To Be Irreligious, Stupididy Helps

[goldcatt]

I understand why you feel left out of any intelligent discussion...but you should keep this in mind, as it will save you future embarrassment:

It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and remove any lingering doubt.

I see no intelligent discussion here. What's the matter, want a cracker?

Another brilian post.

How about bringing something to the table?

I'm sorry, is poor Polly still hungry?

 

[goldcatt]

Agnosticism is not a religion. It requires no faith in its assumptions. It acknowledges a void in information and draws no conclusions one way or another. The agnostic is truly open minded and unprejudiced in his views.

Even the courts have come to proclaim Atheism a religion. It jumps in with its prejudicial and dogmatic assumptions and proclamations, sets up its own websites, demands its own rights, proselytizes openly, and denigrates all who do not embrace its tenets.

If there was no other reason than the fact that some sort of religion develops among ALL people, no matter how primitive or isoloated, that alone should be sufficient to peak scientific curiosity. And when that is coupled with what appears to be a perceived threat from religion by the Atheists, it gives even more pause for thought by the open minded.

I always question the source of faith of the religious who presume to denigrate others who believe differently. That question includes the Atheists.

On this we agree wholeheartedly, Foxy. I think spirituality or lack thereof is an individual need, we all have to find the answers that work for us. Whatever anyone believes or doesn't believe is their choice and their business. I appreciate it when others extend me the courtesy of the same attitude.

As to the rest, I'm not an atheist or an agnostic and wouldn't presume to speak for them in what they do or do not believe.

 

[Toro]

Our friend U2 seems unable to understand that the anti-religion thesis requires as much faith as the religious thesis...

This is incorrect.

Science is generally based upon testing a hypothesis or observable fact. Theories of science are grounded in that testing and in those observations, which are usually repeatable. That does not exist in religion. You cannot test or observe that God exists. You can test and observe whether evolution exists. Scientists then extrapolate those observations and tests into a theory. That theory may eventually be proven wrong, but it is based on the scientific process. You cannot repeatedly test or observe the existence of God. There is no scientific grounding for the existence of God. Some faith is required to believe in something like the theory of evolution but entire faith is required to believe in the existence of God.

That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that scientists are infallible, but you need zero faith to believe in gravity or aerodynamics. Thus, to conclude that it takes as much faith to believe in gravity or aerodynamics as it does in God is simply false.

Oh and BTW, skepticism is not faith. It is anti-faith.

 

[Foxfyre]

Agnosticism is not a religion. It requires no faith in its assumptions. It acknowledges a void in information and draws no conclusions one way or another. The agnostic is truly open minded and unprejudiced in his views.

Even the courts have come to proclaim Atheism a religion. It jumps in with its prejudicial and dogmatic assumptions and proclamations, sets up its own websites, demands its own rights, proselytizes openly, and denigrates all who do not embrace its tenets.

If there was no other reason than the fact that some sort of religion develops among ALL people, no matter how primitive or isoloated, that alone should be sufficient to peak scientific curiosity. And when that is coupled with what appears to be a perceived threat from religion by the Atheists, it gives even more pause for thought by the open minded.

I always question the source of faith of the religious who presume to denigrate others who believe differently. That question includes the Atheists.

On this we agree wholeheartedly, Foxy. I think spirituality or lack thereof is an individual need, we all have to find the answers that work for us. Whatever anyone believes or doesn't believe is their choice and their business. I appreciate it when others extend me the courtesy of the same attitude.

As to the rest, I'm not an atheist or an agnostic and wouldn't presume to speak for them in what they do or do not believe.

Nor do I presume to speak for what anybody else believes. In spending a good deal of my adult life studying and investigating ALL major religions and a good amount of more obscure ones, I concluded there is at least some truth to be found in all, and there are flaws in all at least as humans understand and practice them.

