Church Is Not Enough?

It's ridiculous because they did not propose that rape was not evil, that's something you made up. This is why you cannot quote them stating this imaginary opinion that you've foisted on them.

So ... it's a true religion?Don't tell any Christians you should happen to meet, they like to think that their religion is true. (Obviously there cannot be two different true religions.)

quote:

---

It seems that I have to remind you of what you said - again.

---

It seems that I need to remind you of something. Do you know what is rhetorical? Is the logic too difficult for you to follow? If evolution is a religion, which I assert it is, then why is it not given the same treatment as other religions? Yes, it is a scientific theory as well. That’s not my point.

quote:

---

And how is the teaching of evolution more dogmatic than the teaching I experienced of Newton's Laws of Motion - which had been known to be merely (very) good approximations decades before I went to school ?

---

Dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution. Like as when Scott (NSCE) said, In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.

quote:

---

Since atheism does not entail evolution it is invalid to go from the assertion that evolution is a religion to the claim that atheism is a religion. Moreover your quote from Provine at most asserts that evolution entails atheism which is the wrong way round for you (more likely it entails that if there is a God, that God did not detectably intervene in the history of life on this planet - a position clearly compatible with a Deistic view of a God who created our universe but does not intervene in the workings of the universe after that).

---

More hand-waving and muddying of the situation from you. Let me show you simple logic
Consider the statement A car is a vehicle. True? But is A vehicle is a car correct?
Deism. Occam's razor demands that he is an unnecessary hypothesis. Hence he does not exist. Do you know what Occam’s razor is? If such a god DID exist, we would be unable to prove that he exists. So claiming he did exist would be an argument from silence.

quote:

---

Yes, I do because it it the ONLY one of your seven "reasons" that strongly applied to evolution as science.

---

I thought I was talking about evolution as a religion?

quote:

---

Yes, I did read the book review of The God Delusion that you linked to. It doesn't say anything about conversion or evolution at all. And which statement have I failed to support? "Atheism is not evolution"? I would have thought that was obvious, but if it is not see my point about Deism above. Clearly it is possible to accept evolution and believe in some kind of God even if Provine disagrees (and you have not shown that he does)

---

The reviewer does talk religiously about the book and it’s significance.How does the quote show that he does not? If you do not understand, see my above reply to deism.

quote:

---

This is untrue, you have not supported any of the claims that I objected to. I have seen no argument from you that Humanism is evolution, that evolution denies any belief in the afterlife or that evolution violates any actual laws of biology. In fact every one of those is so obviously absurd that they require no refutation.

---

I have stated that evolution, since it requires life to originate from non-living chemicals, is in violation of biogenesis. I don’t know why you’ve not seen it. I have never said humanism is evolution. That is your interpretation of what I said. I said that evolutionism is atheism, atheists as a whole follow the humanist manifesto.‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’(Provine 1994) (Oh, I like Provine, and just to tell you, Dawkins supports this view. This can be gleaned from reading his writings.)

quote:

---

Sure, you do that implicitly in points 2 and 4 when you start talking about Humanism. Since your argument is all about evolution you should be talking about evolution...

---

I talked about humanism. I did not say humanism=evolutionism. You really want me to talk about evolution?

quote:

---

I didn't say that you quoted anyone. I said that you SHOULD have quoted the Ruse article that you linked to in your first post to this thread, since you would at least have found something that was not completely irrelevant, even if it did not really help your case.

---

Let me quote you on that.

quote:

---

Well, here is a point where quoting Ruse might have done you some good. Certainly it would be better than wasting time talking about atheism again. However, any moral aspects are easily separated from the science of evolution, as Ruse recognises, so even the better argument would fail.

---

I don’t think you said should. Please be clearer on what you say.

quote:

---

You HAD no argument. How does "Some treat Nature as sacred" indicate that evolution itself has any "material" aspects of a religion ? You don't even attempt to show that this idea is part of the science of evolution. There is no argument to respond to.

---

Britain's Sir David Attenborough has influenced countless millions with his spectacular television nature series Life on Earth. Writing in a British newspaper, journalist Paul Johnson calls this well-known nature guru the 'high priest' of the neopagan nature worship of our time.He writes, 'Everything Attenborough shows is presented as undeniable fact. But it is not all necessarily fact, or fact without qualification or theory. Behind Attenborough is a theory of life. The tale he tells does have a message, an ideology, a set of values. He is a Darwinist. His approach is propaganda of a distinctive kind, which not merely detheologizes life but demystifies it, even dehumanizes it. His Homo sapiens is different in degree but not in kind from his molluscs. Behind the smooth commentary is the ultimate horror of nothingness.'
Drawing attention to the fact that seven hundred Nepalese villagers were apparently driven out of their ancestral homes to make a safe environment for six white rhinos, Johnson says, 'Attenboroughism' (i.e. pushing evolution as fact) has contributed to 'the creation of a mentality which puts all forms of life on a level moral plain and emphatically denies that human life has any special sanctity.' Therefore the increasing push for abortion/euthanasia.
Sunday Telegraph, May 5, 1996, p. 28.Have you ever seen this before? Oh, are you going to say now that, Oh, this is only part of it, not the whole!?

quote:

---

The Greatest Show on Earth is a popular science book, not a book on atheism so obviously it is not really relevant.
As for the Provine quote I have shown that it does not support you even if Provine is entirely right, so I have no need to argue against it.

