Comment of the Week: Evolution is a Religion
Just to point this out, this is an old "argument" against evolution. Besides the reality that evolution is observable, let's use a hypothetical that evolution really is not observable, and it is utterly unsupported. It's a stretch, but try for a moment.
Now realize that the reason religious people use this line of reasoning is to say "evolution is just the same as my religious beliefs."
Again, let's say that's true. Let's say we're both operating on utter, unsupported, blind faith.
Now, ask yourself: What do most fundamentalists who use this line of reasoning think about believing evolution?
Why, they think only an idiot would believe "people came from monkeys." Don't they? They think you'd have to be near brain dead to accept that life just happened "by accident"--right?
Just to make sure we're on the same page:1. If evolution is unsupported claims, I'm an idiot to believe it.But what they don't seem to grasp is this:
2. Because evolution is nothing but unsupported claims--it's just the same as religion.
3. Therefore, evolutionists are hypocritical for attacking people who believe in god--the crux of unsupported religion.4. If I'm an idiot to believe unsupported claims (such as evolution), and evolution is the same as religion in its lack of support. WHAT does that say about people who believe religion?Wouldn't the points also flow thus:1. Evolution is no different than religion--they're both unsupported.[original post]
2. You're an idiot to believe in evolution because it's not supported.
3. Believing an unsupported god/religion that is the same as evolution makes theists idiots.
When people offer the label "religion" as a criticism, you have to wonder what their purpose is — especially when they themselves are religious. Curiously, secular atheists who are frequent critics of religion aren't likely to use the label religion in a similar manner. Normally I'd expect the outsiders and critics to misuse "religion" as a label while insiders use it correctly, but here just the opposite it the case.
Then again, since these people so deeply misunderstand what evolution is, perhaps it's not surprising that they also misunderstand religion and thus get it all confused:
What I've tried to explain is that the mechanism of evolution is observable. If it wasn't we couldn't have Great Danes. The mechanism "creation" (as regards living organisms) has never been observed.
The observed mechanism evolution is responsible, observably, for producing new species.
The unobserved mechanism creationism has never been observed to produce any species.
To say evolution can do X, but not X+1 needs support. It should be phrased as a question: Yes, evolution can create new species (X), but can it do...X+1?
In other words, if I see a three-foot stalactite formed, and I measure that it appears to grow 1 cm per year via an observable mechanism of mineral deposits in dripping water, what makes more sense:1. To assume the entire stalactite formed via this same mechanism.I know which one makes sense to me.
2. To assume that this mechanism can only create 1.5 feet of stalactite material, and that anything larger must be the result of supernatural intervention.
?
Is "making sense" a priority for religious apologists, though? Apologetics is about defending religious dogma as true, not discovering if it is true and coming up with new ideas if the dogmas prove to be false. So the emphasis is on defending dogmas regardless of truth, sense, reason, evidence, etc. I don't believe that apologists have thought through all the implications of their claims because so long as no one else does, then their claims might still serve the purpose of promoting their religion.
Comments
I can see how evolution might appear to be “religious” to the believer. After all, almost every religion has its creation epic, usually at the beginning of its canon. Creation is the starting point of most religions. For the atheist, there is a creation “narrative” (for lack of a better term) as well, only it is not shrouded in myth, mystery, oral tradition, scribal redaction, cross-cultural misunderstanding, eisegesis, conflicting archaeology, etc.
Just because atheists employ evolution as their mechanism for understanding human origins doesn’t make it a religion.
I just had a discussion this morning with someone who warned that it’s wrong to make science “a religion.” More and more I am beginning to realize what is happening here. He had read a statement in the paper. It was a quote from some researcher considering data from the latest mission to Mars. It said the latest data supported that Mars probably did have life at some point. Today, there was a statement that some toxin was in the data that would prohibit life. I’m not claiming this, I’m just saying this is what my friend had read, and his idea was that we should be “careful” what we “believe” just because it comes out of science.