I can't count the times I've been told that I believe what I don't believe or that I don't believe what I believe. I've been accused of some pretty strange stuff and have been called many uncomplimentary names re my religious beliefs and that has come mostly from the Atheists. Some of the more fundamentalist and also the more liberal Christians also have problems with me too and of course the devout Muslim and some other faiths view me as the infidel.

But if you believe anything at all about God or whatever name one calls a deity, whether such exists or does not exist, given lack of ability to verify it, that belief has to come from either experience or faith. There is no other logical conclusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our friend U2 seems unable to understand that the anti-religion thesis requires as much faith as the religious thesis...

This is incorrect.

Science is generally based upon testing a hypothesis or observable fact. Theories of science are grounded in that testing and in those observations, which are usually repeatable. That does not exist in religion. You cannot test or observe that God exists. You can test and observe whether evolution exists. Scientists then extrapolate those observations and tests into a theory. That theory may eventually be proven wrong, but it is based on the scientific process. You cannot repeatedly test or observe the existence of God. There is no scientific grounding for the existence of God. Some faith is required to believe in something like the theory of evolution but entire faith is required to believe in the existence of God.

That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that scientists are infallible, but you need zero faith to believe in gravity or aerodynamics. Thus, to conclude that it takes as much faith to believe in gravity or aerodynamics as it does in God is simply false.

Oh and BTW, skepticism is not faith. It is anti-faith.

I'm going to suggest that you read the thread, as there are several posts which would obviate yours.

 

[goldcatt]

Agnosticism is not a religion. It requires no faith in its assumptions. It acknowledges a void in information and draws no conclusions one way or another. The agnostic is truly open minded and unprejudiced in his views.

Even the courts have come to proclaim Atheism a religion. It jumps in with its prejudicial and dogmatic assumptions and proclamations, sets up its own websites, demands its own rights, proselytizes openly, and denigrates all who do not embrace its tenets.

If there was no other reason than the fact that some sort of religion develops among ALL people, no matter how primitive or isoloated, that alone should be sufficient to peak scientific curiosity. And when that is coupled with what appears to be a perceived threat from religion by the Atheists, it gives even more pause for thought by the open minded.

I always question the source of faith of the religious who presume to denigrate others who believe differently. That question includes the Atheists.

On this we agree wholeheartedly, Foxy. I think spirituality or lack thereof is an individual need, we all have to find the answers that work for us. Whatever anyone believes or doesn't believe is their choice and their business. I appreciate it when others extend me the courtesy of the same attitude.

As to the rest, I'm not an atheist or an agnostic and wouldn't presume to speak for them in what they do or do not believe.

Nor do I presume to speak for what anybody else believes. In spending a good deal of my adult life studying and investigating ALL major religions and a good amount of more obscure ones, I concluded there is at least some truth to be found in all, and there are flaws in all at least as humans understand and practice them.

I can't count the times I've been told that I believe what I don't believe or that I don't believe what I believe. I've been accused of some pretty strange stuff and have been called many uncomplimentary names re my religious beliefs and that has come mostly from the Atheists. Some of the more fundamentalist and also the more liberal Christians also have problems with me too and of course the devout Muslim and some other faiths view me as the infidel.

But if you believe anything at all about God or whatever name one calls a deity, whether such exists or does not exist, given lack of ability to verify it, that belief has to come from either experience or faith. There is no other logical conclusion.

I would think only the person who holds that worldview knows how he or she interprets it, why they hold it and how they see it. Just as no two Christians are going to be exactly eye to eye, I doubt any two members of any other group are going to be exactly alike either. So I tend to use an extremely fine brush when dealing with any group and spirituality. Faith or lack thereof is as personal as it gets, and accordingly IMO deserves the most respect.

I understand all about being told what I believe, and having others' interpretations projected on to me. Why do you think I don't talk much about my own faith in the open forums here? I'm not stupid, and the OP isn't the only one frothing at the mouth to build a strawman and attack those who dare to disagree with her personal gurus. I have no need or desire to defend my belief or explain it, even less to try to get anyone to convert to my point of view. I'm at peace with it personally and that's all that matters. I'm more than willing to give the same courtesy to others.