---

One question. How is it (Provine) not supporting me?P.S.~~Sorry about the delay. It's night here

quote:

---

So ... it's a true religion?
Don't tell any Christians you should happen to meet, they like to think that their religion is true. (Obviously there cannot be two different true religions.)

---

You make a categorical mistake here. A true religion may not be the truth. The truth does not have to be embodied in religion. Get it?

There is no such scientific law as the Law of Biogenesis.You creos really need to brush up on laws and theories.

This book does not support your contention. Please give examples form this book that supports you.

Um ... I don't think it's me that's making the mistake here. I think it's you.

Well, that would make a difference. Even if we grant your premise that it is a religion, it is also by your admission a scientific theory, which makes it different from all other religions, which aren't. It should therefore be treated differently from them. Specifically, it should be treated as a scientific theory, unlike the other religions, which aren't. That is not someone being "dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution". That is someone saying: "In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science." Some reasoning would be nice. Paul Johnson has written a lot of silly stuff. Quoting someone (in this case, an idiot) who agrees with you is not the same as producing evidence that you're right.

quote:

---

It seems that I need to remind you of something. Do you know what is rhetorical? Is the logic too difficult for you to follow? If evolution is a religion, which I assert it is, then why is it not given the same treatment as other religions? Yes, it is a scientific theory as well. That’s not my point

---

So you're saying that you already knew the answer ? If so why ask the question ? A rhetorical question generally has a point. So what's yours ?

quote:

---

Dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution. Like as when Scott (NSCE) said, In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.

---

I don't see Eugenie Scott saying anything about these "religious portions" of evolution - although you have yet to identify any that are actually being taught in schools. Nor do I remember any critical thinking exercises attached to the teaching of Newton's Laws of Motion.

quote:

---

More hand-waving and muddying of the situation from you

---

No, valid points which you either can't read or can't refute.

quote:

---

Let me show you simple logic
Consider the statement A car is a vehicle. True? But is A vehicle is a car correct?

---

THe answer is no and that is essentially the logic I used in the portion you dismissed as "hand-waving and muddying of the situation"). Except that I did it better.... So skip the condescension.

quote:

---

Deism. Occam's razor demands that he is an unnecessary hypothesis. Hence he does not exist. Do you know what Occam’s razor is? If such a god DID exist, we would be unable to prove that he exists. So claiming he did exist would be an argument from silence.

---

Apparently I understand it better than you. Contrary to your argument above Occam's Razor is only a useful heuristic, not a proof. Even if your claim were correct the most you could say is that belief in such a God was non-rational. However, for your claim to be correct you must assume that all the cosmological arguments for God are unsound - a curious position for a creationist. Because if even one is sound, a God that created the universe would not be unnecessary in the sense of Occam's Razor.

quote:

---

I thought I was talking about evolution as a religion?

---

That was what you said you were going to do, but apparently you found that too difficult and had to drag in atheism and Humanism as well. If you find yourself doing that then you really ought to go back and question the proposition that you are trying to argue for.

quote:

---

The reviewer does talk religiously about the book and it’s significance.
How does the quote show that he does not? If you do not understand, see my above reply to deism.

---

I don't see the reviewer talking religiously about the book, but even if he did it isn't even a book about evolution. So it would still be irrelevant.

quote:

---

I have stated that evolution, since it requires life to originate from non-living chemicals, is in violation of biogenesis. I don’t know why you’ve not seen it. I have never said humanism is evolution. That is your interpretation of what I said. I said that evolutionism is atheism, atheists as a whole follow the humanist manifesto.

---

Please can you support your assertion that evolution requires life to originate from unliving chemicals. Are you asserting that only unliving chemicals would be capable of forming life which could evolve? THere are plenty more problems with your invocation of the "law" of biogenesis (which actually supports evolution) but unless you can support the first claim, it really doesn't matter.As for your second point, even if evolution were atheism (and it isn't as I have already shown) and even if most atheists were Humanists (they probably aren't in any formal sense) it wouldn't matter. You would STILL be talking about Humanism, not evolution.

quote:

---

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

​

(Provine 1994) (Oh, I like Provine, and just to tell you, Dawkins supports this view. This can be gleaned from reading his writings.)