What I responded with was that we all–scientists or now–work from what we know to extrapolate what we don’t know. If a researcher did a 180 in two days, that shows that (1) science is self-correcting; (2) science forms it’s conclusions based on the best data that is available–even if it conflicts with what was previously thought; (3) researchers exhibit the honesty and integrity to change their minds if confronted with conflicting, verified data.
This is not a flaw and it is not something to apologize for. But here is what I think occurs: When a researcher makes a statement, there is always an asterisk that is understood to be inserted that leads to an unwritten, but just as well understood notation that reads, “according to the best data we have available.”
In other words, it is perfectly honest in the course of an investigation to say, “According to the best data we have currently available, there must have been life on Mars at some point in the past.” And it is also perfectly honest the very next day, when more results have been analyzed to say, “According to the best data we have currently available, there could never have been life on Mars at some point in the past.” If new data is pouring in–this is conceivable.
Some people hold it against scientists that they don’t begin every sentence with “according to the best data we have currently available…” But can you imagine the size of quotes from researchers if they had to begin every statement they made with this caveat–that (if we’re honest) any fool should know is there?
I asked my friend how often he makes knowledge or belief statements of fairly high levels of confidence that are based on “the best data currently available,” and whether or not he provides that disclaimer before he says anything reliant upon such data. Or does he expect that when he puts forward any claim X, that it should be received by whatever listener as being his perspective based on “to the best of my knowledge”?
He admitted that is “understood” in conversation. I asked him why that would change if a scientist makes a similar statement. Shouldn’t we assume he’s speaking based on what he knows and that if conflicting data is presented later the man/woman has just as much right to amend his view as anyone else?
_IF_ we have a disgraceful misconception of what science is and what a scientific claim is actually saying–THEN we can think of science as religion. But honestly, the huge majority of people I have met who think that science is making claims of universal absolutes that can never change for all time–are theists trying to denounce scientific method. I know very few atheists who don’t “get” that our perspectives improve with better data, and that better data is always being (and should always be) sought.
So, who are these people worshipping science?
I think they’re strawmen created by the church.
I don’t doubt there might be some idiot out there who thinks that if a scientist said it, it has to be a universal absolute that is true for all time–but that’s not what science is. That’s not what it claims. That’s not how any person who has the slightest grasp of research and scientific method understands “science.” Whoever that handful of people are who take science as infallible, they must have never heard of Newtonian Physics. Oh, and by the way, how did we figure out Newtonian Physics was flawed? Science. It self-corrected. And how did it self-correct if it is in the business of universal absolutes?
It’s in the business of models. Science puts forward models that work. And they stand as long as they work. When the stop working, better models replace them.
Religion is in the business of projection. And this is just another case of that. WHO puts forward universal absolutes? Religion.
tracieh, even when I was in seminary, those of us that wrote well and received the highest marks left the ideas/hypotheses in our papers open to change. There were those who didn’t, and the professors always made example of them – demonstrating what NOT to do. Case in point: the Dead Sea Scrolls rocked the field of Biblical Studies in the 1940s and 1950s because it rolled back the oldest Hebrew manuscripts by 900 years and showed (surprisingly) pretty good scribal accuracy in transmission through the ages. A lot of scholars struggled in subsequent decades because they based their dissertations/theses/careers on later editions of the text or something related to the same. It’s sad, really.
Science can never be a religion, even if people adhere to it with the same maniacal devotion that they do religion. Like you said, the reason for that is because science is not in the business of making absolute claims about space-time/reality (even though it seeks for one), and is very conscious of its own audacity and limitations. Religion prides itself in ignoring the objectifiable.
David:
Thanks for your input. I do get that there is a great deal of divide between Christian listeralists and fundamentalists. In fact, I just finished reading Bart Ehrman, who spends the entire introduction of his book, Misquoting Jesus, on making that point.
I’m glad you brought up the older manuscripts, since it’s an excellent example of the “universal absolute” I was talking about. There are a number of inaccuracies in most of the current Bible versions, due to the fact that the manuscripts upon which they are based are not (and weren’t even at the time) the best we have available. In the better versions that offer marginal notes, there are even a few identified and extensive forgeries–such as (just as one example) John 7:53-8:11 (the added text is the story of the adulterous woman).
