Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,133 Year: 5,390/9,624 Month: 415/323 Week: 55/204 Day: 31/24 Hour: 3/5


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 173 of 415 (667404)
07-06-2012 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
05-12-2012 8:28 AM


Re: Evolutionists Behaving Like Jerks
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.
foreveryoung writes:
All of the creationists have gone because most of you act like jerks toward creationists. Why would any of us want to stick around and be treated like that? Most of all, we get tired of reading all of your guys crap.
I have to agree. Too many evolutionists here have little patience with creationists, dismissively descending into denigration and sarcasm at the drop of a hat.
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.
We seem to forget that even though we've rebutted a position a hundred times that the new creationist member is often figuring out how to defend it for the first time.
It should be possible to be right without becoming despised in the process.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 05-12-2012 8:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 174 of 415 (667405)
07-06-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
05-12-2012 9:46 AM


Re: Evolutionists Behaving Like Jerks
Buzsaw writes:
Your other moderators tend to allow more leeway. Your evolutionist constituency, and if I remember correctly, including some moderators, voted to allow me back in the science fora. Go figure, Percy.
This thread isn't about you. Figuring out how to stop yourself from turning every thread into a discussion about you is one of the prerequisites before a return to the science forums could be considered.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 05-12-2012 9:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 175 of 415 (667406)
07-06-2012 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by crashfrog
05-12-2012 10:46 PM


foreveryoung writes:
You and many here show true hatred and violence toward creationists on almost every post.
I think you drastically overestimate our regard for you. I feel like I can speak for most of us when I tell you that we just don't think about you enough to hate you. The boot does not hate the ant, to paraphrase a recent movie.
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.
It's pity, not hatred. You need to adjust your emotional radar. We're not angry with you; we're saddened by you.
As countless thousands of Christians are saddened by forums such as these.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 05-12-2012 10:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2012 10:55 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 183 by dwise1, posted 07-07-2012 1:46 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 176 of 415 (667408)
07-06-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
05-13-2012 7:22 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Hi Xongsmith,
This site exists to examine the claim that creation and ID are every bit as much science as what is currently taught in public school science classrooms. This is how I originally came to the debate, and this is still how I frame it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 05-13-2012 7:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Panda, posted 07-06-2012 11:18 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 177 of 415 (667409)
07-06-2012 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Coragyps
07-06-2012 9:35 AM


Re: Did we win?
No, we haven't "won" by a long, long shot. See "Texas Board of Education" for a prime piece of evidence.
Very good! Not only Texas however, but the real world in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2012 9:35 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Coyote, posted 07-06-2012 9:54 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
(2)
Message 189 of 415 (667467)
07-07-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Panda
07-06-2012 11:18 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
..yet there is no sub-forum that examines the relationship between evolution and atheism.
That is because there is no relationship between them.
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.
marc9000 writes:
If that sub-forum existed, I believe I would have a renewed interest in starting threads and posting more than I currently do.
You don't need a whole forum.
Just propose a thread.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Panda, posted 07-06-2012 11:18 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-07-2012 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 194 by Panda, posted 07-07-2012 11:08 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 07-08-2012 5:46 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 196 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2012 9:17 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2012 4:28 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 200 by dwise1, posted 07-15-2012 12:15 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 201 by Tangle, posted 07-15-2012 2:39 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 205 by dwise1, posted 07-16-2012 8:52 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2012 3:49 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2012 5:43 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(2)
Message 190 of 415 (667469)
07-07-2012 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by dwise1
07-07-2012 1:46 AM