All that to say, judgmentalism bugs me. So does projecting definitions onto people you don't understand or agree with in order to place them in little manageable boxes. And that's not directed at you, Foxy. It's merely a statement of my position.

 

[Madeline]

The premise that it takes more brains to belong to a religion is just as flawed as the premise that it takes more brains to be an atheist, Political Chic. The sort of spiritual quest someone like Sky Dancer undertook might take more brains, but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?

Religion and spirituality address certain emotional needs of humans, in various ways depending upon that human. We are never going to find a cure for AIDS just by praying about it. And asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" just makes the speaker look foolish. Religion should confine itself to what it does best -- teaching ethics to its adherents -- and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy.

"but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?"

In order to pose the above question, you must consciously ignore the various links that I have provided...and I understand the tempation to do so, else you might have to reconsider many of your closely held beliefs (I use the term 'beliefs' advisedly).

"...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Exactly what I suggest is true of empiricism, especially those with limited knowledge of science.

"...asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" ..."
Maddy, to sink to a straw-argument?
Juvenile at the very least...where did I claim what you state?

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.


"...and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy..."

Consider the link between secularism and tyranny, for if moral knowledge is not possible, then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance, i.e. the better course that the elites envision. Thus, the folks who claim that they wish to be free of what they refer to as oppressive moral codes, such as yourself, are setting the scene for new forms of oppression. One accepts moral relativism to be tolerant and non-judgmental…but this ultimately leads to a politics of manipulation and coercion.

Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?

Arrogant much, Political Chic? You dun even know what the hell I believe, though if you ask me nicely, I will tell you. WTF makes you think that you have startling new arguments that if I would just honestly ponder, would prompt me to run back to the RCC or whichever christian church you are here shilling for? (It is ALWAYS a christian religion. The day a Muslim, Buddist or Jew proletizes to me I will fall down in a dead faint.) You seem to think I have arrived at my spiritual depot carelessly and thoughtlessly -- and I assure you, such is far from the case.

By means of what training and education exactly to you claim to be able to out-science the scientists? I always wonder about you evolution-deniers...what the hell do you tell you kids at the dinosaur exhibit at your local Natural History Museum? Or do you just avoid the place as it is too taxing on your religion-based thinking?

What right do you have to tar every non-christian as a "moral relativist", nevermind me personally? When it comes to right and wrong, I doubt you'd find many as rigid as I am....IMO, very few actual ethical quandries exist in this world, though we do like to bullshit ourselves elsewise.

Get the hell off your high horse, Political Chic. T'aint becoming to you to presume a superiority you have not earned.

 

[Ravi]

The very lowest of all rebuttals is criticism of the method used to present an idea...

and yet, no rebuttal was offered. if i was to offer one, i'd offer it to the actual author, not some wannabe c & p *artiste* who probably has to sound out many of the larger words.

would you like more straw, rapunzel?

Talk is cheap!

Let's see that rebuttal.

He makes a good point, PC. Your threads and posts consist of the thoughts and writings of others and not your own.

Why don't you make an effort to put your own thoughts down? Most of us suspect you have none of your own.

 

[rikules]

So it requires faith to not believe in something?

I knew the OP would be over the heads of some of our brethren...

No, the divide is based on the belief that the secular worldview is based on understanding and knowledge, and the religious is not...

For example, the topic of evolution, regularly discussed on the board, is largely based on faith as well..

The OP attempts to show how the views that elevate science to the level of God is flawed in that there are huge gaps in knowledge that, for the nonbeliever, require leaps of faith.

Some scientists will admit that they see science, in some sense, as their religion:

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

But most are not so self-aware, and don’t realize the faith status of their own views: secularists think they are objective and unbiased, even in the face of the East Anglia revelations.

there are some very intelligent people who believe in god and religion

there are some very intelligent people who do NOT believe in god and religion


REALLY intelligent people are able to discuss/debate the issue of god/religion without resorting to calling the other side STUPID

 

[Madeline]

Why cant you people understand that the vast majority of non belivers have looked at the evidence for all sides and determined the evidence for gods exsistance is non exsistant so they do not believe there is a man in the sky who controls everything.

