Summations Only

Speaking for myself, I don’t post much anymore because I simply don’t have the time. It takes time to adequately respond to the tremendous piling on that all creationists here must endure. A large part of the reason for that is the frustration evolutionists have that the general public in the western world isn’t adopting to their political, (atheist/liberal) views near as quickly as they expect. Science isn’t dominating politics as much as they’d like, atheists aren’t yet achieving prominent political positions. This is what science/evolution has become. Phrases like we’ve rebutted, or wrong about economics (from the opening message) shows that evolution has become exactly what it was predicted by many past, prominent evolutionists to become, a complete worldview, with all the unchangeable beliefs, all the faith, all the desire to forcefully convert others. Just like an establishment of religion that the U.S. founders prohibited.

I think it is largely about him. Most of the examples of why there aren’t many creationists here can be found in the way he is treated, since he clearly seems to be the one religious poster here with the most staying power.

In exactly the same way, this sums up why there aren’t many creationists here. Science is controlled by atheism, and scientists largely overestimate Christians regard for THEM. They don’t think about them enough to bother to post here.Christians are interested in the science that develops things like computers, medical procedures, chemical advances, etc. — things that promote better societies here and now, not the speculation of what happened millions and billions of years ago, branches of science that do little more than provide intellectual fulfillment for atheism. As countless thousands of Christians are saddened by forums such as these.

That may be another significant reason there aren’t many creationists here. The claim that creation and ID are every bit as much science as what is currently taught, is only a fraction of the entire creation/evolution debate. Your quest to examine that claim includes several religious sub-forums, including as one example The Bible, Accuracy and Inerrancy, located in the science forums, yet there is no sub-forum that examines the relationship between evolution and atheism. If that sub-forum existed, I believe I would have a renewed interest in starting threads and posting more than I currently do. Maybe other creationists would as well. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

Very good! Not only Texas however, but the real world in general.

I know that’s the politically correct mantra, but there’s plenty of evidence that shows there is. The word "evidence" isn't the exclusive property of evolutionists. I don’t need it, but this forum needs it, if it wants to attract more creationists. No one needs the Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum either, but it’s a place to group all common threads in a single place, for easy reference, and to inspire questions about the authority of the Bible.. It has the descriptive line; Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?, and it goes a long way to provoke those types of threads. As things are now, if I propose a thread about the relationship between evolution and atheism, it gets buried somewhere in the coffee house, or free for all forums, hardly a respected place to address the serious political changes and problems currently happening because of the relationship between evolution and atheism. This new forum could have the descriptive line; Do evolutionists start out as atheists? Or do they study evolution first and then become atheists? I can think of a lot of thread titles it could contain. The descriptive line that I suggested above, about what the mindset is of beginning evolutionists/atheists could be applied to the authors of the following books;

quote:

---

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens — 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008

---

The information on the more popular authors like Dawkins is easy to find (he was brought up Anglican, started studying evolution in his mid teens, and immediately became an atheist as a result.) There isn’t as much readily found information on most other authors there as there is for Dawkins, but I’m sure it would surface in the proper forum, and I’m equally sure it would all be similar to Dawkins. The new arrival of puberty, a desire to free themselves from the 10 commandments, a study of evolution, and presto — atheism!Right now, a current thread title on the main page reads What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? The new evolution/atheism forum could have a thread titled What variety of atheist is Panda?. Or What variety of atheist is dwise1? Atheists from the UK would probably have different attitudes about that line in the U.S. Declaration of Independence; Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights than would atheists from the U.S. It could be a very active and informative forum.But it won’t happen. Evolutionists don’t want to discuss some things about evolution. It’s not politically healthy for them. Admin knows that a sub-forum that welcomed discussion about the atheism in evolution could very well bring in too many creationists for these forums to handle. Combined with an exodus of atheists, it could very well close the forum.