marc9000 writes:
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.
No, you got it completely wrong. foreveryoung is kind of a special case, because the circumstances he finds himself in, both with respect to scientists and also with respect to "fellow" Christians who have been giving him a helluva lot more grief and and hatred than any "evolutionist" ever has. He is starting to break free from the really bad "science" that his religious sect had taught him and feeling isolated and hated (again, primarily because of his fellow Christians' reaction to his seeking truth) has turned to reacting with extreme negativity at any sign of disagreement with him. This has generated a lot of hatred within him, but to whom to direct it? While the obvious target of that hatred should be the "good Christians" who have been attacking and wounding him the most, he apparently feels blocked from blaming them and so directs his hatred against "the others", the "evolutionists". He is emotionally fragile, perhaps at a major turning point in his life. He is certainly not deserving of our hate, but rather of our concern, which to some amounts to pity.
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 unconscionable that you would try to exploit foreveryoung in this manner.
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.
But then you try to subvert the agony that foreveryoung is going through, mostly at the hands of other Christians, to your own pet delusion, that science is controlled by atheism! You obviously have very little idea what science is, and even less an inkling of what atheism is.
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.
1. The Scientific World View -- the universe operates by consistent "laws". Everything operates by consistent "rules" that we mere humans are able to observe and derive from our observations. Everything must be consistent. Any inconsistency needs to be investigated and reconciled with our understanding of how the universe operates, including realizing through this inconsistency that our understanding of the universe is flawed and needs to be corrected. Everything is interrelated. One thing that no scientist can ever do is to pick one idea and ignore everything else; the scientific world-view is intricately interrelated, like a tapestry wherein every single thread must be in its exact place, or else the entire tapestry will unravel.
IOW, the scientific world-view is a totally integrated one. If any one part of it is wrong, then everything else will unravel. In the scientific world-view, you are not free to pick and choose what you want to accept and what you want to reject. Everything depends on everything else. That is the price you pay for reality.
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.)
2. The Religious World View -- Everything is fore-ordained in an ancient text written by fallible humans and interpreted by fallible humans in an astoundingly number of different and very different ways and purported to be divinely inspired, etc, etc, etc, etc. Everything in the universe that we observe must be in accordance with our own particular interpretation of that ancient text. Absolutely no exceptions must be allowed, not even the ones that just happen to be true (don't you just hate those inconveniences? No, wait, they're a problem for religionists, but aphrodisiacs for scientists!).
All false. Atheists know very little about Christianity.
And I guess that's what really divides us, isn't it? One side seeks a unified world-view whereas the other side wants to delude itself that the facts simply do not exist. And neither side can understand how the other side could even begin to start to function.
Seeks a unified worldview — the forceful destruction of religion, right? The truth does sometimes tend to slip out, doesn’t it?
Compare that good Christian reality with how this forum is run. If you're treading in dangerous places, a moderator will try to communicate that fact with you. Not at all like what any fucking Christian moderator would even begin to think of doing! You're violating the forum rules? You get a warning first, and then when you're suspended you get some kind of explanation. What happens on some fucking "good Christian"forum? You are gone. End of story. No warning, no explanation, no fucking nothing! Can you return to this forum after having been suspended? Usually, yes. On a "good Christian" forum? Never! Christians never forgive! They only damn for eternity!!!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by dwise1, posted 07-07-2012 1:46 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-07-2012 9:21 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 193 by jar, posted 07-07-2012 9:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 198 of 415 (667517)
07-08-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Modulous
07-08-2012 4:28 PM