Do you ever feel the need to inquire as to the source of the universe...

I can accept there are things I dun know. Evidentially, you feel better telling yourself a fairy tale, and I dun look down on you for that....but neither do I think it makes you "special". Honest to Pete.

Yanno, to my knowledge the only religion that preaches that there are various paths to God and all are valid if pursued by good men is Judaism. You christians are about as un-Christlike at times as it is possible for a person to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some here that I admire and appreciate a great deal seem to object to and be heaping a great deal of judgmentalism on the OP. But they mostly accuse the author rather than address the points offered for discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with every point in the OP, but I saw all presented as provocative and a catalyst allowing for a good exchange of opinions, ideas, observations, or whatever.

I do agree with the basic point of the OP that it requires every bit as much faith to deny the existence of a deity as it does to believe in the existence of a deity.

And the depths of the faith and the lengths to which some will go to to demonize or denigrate the religious believer are a most interesting phenomenon.

 

[Granny]

Very well put by Political Chic. It's interesting that, when faced with death, non-believers have a way of crying out to God for mercy, a cure, a miracle, anything to spare them from impending death.

I also think it's a convenience to not believe when someone wants to do something that's against a moral code - it relieves them of any feeling of guilt - "if it feels good, do it." God is an authority figure and they rebel against authority.

Been at many RL death scenes, Granny? I've been at a few and never seen nor heard this phenom you claim is so universal. I dun want immortality; I dun even crave an especially long life. I've known people who've lived past 75 or so and no thankies.

I'm not so egotistical as to think my "essence" is so precious and unique it must, as a matter of logic, persist forever. I'm sure another snotty New York bitch is coming up now who can more than replace me.

I've been through enough RL "death scenes." Don't be so condescending. You may not want immorality ... but that comes from the minds and memories of those who knew you. I don't think you have much control over that.

I don't have to answer for anyone other than myself. If other people don't want to believe in God, that's fine by me, but they don't have to make the lives of those who do believe miserable.

 

[Madeline]

Very well put by Political Chic. It's interesting that, when faced with death, non-believers have a way of crying out to God for mercy, a cure, a miracle, anything to spare them from impending death.

I also think it's a convenience to not believe when someone wants to do something that's against a moral code - it relieves them of any feeling of guilt - "if it feels good, do it." God is an authority figure and they rebel against authority.

Been at many RL death scenes, Granny? I've been at a few and never seen nor heard this phenom you claim is so universal. I dun want immortality; I dun even crave an especially long life. I've known people who've lived past 75 or so and no thankies.

I'm not so egotistical as to think my "essence" is so precious and unique it must, as a matter of logic, persist forever. I'm sure another snotty New York bitch is coming up now who can more than replace me.

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice essentially the same morals are held by virtually all groups of humans, including non-christians, PC?

 

[Foxfyre]

Been at many RL death scenes, Granny? I've been at a few and never seen nor heard this phenom you claim is so universal. I dun want immortality; I dun even crave an especially long life. I've known people who've lived past 75 or so and no thankies.

I'm not so egotistical as to think my "essence" is so precious and unique it must, as a matter of logic, persist forever. I'm sure another snotty New York bitch is coming up now who can more than replace me.

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice not only morals are held be non-christians as well, PC?

Where do moral values come from Maddie? How does the non-believer arrive at a sense of what is right and wrong?

 

[rikules]

The premise that it takes more brains to belong to a religion is just as flawed as the premise that it takes more brains to be an atheist, Political Chic. The sort of spiritual quest someone like Sky Dancer undertook might take more brains, but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?