I was responding to Crashfrog. The only reason I included foreveryoung’s line was to make clear what inspired crashfrog’s assertion. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with foreveryoung. I admit I should have noted crashfrog’s name, but you should have noticed that it was his message that I was responding to. It is laughable that you would accuse me of that, all the while exploiting/ranting about foreveryoung yourself. Your reading comprehension isn’t really that bad I know, it’s just a dishonest atheist game that you play. It partially works for you when you get approvals from 4 other atheists. I have to wonder if their reading comprehension is that bad, or if it’s just a sheep-following situation. Science and atheism do the same thing, they both assume that one time dimension and three space dimensions are all there is to reality. Even though they can only guess/hypothesize about many things concerning reality, like the origins of life, the endlessness of space etc. the answer is always we’ll figure it all out someday. Whenever they manage to (subliminally) convince a high school or college student that one time dimension and three space dimensions are all there are to reality, then the brainwashing job is complete. The student will then either become an atheist like them, or a theistic evolutionist, that is, one who puts atheistic science first, and fills whatever gaps they see with some type of weak, meaningless religion. But those theistic evolutionists almost always have the same disdain towards creationists and actual Christianity that atheists do.If there IS more to reality than one time dimension and three space dimensions, as actual Christians believe, then common sense tells them that it doesn’t necessarily take atheist science long to swerve down the wrong path, and really start getting things wrong. Atheist science of course doesn’t realize how bad they may be getting it wrong, because they do what religions (including false religions) do — they come to a conclusion first, (there is no god) then work backwards through the evidence to make it fit. A nice rant, but largely untrue. Scientists disagree with each other all the time, some of them get things wrong, the atheist faith is never effected. There’s plenty of inconsistency, not only in human behavior, but in biology. Some humans live to be 100, others die of heart attacks at age 20. At one time, life originated on earth. It’s not originating at all right now. Not very consistent, is it? (Only two of countless examples.) All false. Atheists know very little about Christianity. Seeks a unified worldview — the forceful destruction of religion, right? The truth does sometimes tend to slip out, doesn’t it? I’m not familiar with Christian forums. Just guessing, maybe they have rules about the use of the f — word three times in one paragraph, as you just did above. I’d guess their reasons for suspensions may be a little different than you imply.

Thanks for the links. They're both pretty long, as I get time in the coming weeks, I'll read through those and see if I have anything to add, or build on. Chances are I will.

Why do you pretend to know what I’ve read? Are you trying to say that those books have different content than their titles suggest? Their reviews say otherwise, as do the contents of Stenger’s book, which I actually have on my shelf.There’s a reason I’ve put up that list seven times now, because each time I put it up, it gets a different reaction than most anything any creationist posts. Most of what any creationist posts gets every sentence, every word, criticized/mocked from several different posters and angles. I’ll now briefly describe the reactions that book list has gotten each time I’ve put it up;2-3-10) One response to that message, with no reference to the book list.3-10-10) One response to that message, with no reference to the book list.8-2-10) Three responses to that message, with no reference to the book list.11-1-10) No response at all to the message.5-16-11) Seven responses to the message. The first two — no responses to the book list. The third had the question What does that [book list] have to do with anything? The fourth — no response to the book list. The fifth and seventh ones were yours. The sixth — a taunt of the book list with no substance.1-18-12) Two responses to the message, the first had one meaningless taunt about the book list, the second made no reference to the book list.7-7-12) this thread, with no new references to the book list.All I have to do now, if I live and I have enough time, would be to post that list 993 three more times at EvC. It would almost certainly get no more meaningful responses from evolutionists than it already has, then, when someone repeats the usual, tired mantra of evolution and atheism don’t have a thing in the world to do with each other, I can reference that list and say PRATT!! (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) and that word would actually have meaning, something it hasn’t had yet at EvC. So if someone who was already a completely converted atheist picked up one of those books, it would be completely impossible for them to get new ideas in how to convert others? Or to find new ideas for legal action against Christian organizations?So if a person with no intention of becoming an atheist were to pick up one of those books, there is no way those books could inspire new curiosities about atheism?If those books serve those who are already becoming atheists, that would include 5th and 6th grade students, college students, including future teachers, wouldn’t it? By saying it’s not a major cause, are you conceding that it’s a minor cause? Unless those who are becoming atheists have something to compare creationism to. Those books give them plenty to compare creationism to. Something that doesn’t have 10 commandments. Something 5th and 6th graders find very appealing. The "truth" about how the physical universe works, through the atheist prism of one time dimension and three space dimensions.I understand the talking points of evolutionists/atheists, they do a really beautiful job of showing how closely related evolution/science and atheism really are. So if you can find ONE example of a person who converted from Christianity to atheism without a big interest in science, it proves that no one can be converted to atheism by science? Your conclusions aren't very logical.I looked at this link to find a summary of what happened with Barker’s conversion.A big part of his deconversion seemed to be a problem with money. He didn’t seem to be a very good minister, and found that it was much more financially rewarding for him to climb the corporate ladder at the Freedom From Religion foundation.

quote:

---

Dan was PR Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation from 1987 to 2004. He was elected co-president of the Foundation with Annie Laurie Gaylor in 2004, with whom he is co-host of Freethought Radio, a national weekly talkshow on the Air America network. He is a contributing editor of Freethought Today and is involved with the Foundation’s state/church lawsuits. He regularly travels the country and the world giving lectures, performing concerts, and participating in debates with theists, many at college and university campuses.