Re: threads about atheism and evolution
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2012 4:28 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 202 of 415 (668053)
07-16-2012 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by dwise1
07-15-2012 12:15 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
That list again. This is the ninth time that you've posted it (seventh if you don't count the apparent duplicates):
Message 112 03-Feb-2010 (apparently duplicated in another topic as Message 112)
Message 171 10-Mar-2010 (apparently duplicated in another topic as Message 171)
Message 432 02-Aug-2010
Message 18 01-Nov-2010
Message 84 16-May-2011
Message 56 18-Jan-2012
Message 189 07-Jul-2012
All that time and you still haven't bothered to read any of those books or to learn anything to dispell your ignorance of them. But at least you're being consistent.
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.
I replied to your Message 84 (16-May-2011) with my Message 93 (17-May-2011):
No, atheist groups and atheist books are not a major cause of the growth and spread of atheism; they serve mainly those who are already becoming atheists.
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?
Rather, a major cause of the growth and spread of atheism is creationism.
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.
Contrary to the goal of education, which is understanding the material without compelling belief in the material, "creation science" materials try to compel the student to believe in creationism, which is documented to have caused those students who found creationism so ridiculous, and hence any religion that would require believing it, to decide to become atheists (eg, 5th and 6th grade students in Ray Baird's class, Livermore, Calif, 1981). Even worse are the cases of children who were raised on creationism only to grow up and learn how outrageously they had been lied to. I've seen the figures to be about 80% of those children growing up to leave the faith; Kent Hovind would quote from a home-schooling source that the figure of home-schoolers leaving the faith after transfering to public school as being 75%. What role does science play in this? Nothing more than to teach the truth about how the physical universe works, which is more than enough to expose the lies that creationism tells; eg, after having been lied to all their lives about what evolution is and teaches, then they study science and they learn what evolution really is and teaches.
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.
I also directly addressed your ignorance of what's in those books (adding emphasis):
quote:
BTW, I would recommend that you read that last book by Dan Barker (not co-authored by Richard Dawkins, who only wrote the foreword; can't you get any facts straight?). Especially, the first part, which is autobiographical. Dan Barker was born and raised a fundamentalist and became a fundamentalist preacher. In that first part, he chronicles his journey from fundamentalism to atheism.
I will add that evolution had nothing to do with his deconversion, directly contradicting your thesis that evolution causes atheism.
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?
Rather, because he was a travelling minister coming in contact with a large number of different evangelical congregations, he also came in contact with almost as many different versions of evangelical Christianity, which blurred his own line of demarcation between "true" and "false" teachings, which in turn got him to start thinking. Once a "true Christian" starts to think, he's on the slippery slope of deconversion and he will eventually mature and grow out of his theology. Must be why you work so hard to avoid thinking.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by dwise1, posted 07-15-2012 12:15 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Panda, posted 07-17-2012 5:35 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 263 by dwise1, posted 07-20-2012 3:50 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 203 of 415 (668054)
07-16-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Tangle
07-15-2012 2:39 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
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.
Well, if that's the case perhaps you'd like to present some of the evidence in another thread and we could discuss it. Personally, I couldn't give a toss what forum it goes into - it,s either interesting or it's not.
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.
For what it's worth, I've never met an atheist that was 'turned' by any of the ideas the ToE contains
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
and I've never met an evolutionist and have no idea what one might be
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Tangle, posted 07-15-2012 2:39 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 07-16-2012 8:48 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2012 1:57 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2012 2:37 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 07-17-2012 9:24 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2012 10:43 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 212 of 415 (668157)
07-17-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by crashfrog
07-16-2012 8:48 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
If I said that the Catholic sex abuse scandal had convinced me there was no god, would that be evidence that the purpose of Catholic sex abuse had been to advance atheism?
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.
Isn't it possible that people can be convinced that there's no god simply by the things that are true about the universe because there's no god, not because the expression of those truths is an agenda to turn people against god?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 07-16-2012 8:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 07-17-2012 8:32 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2012 9:42 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(2)
Message 213 of 415 (668158)
07-17-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by dwise1
07-16-2012 8:52 PM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc, you repeatedly and persistently demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what atheism is nor how people become atheists. You need to learn, not to continue to stew in and spew your ignorant nonsense. Rather than continue to accept the lies that your church keeps telling you, go out and talk with atheists to see what they actually think and believe and how they had become atheists, for what reasons, and what had caused it. A good place for you to start would be the ex-Christian.net forum's testimonial section at http://www.ex-christian.net/...timonies-of-former-christians. Although it wouldn't come up in a search here on EVC, I'm positive that I have posted links to that forum several times before and I'm sure that some of those times have been in response to your clinging to your ignorance. Go forth and learn something for a change!
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.
marc, I'm quite certain that you will refuse to learn anything and will continue to cling desparately to your ignorance, so I'll conclude with a quote, reconstructed from memory, by a past Governor of Mississippi (circa 1990, give or take half a decade either way) who was defending his campaign for educational reform:
We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by dwise1, posted 07-16-2012 8:52 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by dwise1, posted 07-18-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 215 of 415 (668161)
07-17-2012 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by PaulK
07-17-2012 1:57 AM