Religion and spirituality address certain emotional needs of humans, in various ways depending upon that human. We are never going to find a cure for AIDS just by praying about it. And asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" just makes the speaker look foolish. Religion should confine itself to what it does best -- teaching ethics to its adherents -- and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy.

"but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?"

In order to pose the above question, you must consciously ignore the various links that I have provided...and I understand the tempation to do so, else you might have to reconsider many of your closely held beliefs (I use the term 'beliefs' advisedly).

"...certain emotional needs of humans,..."

Exactly what I suggest is true of empiricism, especially those with limited knowledge of science.

"...asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" ..."
Maddy, to sink to a straw-argument?
Juvenile at the very least...where did I claim what you state?

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.


"...and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy..."

Consider the link between secularism and tyranny, for if moral knowledge is not possible, then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance, i.e. the better course that the elites envision. Thus, the folks who claim that they wish to be free of what they refer to as oppressive moral codes, such as yourself, are setting the scene for new forms of oppression. One accepts moral relativism to be tolerant and non-judgmental…but this ultimately leads to a politics of manipulation and coercion.

Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?

"Think not? All totalist philosophies always know what is better for folks...does liberalism pop into your mind?"

now...who else, today, believes that THEY know what is BEST for folks?

rush limbaugh
bill oreilly
ann coulter
glenn beck
sarah palin
millions of conservatives....


and...you!

you can deny it now (in your best interest) but I've read enough of your posts to KNOW that your basic premise in your war against all things liberal is that YOU KNOW you are RIGHT, you KNOW what is BEST for America and all of its' citizens

I can only conclude that you have a totalist philosophy, by your definition

 

[Madeline]

Science is NOT faith.

Atheism is NOT a religion.

And Stupididy is NOT a word. (At least not yet)

Pretty empty rebuttal to

“I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.”
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

It isn't faith...it's logic. I dun know today how to cure AIDS or whether life ever existed on Mars, but I realize the answers are far more likely to come from scientists working in labs than from old ladies praying at Mass. You see a burning bush advertising a cure for cancer, you be sure to lemme know.

Meanwhile I will continue to look to the rational for more rationales.

 

[goldcatt]

Some here that I admire and appreciate a great deal seem to object to and be heaping a great deal of judgmentalism on the OP. But they mostly accuse the author rather than address the points offered for discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with every point in the OP, but I saw all presented as provocative and a catalyst allowing for a good exchange of opinions, ideas, observations, or whatever.

I do agree with the basic point of the OP that it requires every bit as much faith to deny the existence of a deity as it does to believe in the existence of a deity.

And the depths of the faith and the lengths to which some will go to to demonize or denigrate the religious believer are a most interesting phenomenon.

If that were the only point offered in the OP I'd say it would be a good point for debate. The insistence, however, that those who do not believe in a deity elevate a substitute to religious status in its place AND the strong implication that because of this false assertion there is something defective about the position is where a concept that might make a meaningful discussion turns into troll bait, as far as I'm concerned.

Does it take a leap of faith to believe there is no deity? I'm not sure on that one. As has already been pointed out, skepticism is not faith. It is actually the antithesis of faith.

 

[rikules]

Actually, the opposite side of the question is under discussion here. That is, are we merely a collection of cells, a biological entity only?

Subsequent to the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science, Westerners began to embrace a mechanistic model of the world, and of nature. Remember, by the fourteenth century complex and elaborate mechanical clocks featured marching automated figures, and these clocks and toys served as a lynchpin for the kind of thinking that transferred such workings to a perceived understanding of the animations of living things. Adding to this view, was its consistency with Christianity, in the sense that believers could attribute such workings to an inventor, a designer, a creator.

a. This view led to the mind-body dichotomy., which can be seen in your post. We can see that in the writings of Descartes: “ I suppose the body to be nothing but a statue or machine made of earth, …It’s motion…[as a clock] from the power, the situation, and the shape of its counterweights and wheels.” John Cooper, “Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, “ p. 14-15, and The origin of Descartes'' mechanical philosophy. | Goliath Business News

b. Richard Dawkins asserts that humans are nothing but “machines created by our genes.” Journal of Cosmology

And, if this is so, whence come morality and values?

