Are Evolution and Atheism Incompatible?

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah. We've been over this. You're going with guilt-by-association. And if all you're trying to prove is that some atheists do things you don't like, then all you need to do is cite examples. I'd even agree with you.

But you're trying to make the broader, stereotypical, claim that atheists are statists. And to make that stick, you have to do more work. You have to show how being an atheist makes one a statist. You keep dodging that question, presumably because you don't have an answer.

Yes, we have been over it. You demand that we pay no attention to what Atheists do, only to the apologetics you offer in contrast to reality.

Who should we believe? You, or our own lying eyes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It wouldn't bother little ol' atheistical me for the Christians to have their cross at a 9/11 museum, provided any and all other religions -- including Satanists -- could display their bric-a-brak.

Satanic pentacles and other devices seem quite appropriate to 9/11 and the United States' response to it.

Come to think of it, Satanic pentacles are already plastered all over everything connected to the U.S. military !!

Surprise, surprise.

.

The pentagram would be far less offensive than a Crescent moon. After all, it wasn't Satanists who launched the attack.

 

[oldfart]

It's nice to know that I have been missed! My basic question is about what Atheists believe, rather than what they don't believe. Touting distinctions between a "personified god" and a "Clockmaker God" seems more like sophistry than intellectual clarity.

What you call sophistry is the main intellectual tradition in over half the world for the last
1400 years or so and the concept of deity held by a good portion of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire. What "they don't believe" would seem to me to be the crux of understanding what an "atheist" is; since we define atheist as one who does not accept a particular definition of a deity.

Leaving room for "deities that do not interact with humans" also seems like "squishy" logic. What if currently unidentified deities start interacting with humans in the future? Would they then lose their deity status? The fact is that humans have no way of comprehending an intelligence greater than their own. If it does exist, it would (by definition) be "supernatural" as far as we are concerned.

Actually I don't leave room for such deities in my personal belief, as there is no need for them. The distinction is there for two reasons: historically this is the Deist God of the Enlightenment (which is what many people think of when they use the word "atheist", and secondly, the non-personified deity does not act in human history, making the question of its existence an irrelevant exercise. The whole project was an effort to make compatible a practical atheism and a historical acceptance of a (Biblical) creation story.

The bottom line is that all of us have some way of dealing with the unknown. Some are comfortable with the idea of not knowing (e.g., Agnostics), while others rely on a belief system (i.e., religion) to supply them with answers. My problem with Atheism is that many of its adherents refuse to acknowledge their own belief system while at the same time attacking the belief systems of others.

There really is no way to respond to "many of its adherents refuse to acknowledge their own belief system while at the same time attacking the belief systems of others." It is like me stating "many Christians display an unusual propensity for violence against anyone who does not believe as they do". I am sure that both of us could find plenty of examples to "prove" our point, but that would not make either of us correct in the generalizations.

Relatively few people self-identify as atheists, but about half of the world hold beliefs that most Americans regard as atheist. A bit over 40% of the world adheres to an Abrahamic religion (mostly Christian and Islam) and a somewhat higher number belong to Dharmic and Taoist communities leaving about a half billion for an assortment of other beliefs. The hallmark of the Abrahamic religions is a personified God; the hallmark of the Dharmic/Taoist tradition is the denial of such a God. So the dividing issue really is about the Abrahamic God vs a rejection of personified gods.

 

[Montrovant]

So the definitional problems continue.

You don't have a definition problem, you have an image problem. Of course the image of Atheists as statist thugs attacking liberty is well deserved.

Some people view atheism as denial of the possibility of any god existing. Others see it as simply not believing in any god. Which definition is being used is extremely important to any argument.

Uncensored, you claim the 'public face' of atheism is statist, and use that to determine that atheists are statist by nature. Are you claiming that all atheists are part of, or agree with, the groups you are talking about? Are you claiming that the 'public face' of any beliefs is indicative of the entirety of people who have those beliefs? In other words, are all environmentally-conscious people the same? Does Jenny McCarthy represent all people who think vaccines cause autism? You get the idea.

Wouldn't it be more honest to say you consider atheist activists to be statist?

All or none is logical fallacy you use to try and alter reality.

Atheism makes a great deal of news - 100% of which is driven by the war Atheism wages on civil liberty.

YOU are the one using all or none argument. It is your contention that atheists are inherently statist, and you cite some atheist organizations as your proof. You have even said it is true because of what the 'public face' of atheism does.

That which is considered news-worthy is NOT necessarily all that exists; it is actually unlikely that the news will disseminate all information about a subject.

Oh, and that you cannot admit the conflict which arises when people use differing definitions of atheism is only a testament to your agenda-driven argument. You clearly want to paint atheists as statists, whatever the facts may be.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'll let that statement speak for itself regarding your level of 'comprehension'.

What would you do if you found out a group of teens intended to hold a prayer vigil at the local public library? How would you respond to such an outrage?

That fits within the purview of a public library as long as (a) no librarian is leading the prayers, and (b) no one is excluded from the activity, and (c) no one is charged to attend and/or any fundraising occurs (e.g. collection is taken.) It is readily apparent that you don't have any clue as to what role a public library plays in a community.

 

[Derideo_Te]

An assertion you've yet to explain, much less prove. What is it about atheism that makes it inherently statist? Your entire argument so far rests on guilt-by-association. It essentially boils down to: "Some atheist groups are assholes, so clearly, atheism is about being an asshole."

I've explained all of this repeatedly. Atheism is known by what Atheism does. I know that someone tossed out the 34 members of the Westboro Baptist church, but they are counter-balanced by 2.4 billion other Christians who show very different views.

There is no counter-balance to Dawkins, Newhall, Maher, et al. No Atheist orphans and widows fund, no Atheist drive to relieve famine in Somalia - nothing like that.

The public face of Atheism is one thing, the demand that the state be used to deny freedom of religious expression to those of a differing faith. I tell the Muslims that if they don't want to be viewed as animals who use their children as munitions, stop strapping bombs to their kids and exploding them in crowded malls. Same goes for Atheists; if you want to not be viewed as statist thugs, stop using the state as a means of silencing competing views.

All you're doing is citing the most obnoxious of agitators (Dawkins, etc..) and claiming that their agendas represent the beliefs and values of all atheists. Most atheists don't give shit about them or their campaigns. Most atheists rarely discuss their lack of belief publicly (in part, because of jerks like you), and when they do, it's not to proselytize. Most atheists, like most other people, aren't politically active. And those who are have vastly differing opinions. Some are the 'statists' you dread, but most aren't. Many are *gasp* conservatives and libertarians.

You're suggesting that atheism somehow implies statism. Yet you haven't offered any plausible explanation how this is the case. How do you get from "I don't believe in gods" to "I want government to run everyone's lives"?

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a political philosophy. It's simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. Anything else you choose to attach to it is your own decoration.

Again, there is no counter balance; the ONLY public act of Atheists is to use the state to deny civil rights to others. Period.

Your ignorance of atheism is astounding. You erroneously assume that atheists all belong to a "cult" that has some imaginary "agenda". Why don't you start here and learn something about them?

Council for Secular Humanism

 

[editec]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene.

That's a popular MISCONCEPTION about evolutionary theory, I suppose. It is based on the erroneous supposition that humans are a "superior" species.

Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans.

No it doesn't. Atheism rejects the notion of a GOD without empirical evidence to support that notion

Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

Your post is a perfect example of GIGO.

Start our with garbage suppositions and the conclusions, however perfect the logic of the argument, are likewise garbage.

 

[numan]

Who should we believe? You, or our own lying eyes?

Judging by the quality of your postings, your lying eyes are not worth much credence.

.