Re: Wedge Document versus Book List
Of course it is quite easy to explain why the Wedge Document is significant evidence while your list of books is not.
1) Official document versus individuals
The Wedge Document was a product of the Discovery Institute, the leading ID organisation. It was intended for fund raising, thus it can be expected to accurately present the position of the organisation (if it significantly misrepresented it, that would be fraud).
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.
2) Listing books versus direct quotes.
The Wedge Document is frequently quoted to prove the point. You just list the books on the assumption that something that proves your point must be in there.
I largely list them because of their authors. Their authors are often official spokesmen for the scientific community.
Expecting someone to read even one book to check whether it really does support your point is going too far - and not worth it. Because if they find nothing, what useful discussion can result from it ?
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 clearly direct quotes from the Wedge Document are far better than your list of books. Your opinion that there MUST be something somewhere in one of those books is just your opinion. It isn't even 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?
And if you read it, it says the only influence of evolution was to show that there was a viable non-theistic explanation for the diversity and complexity of life. And that was all that was keeping him in the Christian church.
Exactly — atheism, and no evidence, no need for God.
Here's the relevant part of your quote again:
quote:
"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."
Evolution undermined the one argument that kept him believing in a God and THAT is the only link he makes between evolution and atheism.
And that’s the only link I’m trying to show. What else did you think I was trying to show?
If Christianity really had a good case it wouldn't rest solely on the argument for design
It doesn’t! — but you’d have to look somewhere besides forums like this to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2012 1:57 AM PaulK has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 216 of 415 (668165)
07-17-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Tangle
07-17-2012 3:49 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
marc9000 writes:
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.
This is cobblers. Evolution is a scientific study like organic chemistry or the physics of sound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Nothing. You have a peculiarly American, parochial christian fundamentalist view of this. The rest of the world looks on you with vague puzzlement.
"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.
In Europe evolution and religion get along fine - even the Catholic church - the religion I was born into and happily practiced until my teens - accepts it. My own atheism is as a direct result of noticing that the emperor had no clothes - that it was a blindingly obvious myth.
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.
I heard about evolution two years later and didn't even make the link to religion until my (Catholic) biology teacher when introducing the subject of eveolution pointed out that whilst it was different to the Genesis story it was an even greater proof of God's design. (A point that went straight over my teenage head.)
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.
As for not wishing to discuss atheism in evolution, you're crazy - we're doing it now, start a thread and we'll all pile in.
I’ve no doubt that there will be a lot of piling in.
It might be short lived because it's silly and mistaken, but it will get discussed. Quit whining about forum headings and get on with it.
It will happen in the coming days. See below.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2012 3:49 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Tangle, posted 07-18-2012 3:35 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 217 of 415 (668166)
07-17-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Panda
07-17-2012 5:35 AM


Re: What's the purpose here?
Which is you confirming that you have only read 1 of the 14 books you listed.
If you can't be bothered to read the books, then why should I?
And even if I did, you could not discuss their contents, because you haven't read them.
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!
marc9000 writes:
7-7-12) this thread, with no new references to the book list.
Which is patently not true.
This becomes obvious when we realise that you are replying to a post discussing your book list!
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)
So...you have a list of books you haven't read. Great!
But I think you'll find that this list refutes your list:
Wild, By Cheryl Strayed
Unbroken, By Laura Hillenbrand
The Amateur, By Edward Klein
Killing Lincoln, By Bill O'reilly And Martin Dugard
Gone Girl, By Gillian Flynn
The Next Best Thing, By Jennifer Weiner
Wicked Business, By Janet Evanovich
Criminal, By Karin Slaughter
Bloodline, By James Rollins
In The Garden Of Beasts, By Erik Larson
(I haven't read them all, but I am sure they contain stuff that counters your arguments.)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Panda, posted 07-17-2012 5:35 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024