The mind body dichtomoy is bullshit that arose from a flawed understanding of medicine and likely will not survive this century -- mayhaps not this decade. The morality of mankind is a function of the basic social contract all humans need to live together in harmony in a group.....ever notice not only morals are held be non-christians as well, PC?

Where do moral values come from Maddie? How does the non-believer arrive at a sense of what is right and wrong?

"Where do moral values come from Maddie? How does the non-believer arrive at a sense of what is right and wrong?"


morals come from understanding, reflection, thinking, reason, logic

for thousands of years MEN have been discussing the issues of morals and we have come to the conclusion/understanding that some things are BAD (murder, rape, theft)

we ALL (mostly) agree on these MORALS.

we do not actually need a god to TELL US right from wrong while we are able to reason these things out and come to our own conclusions.



"Where do moral values come from Maddie? How does the non-believer arrive at a sense of what is right and wrong?"

i find it rather frightening that you need someone to tell you right from wrong.

I wonder, in great fear, just how badly you would behave if you did not have the FEAR of GOD and HELL to keep you from murdering people...

 

[MelissaD]

But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.

Yes! Please do.

Certainly.

1. . “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.” Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort
und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim. http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf

2. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip From his thesis:

a. Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes happen naturally. The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.

b. Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only , there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

c. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.


d. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.

[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
(emphasis mine throughout)

The point? Much of the theory is unproven.

All this proves is you know how to copy and paste.

Critical thinking? I think not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some here that I admire and appreciate a great deal seem to object to and be heaping a great deal of judgmentalism on the OP. But they mostly accuse the author rather than address the points offered for discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with every point in the OP, but I saw all presented as provocative and a catalyst allowing for a good exchange of opinions, ideas, observations, or whatever.

I do agree with the basic point of the OP that it requires every bit as much faith to deny the existence of a deity as it does to believe in the existence of a deity.

And the depths of the faith and the lengths to which some will go to to demonize or denigrate the religious believer are a most interesting phenomenon.

If that were the only point offered in the OP I'd say it would be a good point for debate. The insistence, however, that those who do not believe in a deity elevate a substitute to religious status in its place AND the strong implication that because of this false assertion there is something defective about the position is where a concept that might make a meaningful discussion turns into troll bait, as far as I'm concerned.

Does it take a leap of faith to believe there is no deity? I'm not sure on that one. As has already been pointed out, skepticism is not faith. It is actually the antithesis of faith.

Then you read the OP much differently than I did. It offers a broad perspective from various sources and offers a wide variety of ways to look at the issue.

If even hundreds of people reported a physical sympton, even though he had not experienced it, would you not think a physician would be more rational to believe that the symptom existed than to disbelieve it simply because he had not experienced it himself? Would it not require a huge leap of faith on his part to declare that no such symptom existed despite the fact that a cause had not been identified?

It is in the same way that the Atheist appears to be irrational to declare the non existence of a deity in the face of billions of people who believe. Give such a cloud of witnesses, does it not require a huge leap of faith to disbelieve?

The definition of 'irreligious' is one hostile to or indifferent to religion. I think the definition itself is overly ambiguous because hostile to and indifferent to are two entirely different things. The anti-religious want to stamp out religion; believe the world would be a better place if all were Atheists. (Of course that flies in the face of historical experience but that is a different subject.) Such often insert a toxic element into discussions like this and are not interested at all in looking at any possibilities other than what they have adopted as belief.

The non-religious, however, are uncurious about and not the least bit bothered by what anybody else believes about religion and could care less what I or anybody else think about it. They can be intensely interested in the history and social phenomena related to religion without embracing any judgmentalism about it whatsoever. Such people are quite pleasant to be around, comfortable in almost any setting, and rarely are thread trolls.