nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 146:
Line 146: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 06:57, March 15, 2008
, 06:57, March 15, 2008→Religion bending to science: Your argument is mostly rhetoric
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you; I would be quite pleased if that were the case. The word should bother you, as it is a clear rejection of the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries. That doesn't make it synonymous with "atheist," however, although the two words are at least cousins, in that freethought will necessarily lead to agnosticism (but not atheism). You are correct that atheists have closed the door on deities, and that if one were to suddenly appear to an atheist, s/he would be forced to reconsider their position. Likewise, if a believer were to be shown similarly irrefutable proof that there were no deities, they would have some 'splaining to do. I don't think either side has anything to worry about.
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::Anyway, thanks for not stifling me (it happens a LOT, I assure you). I've enjoyed the discussion so far. :-) [[User:Bicycle|Bicycle]] 14:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...we use the unfalsifiable but reasonable concept of common descent in the broader picture of evolutionary theory.''": Sorry, but that's no clearer. In the example of Joe we can run actual test to find out whether the claims are true in a general sense, then apply them to Joe. How is similarly done with evolution?
::: "''What the overwhelming majority of people are referring to when they say "natural selection" are the ideas as formulated by Darwin.''": But that's the point. The idea of natural selection "formulated by Darwin" was ''not'' formulated by him, but ''adopted'' by him. It was explained by a creationist just before Darwin, and Darwin seems to have got it from the creationist (Darwin had a copy of the creationist's book explaining it.)
::: "''We will never know what people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance actually believed.''": I'm not talking about people who lived their lives under religious oppression and intolerance, whoever they might be. I'm talking about the leading lights of the scientific revolution. We know what they believed, because they wrote about it.
::: "''Please don't insult me with your feigned incredulity on that matter.''": Please don't insult me with bigoted nonsense.
::: "''Also, when you say "some religious groups," I know that you're hiding a "not my sect" card for later. Please don't play that one, OK?''": Please don't play the game of lumping all theistic religions in as one, whilst holding atheistic religions in a separate category as somehow special. If you are going to make accusations, specify who you are making them against. Don't just refer to "religions" as though they are all the same, the various religions are very different.
::: "''Horse hockey. Christians have abandoned innumerable "customs" of the past. Shall I name a few?''": Yes. But don't include people who ignore the plain teaching of the Bible, such rejecting six-day creation, and don't treat biblical laws applicable to Old Testament Jews as applicable now, as so many bibliosceptics do so often.
::: "''There is no such thing as an atheistic worldview.''": Can I now say "horse hockey"? There, I guess that proves it. Granted there is not a single atheistic worldview, just as there is not a single Christian worldview. But that's about all I'll grant.
::: "''Common unbelief does not constitute a worldview; common belief, however, may ...''": Atheism is a ''belief'' in no God. Calling it an ''un''belief is inaccurate.
::: "''Theists like to claim that atheists have a common worldview in order to make debate more convenient, but I'm sure you will agree that this is unfair (not to mention intellectually lazy)...''": It's not unfair at all, and certainly not as unfair as lumping all religions in together. Certainly, as I said above, there are variations on the worldview, but there's also common elements, and there's nothing wrong with addressing those common elements in common.
::: "''...it would be unfair of me to presume that all Catholics and Protestants share the same worldview just because they all happen to be Christian.''": Yet here you are, not just lumping Catholics and Protestants together, but religions in general!
::: "''Growing by what measure?''": Numbers of attendees at churches.
::: "''New church construction has followed a downward trend for many generations now, while the total American population has been rising fast.''": There is a trend (here in Australia at least) to hire existing premises rather than build new. Also, the number of churches being built ignores what I actually said, that ''some'' sections are falling by the wayside and ''some'' sections are growing. Isn't it fairly obvious that the sections that are falling away would thus be making church buildings available for the growing section to make use of? Furthermore, I wasn't talking about just America. There is more to the world than just America, you know.
::: "''Again with the comedy. Except this time it's not so funny, because you've mingled it with the disgusting, unthinkable, unforgivable, yet typical Christian behavior of downplaying centuries of documented, well-established, universally-accepted history.''": Really? I don't think so. Sociologist and agnostic (apparently) Rodney Stark wrote:
{{QuoteBox|...for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4115]}}
::: "''Oceans of blood stain the robes of your religion.''": Nowhere near as much as stain the religion of atheism.[http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm]
::: "''Its denial of this is not unlike Holocaust-denial, and is equally offensive and infuriating.''": It appears that you are the one in denial.
::: "''Does Christianity not fear being made fools of for believing in a 6,000 year old universe?''": We can't be "made" fools for believing the truth.
::: "''Only a few fringe sects still feel no shame in preaching that nonsense.''": It has wide support among a number of Christian denominations, definitely including major (i.e. non-fringe) ones. And it is you who is spouting nonsense. A 6,000 year old Earth is not nonsense.
::: "''...if you wish to distance yourself from the kook fringe, this would be a good place to do it.''": I believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and I'm no kook.
::: "''Show me your evidence that a supernatural deity named Yahweh created the universe.''": I didn't make myself clear. When I said that creationists have just as much evidence as the evolutionists, what I meant was that we have the ''same'' evidence. You are familiar with the evidence the evolutionists use? That's the evidence I'm talking about. Just different explanations for the evidence.
::: "''...whereas evolutionary theory at least attempts to draw logical inferences for things like common descent...''": Based on their naturalistic presumptions.
::: "''...the creationist "interpretation" is to posit fanciful mythologies that any child can see through.''": Really? Then perhaps you could explain why so many evolutionists have become creationists ''because of the evidence''. The point is, your allegation is merely an assertion based on your ideology. It has no basis in fact.
::: "''How convenient! With such freedom, creationists can explain away any problem! When in doubt, "God did it!"''": That is ''not'' what I said, and ''not'' what I meant. I'd appreciate you not constructing straw-man argument to demolish.
::: "''Something tells me that the word "freethinker" bothers you...''": It connotes an air of superiority which is unjustified.
::: "''...the stifling religious environment that trapped the human mind for centuries...''": That "stifling environment" that gave rise to science? Try again.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==