What stuns me is that even today, with the knowledge that the text is a forged addition, it remains a marginal note to readers that this is forged material–but no one dares to actually _remove_ it, because it is considered orthodox now. The Christian community prefers to leave the error in place–indicating it’s wrong (if you’re lucky enough to have a good translation with notes)–rather than remove it, because it’s orthodox.
Can you imagine someone finding an egregious error in a science text and saying, “Hey, let’s just leave it in the next printing and use a footnote to the readers that this material is now known to be wrong”?
I can’t fathom it.
Oops! I didn’t mean “Christian listeralists and fundamentalists.” I meant to try to convey there is a difference between literalists and those with more liberal views. I have no idea how it came out so convoluted.
tracieh, All good points. I’ve read a lot of Ehrman (despite my former professors’ wishes that I avoided him), who is basically viewed with intense suspicion at some of the more conservative seminaries. I have not read Misquoting but I did thoroughly enjoy The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which preceded it. Curiously, Bruce Metzger, who Ehrman learned under at Princeton, was really the one who started looking at the NT text with an academic/intellectual flare in more recent times. Some of his textual criticism, albeit old, is still quite good.
The desire to leave “corrupted” sections in the text is simply due to their value in tradition. Since the vast majority of Christians are aloof in things related to textual criticism, modern translations tend only to make a note of these issues instead of removing them outright. I used the Oxford version of the NRSV when I wasn’t reading it in the Greek (NA27), and it had disputed sections bracketed with a brief note discussing some of the manuscript issues.
So, the reason the disputed sections are left in there is not only for chapter-and-verse continuity (even the Watchtower “New World Translation” takes verses out but still leaves the removed verse number in the text), but for theological appeals to tradition. (Imagine if you’re a Christian and the last 12 verses of Mark were removed – as the “oldest” of the four synoptics, it really damages any early scribal accounts of the resurrection). And seriously, except for the end of Mark, most of the disputed sections don’t change much anyway (the resurrection account probably first appeared, at the very earliest, in Q, which is the source for common Matthean/Lukan material), so leaving them in there despite their disputed status doesn’t significantly alter the text, in my opinion. (Again, I’m full-blown atheist, I just happen to have graduate training in this stuff and can look at it in an unbiased way – I think).
The more sophisticated creationist/IDers, such as Philip Johnson, don’t deny “microevolution,” i.e., evolution within a species. They know it is observable and they acknowledge that Great Danes and chihuahuas are both dogs, that finch beaks change size due to environmental changes, and so on. Their contention is that “macroevolution,” i.e., speciation, is bogus.
The uneducated apologists just regurgitate what they hear others say without understanding it. These are the “hit and run” posters to this blog. They are the ones who don’t know the implications of their claims.
There are also smart, educated apologists. These people know about reason, logic and argument. They know better but also think it is OK to lie in defense of their faith. So they publish lies like “evolution is a religion” and “atheism is a religion” and the ignorant faithful repeat them.
(I think they’re strawmen created by the church.) Tracie. From post #2. That is a given! If it were not for strawmen, and circular reasoning, an evangelical wouldn’t be able to talk!
You evolutionists are so funny. You hide the fact of what you really believe about women.
Tracy, here’s what Darwin said about you. Maybe it’s true and that’s why you write so much nonsense in here. At any rate this is what evolutionists are thinking.
Darwin On Women –
2. The argument that brain development determines personhood is exactly the same argument that Darwin and his followers used a century ago to dehumanize women and African Americans. These men contended that women were biologically and intellectually inferior because their brain capacity was less developed than that of a man:
• Charles Darwin (The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex ):
“[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Garlton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that-the average mental power in man must be above that of women.” (D. Appleton & Co.,1896, p.564)
• Gustave Le Bon (Darwin disciple and father of social psychology):
“[Even in] the most intelligent races [there] are large numbers of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion ….Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and…are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconsistency, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely.” (Cited in Stephen Gold, The Mismeasure of Man, Norton & Co., 1981, pp.104-5)
Jack here is a perfect example of someone who does not “get” the idea of what science is.