---

Atheism of usually defined as a simple, innocent lack of belief, yet for something described as a lack of something, it sure can be financially rewarding, can’t it? What he came in contact with was some new forms of theistic evolution — its recent compromises with secular subjects. If we try to fit Christianity into the one time dimension and three space dimensions of atheism, Christianity can’t hold up. But Christianity is actually a lot more than that. Barker and others can reach impressive heights in Christianity without fully realizing that. Satan is very influential.

Maybe one of us should start a thread exclusively on that book list. Maybe you and a couple of dozen of your helpers could explain to me how the countless thousands of pages of those books don’t show any relationship between evolution and atheism, yet the few pages of the wedge document (written by one man) are complete proof that ID is religious. But I don't know if that would work for you, as we see above, many here seem to be a little shy about addressing that list. It’s not worth much, because reality, and whom you’ve personally met, can be very different things. Here’s a brief description of Richard Dawkins turning.;

quote:

---

Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing".[14] He was confirmed, and embraced Christianity until his mid-teens, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god.[10] Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."

---

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia It depends, as always, on the definition of evolution that the atheist wants to use at any given time. Does it mean change over time? Then I’m an evolutionist. Does it mean, common descent-Genesis is wrong-there is no God? — as it almost always does? In that case I’m sure you’ve met many and have a very good idea of who is, and isn’t, an evolutionist.

No. To come to that conclusion would have been the result of a very weak faith in God to begin with. It’s not something that you could have written a best selling book about. They could only be convinced of that if they thought that one time dimension and three space dimensions were all there is to reality. Christians believe there is more to reality. So by claiming something as universally true, without admitting that it’s only a belief within one limited worldview, it makes it highly probable that it is in fact an agenda to turn people against God.

I learn most of what I know about evolutionists/atheists at these forums. And in the political action of atheism and the scientific community. I've no interest in the honeyed, politically correct mantra that atheists put fourth to try to hide their special interests. The church I go to says nothing about opposing views/politics. The books I've read by Henry Morris (The Long War Against God) and Pamela Winnick (Science's Crusade Against Religion) square with the reality I see in the real world. It's not unusual for atheists to put fourth similar rants to yours. If atheism "works" better than theism, why (since there is obviously more atheism in the U.S. today than ever before) is the U.S. more deeply in debt than ever before?I actually don't want to discuss that here. I just hope you understand that your worldview isn't perfect, and it isn't something that should be forced on everyone.

Does/did the Discovery Institute claim it was it’s official document? Or was that determined by the courts? It wasn’t even intended to be made public, it was stolen and made public by two atheist whiz kids. Guess that wasn’t fraudulent. I largely list them because of their authors. Their authors are often official spokesmen for the scientific community. They don’t necessarily have to read the whole book. The title How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist makes my point well enough. It’s called evidence. So you look at the titles and summaries of those books, note the names of the famous authors of them, several of them credentialed scientists, and you just can’t believe that there could possibly be a hint of a combination of science and atheism in them at all? Exactly — atheism, and no evidence, no need for God. And that’s the only link I’m trying to show. What else did you think I was trying to show? It doesn’t! — but you’d have to look somewhere besides forums like this to see it.

"Close the forum" was cobblers, I admit. But vague puzzlement — so you don’t believe that evolution is EVER used as a weapon against religion? You can look at the list of books I presented, then turn right around and claim that evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religion? The book list is actually evidence for it. Evolution and religion always get along fine when religion is in the back seat, and evolution is doing the driving. I’m not Catholic, and don’t believe in their compromises with the atheistic scientific community. It seems to result in more atheism, and the political liberalism that goes along with it. There's even evidence for it. Don’t feel bad, compromises of Christianity with the ToE goes over lots of heads, resulting in increases in atheism. And biology teachers know that. I’ve no doubt that there will be a lot of piling in. It will happen in the coming days. See below.

All I have to do is glance at the reviews and draw upon my knowledge of Stenger’s book, and see that many posters here have thoroughly read the books. The evolutionist/atheist talking points here are all so similar, they have to have a common origin! It was a copy of his previous response, so it was not new! If you’re referring to your current post, you should realize that I was only referring to what was current at that time, not the future. (I love this place) You wouldn’t know that by their titles or their authors, would you? I’m sure you’re trying to get giggles from your fellow atheists, but you’re not doing much to boost your credibility with anyone else.