. The only reason I am here is not to do with God, but more to do with science.

I understand the Christian's frustration with atheists on the board, but not with science as a whole.

reply to post by AshleyD
I hope you will all forvgive me as I'm not an expert at cutting up posts and quotes, so I'll try to address as much as I can hoping everyone can follow along.

You may have noticed a little phrase I throw around sometimes called "belief system". I use the phrase as a way of describing any belief, regardless of religion/atheism/philosophy. Atheists may say they don't believe in any gods, this is a belief system.. I don't think the word belief is a word that only has religious or spiritual connotations. So it's not like by me saying I don't believe in God, I'm making some philosophically illogical statement, based on some I can't disbelieve something without subconsciously admitting it exists crap. Yeah I'm admitting that there is a concept called God, but that doesn't mean I think or even suspect that it's is true.

I would have preferred the Evolution Delusion myself. It sounds more like an editorial, less like your passing judgement.

I don't mean to jump on the lets focus on the title bandwagon, but c'mon, you had to know that was a potentially inflammatory title and the hardliners were going to come out of the woodwork and use that as a line of argument. That's mainly my beef with you on that issue, not that I take offense or even take your assessment seriously, just that you made a poor choice in titles and then came across a little annoyed when people picked at it. If you already apologized for it, thats good its the adult thing to do and you have my respect , but after you admit that you goofed you pretty much have to take your lumps. Yeah people are gonna dog you but you can just leave it alone and most of the more ratioanal people around here aren't gonna get derailed by any dead-horse beating anyway. (Well...maybe hehe)

As far as hoaxes go, i didn't mean to write them off as blithely as I did before. They are a bad thing and don't help anyone. But personally, alot of information being passed around as evidence,facts,proof gets filtered out of my consideration pretty quick. Mostly because so little information I read is necessary to support what I believe, or damning enough to refute it. All the little particulars and footnotes and obscure waxings have no effect on what I believe. My belief system is founded on fundamental concepts and careful analysis of the real experiences and observations that I have had and those I see immediately around me. I don't need to know about irreducible complexity theories, first cause speculation, or be caught up on my paleontology to come to the conclusion that evolution, natural selection, and Atheism makes more sense to me.

Final thought: Would it be reasonable to say that there were at some point, hoaxes, misrepresentations, outright disinformation coming out of religions at some point? Unless these perpetrators were claiming something totally outrageous, I don't really call the people that believed it gullible. This information is being passed to us presumably from someone we believe to be an authority on the subject. Sometimes people are wrong, sometimes they mangle the message, sometimes they lie. Sometime's the information is so beyond their understanding that they believe it because they trust the source. Man is fallible, that's why I rarely accept his proclamations as anything other than a theory. Even information that reinforces what I already believe. If the information presented to me was very compelling and tough to refute,and suggested something contrary to what I believe, I would consider it fairly. I too am fallible, and my theories are just that, theories. At this point in time my conclusion is atheism and evolution, but I do not consider this a fact, or try to claim that it is.






[edit on 26-3-2008 by Gigatronix]

Originally posted by Sublime620
I am 100% agnostic. I generally don't even care to get into these discussions. The only reason I am here is not to do with God, but more to do with science.

100% agnostic. Cool.

Same here with the science thing, it's how I originally got into the ATS community. I just appear to get dragged into certain discussions with a particular group of, well, 'users'.

I understand the Christian's frustration with atheists on the board, but not with science as a whole.

Their frustration with science is because it doesn't justify their pet belief. They want it to go out and prove Jay-sus or Oom, or whoever, and want some Jay-sus in the science classroom. It's not actually all christians, many like Ken Miller, Wes Elsberry, Nick Matzke, and lots of cool others are some of the best defenders of science from the fundigelical hordes.

I don't particularly care if they are frustrated with the few atheists on this board. They find it uncomfortable to be called out on their specious arguments. Oh well. It's a discussion board. They make rubbish arguments, they get called on them.

I don't even like to discuss atheism, not really at the top of the most important things in my life. But I like to eat anti-science fundigelicals for breakfast. Science rocks!

[edit on 26-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by AshleyD

While both sides may have provided false evidence occasionally in the past, only one has provided any real, solid evidence.

Not necessarily. Both sides have presented some pretty convincing evidence to support their view of our origins. Both sides have also presented some rather dubious evidence. My 'mistake' was to take take an even side and read up on evidence in support of evolution and creationism. Upon doing so, my brain just about blew a fuse. One side will present evidence while another side will debunk or refute such evidence. There are so many opposing theories even in such circles.

For instance, creationists can either hold a young earth or old earth view. There are even theistic evolutionists. Evolutionists also disagree on things like missing links or abiogenesis. Then of course, general creationists and general evolutionists butt heads on just about everything.

You might not have spent as much time studying the view of creationists or their arguments against evolutionary evidence but some of it is pretty impressive.

It comes down to one thing....creationists have no tangilbe evidence that they can use in their favor to debunk evolution. They speculate and postulate and try to prove their points by referencing a "book" written over 2,000 years ago by an untold number of different people.

reply to post by Stumpy1


Stumpy, a star from me.

I run the risk of getting a slap for a one-line post....and I'm writing this to avoid it, but I guess I;m not fooling anyone....

Stumpy, a star from me....no, that fools no one either...

I have pointed out, myself, on this very thread, that it is not a good premise....and I have been chastised by the OP, even though I tried to be kind to her...and 'scholarly'....but nevertheless, here I am to say I had to 'star' a user, 'Stumpy1'...for a very concise, unlike me, post.....

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I hope you will all forvgive me as I'm not an expert at cutting up posts and quotes.

Of course we will. It's a gift that comes with time.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
You're awesome, Ashley!!!

Thanks, Hon. I like you, too.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
This is the best thread ever!!!

Now you're making me blush.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
You may have noticed a little phrase I throw around sometimes called "belief system". I use the phrase as a way of describing any belief, regardless of religion/atheism/philosophy. Atheists may say they don't believe in any gods, this is a belief system.. I don't think the word belief is a word that only has religious or spiritual connotations. So it's not like by me saying I don't believe in God, I'm making some philosophically illogical statement, based on some I can't disbelieve something without subconsciously admitting it exists crap. Yeah I'm admitting that there is a concept called God, but that doesn't mean I think or even suspect that it's is true.

That's perfectly fair. I personally would have preferred religious beliefs and atheism to have been left out of this thread but it's all good.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I would have preferred the Evolution Delusion myself. It sounds more like an editorial, less like your passing judgement.

I was kidding. I never would have used that title.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I don't mean to jump on the lets focus on the title bandwagon, but c'mon, you had to know that was a potentially inflammatory title and the hardliners were going to come out of the woodwork and use that as a line of argument.

No, I promise. I really am that dense and bull headed.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Final thought: Would it be reasonable to say that there were at some point, hoaxes, misrepresentations, outright disinformation coming out of religions at some point?

It would not only be reasonable, it would be completely honest and truthful. I have no respect for liars or deceivers regardless of the flag they fly.

[edit on 3/27/2008 by AshleyD]