He is citing old scientists as if they were prophets, and all atheist followed blindly what they said. Because Atheist Scientist A said a hundred years ago that women suck, then all atheists and or scientists believe women suck.
That is a more common behavior in religious people: those who follow a dogma because it was said from Above, be it a god, an ancient tribal leader, or the head of a misogynous institution who rules out women from the higher ranks in a far worse way than the ones he is criticizing.
Well, were not the ones that:
a) take literally as an unmovable truth what others said with no proof.
b) follow blindly the written words from people long dead that might or might have never even met the person whose ethics we try to imitate.
c) Throw a party every year for that person’s birthday on a day that all know it’s not the right one, and count his age with some +70 years or error range.
Paul:
I get the micro-evolution idea. However, that’s my point regarding the stalactite. They draw a line in the sand that is an arbitrary line. If Chihuahuas and Great Danes are both dogs, the implication is that species remain within species, but they do not in observable reality. They need to offer a clearly defined line/rule where evolution absolutely stops. If new species can be observed, then “their both dogs” becomes to vague to apply, because now we’re beyond species. So what is the stopping point then, in reality? And I’m not saying there isn’t one. I’m asking where it is and how it’s defined. Things like mules and ligers require some explanation as well in whatever model they offer.
Jack:
Is there some point to that? Are you unaware that people who lived in different eras have have different ideas about human equity? I suspect that even though the Bible explains how you ought to treat and manage your slaves, that you likely think slavery is not a good thing. I could be wrong, but that model of the modern Christian is certainly no stranger to anyone. Social views change. And even beyond that, any person (modern or ancient) can hold to both correct and incorrect ideas a the same time. So what if Darwin was even as far gone as a raging pedophile—how does that invalidate whatever correct assertions he might have made in the realm of biology? Please research logical fallacies and begin by looking up “ad hominem.”
“Jack:Is there some point to that?”
Yeah, I thought it was funny.
It also demonstrates the science of evolution.
TRACIE: Are you unaware that people who lived in different eras have have different ideas about human equity?
JACK: Tracie, are you aware that different people have different stupid ideas all the while thinking themselves intelligent?
Poor Jack, this actually illustrates the beauty of science. You see, for a believer, when one of your prophets speak, you all think that what he said is immutable, unchangeable, pandemic, and eternal. When a scientist speaks, subsequent scientists rise to the challenge to test the theory, and if found false, new theories are formed, and onward we go – LEARNING throughout the process.
Much of what Darwin wrote by way of evolution has been modified or even dismissed, all for better scientific understanding. Moreover, much of what he produced was way ahead of its time. Science, unlike religion, has the capability – even the duty – to take what he got right and go with it, and to dismiss what he got wrong. You may think his comments on women are funny (they are), but where you failed is that you think scientists view Darwin as some sort of infallible prophet.
Please come to the realization that there are others who do not share your worldview.
Ah, so Jack’s reply is (to paraphrase) “you’re just a stupidhead then, tracieh!”
Very clever. And a terrific example of the quality of intellect theism often attracts.
I think I can rest my case at this point. Thanks for making it easy, JS.
Why do I get the feeling that Jack is stirring?
I which case how can we know what his world view is?
Ron, good question. I presumed (and I believe I presumed fairly) that his worldview incorporates some form of authoritative infallibility complexes embedded in church/religious leaders or icons. After all, it seems that he presumed that scientists, many (but not all) of whom are atheist, hold Darwin to the same degree if infallibility as Catholics do the pope, or as Muslims do Mohammed, or as Mormons do Joseph Smith, or as Scientologists do L. Ron Hubbard, etc. etc.
David J says:
“Ron, good question. I presumed (and I believe I presumed fairly) that his worldview incorporates some form of authoritative infallibility complexes embedded in church/religious leaders or icons.”
JACK: “And therefore Jack’s world view is totally warped and therefore we can dismiss it without bother. Now that we’re done with that let’s move on.”
How did I do David? Would you people even be able to exist if it weren’t for ad hominems?
David J says: “After all, it seems that he presumed that scientists, many (but not all) of whom are atheist, hold Darwin to the same degree if infallibility as Catholics do the pope….”