---

But that is Provine's opinion, not evolution itself. And the opinion of one or even two guys (one of whom is regularly accused of being "ignorant" of philosophy and theology) really doesn't carry much weight.

quote:

---

I talked about humanism. I did not say humanism=evolutionism. You really want me to talk about evolution?

---

So in fact you knew that when you were talking about Humanism that you were NOT talking about evolution ? Didn't you say above that you were talking about evolution being a religion? Religious aspects of Humanism simply aren't relevant to that question.

quote:

---

I don’t think you said should. Please be clearer on what you say.

---

I clearly suggested that it would have been helpful to your case - even if inadequate - unlike what you did write. And really that's close enough for a paraphrase.

quote:

---

Britain's Sir David Attenborough has influenced countless millions with his spectacular television nature series Life on Earth. Writing in a British newspaper, journalist Paul Johnson calls this well-known nature guru the 'high priest' of the neopagan nature worship of our time.

---

If he means that literally, too bad for Paul Johnson.

quote:

---

He writes, 'Everything Attenborough shows is presented as undeniable fact. But it is not all necessarily fact, or fact without qualification or theory. Behind Attenborough is a theory of life. The tale he tells does have a message, an ideology, a set of values. He is a Darwinist. His approach is propaganda of a distinctive kind, which not merely detheologizes life but demystifies it, even dehumanizes it. His Homo sapiens is different in degree but not in kind from his molluscs. Behind the smooth commentary is the ultimate horror of nothingness.'
Drawing attention to the fact that seven hundred Nepalese villagers were apparently driven out of their ancestral homes to make a safe environment for six white rhinos, Johnson says, 'Attenboroughism' (i.e. pushing evolution as fact) has contributed to 'the creation of a mentality which puts all forms of life on a level moral plain and emphatically denies that human life has any special sanctity.' Therefore the increasing push for abortion/euthanasia.
Sunday Telegraph, May 5, 1996, p. 28.

​

Have you ever seen this before? Oh, are you going to say now that, Oh, this is only part of it, not the whole!?

---

No, I'm going to say that firstly the addition to the text is clearly dubious (obviously it is conservation that is the primary consideration, not evolution) - and secondly I am under no obligation to agree with Paul Johnson's opinions any more than I have to agree with Provine's.

quote:

---

One question. How is it (Provine) not supporting me?

---

I already explained it. Even if evolution entails atheism (and the quote doesn't even go that far) it doesn't mean that atheism entails evolution, Thus there could be atheists which do not believe evolution, therefore even if evolution were a religion it would nt mean that atheism was a religion.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

If pigs can fly, which I assert they can, then why are they not issued with aircraft identification numbers?One reason that I can think of is that the assertion is false. As far as I know, the religious parts of evolution, if there are any, are not taught in science classes, the same as the religious parts of other religions are not taught in science classes. So what's the problem?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia Sorry Theodoric, but it has never been broken.

Theodoric, World Class Marketing and Consumer Insights | Prodege

No, I don't think I'm making a mistake. Let me clarify. Suppose we have two persons who both claim to be scottish. How do we know if they’re telling the truth? It seems that they have to satisfy certain criteria, right? Well, then we extend it to religion. If a group fits the criteria for a religion, it is a true religion, as opposed to a pseudo-religion. Get me here?

quote:

---

Well, that would make a difference. Even if we grant your premise that it is a religion, it is also by your admission a scientific theory, which makes it different from all other religions, which aren't. It should therefore be treated differently from them. Specifically, it should be treated as a scientific theory, unlike the other religions, which aren't.

---

Why don’t we take a dual approach. Religious, and Scientific? Sure, one can emphasize just the scientific parts, which it mostly is. One can also just magnify the religious parts, which it is. I would personally depend on the circumstances regarding its exposure. For example, we see in the mass media a very great bias toward evolution, not that I condemn them for that. You can see how they treated Stephen Meyer, an ID proponent, in interviews. It’s not at all scientific to jump down people’s throat, is it?

quote:

---

That is not someone being "dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution". That is someone saying: "In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."

---

Here’s my question. If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, and the evidence against creation is, too, then how can students be confused? By the way, it’s not used in university, either. Does that mean that university students are not knowledgeable enough to refute creationism? I don’t think so.

quote:

---

Some reasoning would be nice.

---

Specifically, what kind of reasoning? If a quantum fluctuation started the universe, then no being did it. And if the hypothetical being is not supreme, he would have to have had a creator. Up the food chain. So supreme. If no being did it, he does not need to exist. Does he? Therefore, Occam’s razor states that he does not exist.Johnson talks a lot of rubbish, but that doesn’t mean all of his writings are discounted. Attenborough sure didn’t disagree with him, or he would have made at least a small fuss about it.

There is no scientific Law of Biogenesis.