JACK: David, David, you do a lot of assuming. I know atheists well enough to know that they believe in nothing and no sort of infallibility except for a few limited things that they call truth. They know Christianity is wrong and evolution is true. Beyond that they’re at a loss. Oh yeah, they know Marxism is true and Joe McCathy is an ass.
Evolution is one of those things that liberals and atheists all assume to be true while at this time none of is has the slightest bit of scientific evidence to prove it. Of course as in Dawkins words, “There’s just tons of evidence.” He has yet to produce any of it.
And of course you now assume that which I have told you I am not. You want to assume that I am a “fundamentalist” and therefore once again you can dismiss me as a wacko.
It’s not going to be quite that easy as I am merely a Christian. As a Christian I believe in the scientific method and that science and religion do not conflict with each other. As a Christian I can believe in evolution (which I did at one time) or in creation. I choose to believe in science. Science is neither political nor religious. Science leans toward creation rather than evolution. (The howling starts here!) Therefore I tend to believe in creation, not because of religion, but because of science.
You on the other hand have no choice but to believe in evolution no matter what science says about it. You believe in evolution because your faith in atheism demands it. You are stuck with no choice. I can change my mind at anytime without a problem. If someone comes up with proof of evolution, I am all ears. So far that isn’t happening.
You have stumbling blocks with evolution that you have never conceived of because the indoctrinators have told you what to believe and you accept it in your robotic fashion. For example, with any scientific theory the proving of it requires that both sides of the issue be evaluated. If I were with you in person I would put to you the question (and watch you squirm), “What has to be proven before evolution can possibly be considered a fact?” This question was the one question that the evolutionists have been looking for since the beginning. The creationists did not think it up, the evolutionists did.
The funny thing is, not one of you can answer it! (What the question is.) Why is that? It’s because the evolutionists would have to admit that there is a problem with evolution. They cannot do that because atheism is “true” and therefore evolution has to be true.
Evolution is political not scientific. If you don’t believe in evolution you’re politically incorrect and we just can’t have that now can we? The professors that I know here at the local university tell me that evolutionary science is dying on the vine for lack of evidence. Everyone recognizes that it is purely political. (Everyone with an open mind, that is.) Marxism can’t exist without it. They also tell me that the young biologists are steering away from evolutionary biology for that reason and are going into field of micro-biology because that’s where the future is. BTW the university is NOT a fundamentalist school, but one full of liberal fundamentalists (i.e., Marxists).
Now tell me what the question is you bunch of geniuses? If I were a betting man I could make a ton off this one.
Tracie, you’re so dang smart, you tell me what it is.
hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Jack Savage,
It is obvious that you have some intelligence within you. It is also obvious that you are here to pick a fight rather than to have a civil dialogue with those who may not share your point-of-view.
You appear to find joy in stereotyping atheists as uniformily arrogant and hypocritical. Well, Jack, we humans uniformily share yhe same frailties of potential blinkered reasoning and bigotry, whether theistic or not.
Do atheists make snide remarks and hastily write theists off? Of course. Do theists do the same? You bet. My point being that it is of no help to point the finger at one another, arguing as to who is the pot and who is the kettle.
I have read many of your random attacks on atheists in this forum, and it appears that you are fond of making unsupported assertions and generalizations about who you consider to be the outgroup. You strike me as the kind of theist who disdains those who fail to share your view.
You rarely address questions and arguments made by non-believers in this forum, instead resorting to rhetoric and sarcasm.
Why do you do this? What is your intention for coming here if you do not wish to have a meaningful dialogue?
I certainly have an opinion, but I’d rather not presume to speak for you.
Please explain your behavior as I am highly interested in your motives and capacity for honesty.
**I think we would all be best served to refrain from “fighting fire with fire” as it pertains to Jack Savage’s modus operandi on this site. Furthermore, I am requesting that we refrain from addressing Jack’s assertions until he answers (with some measure of civility) the question I have asked of him. If his sole intention is to create strife where there should be understanding and respect, then he does not deserve the attention.**
Tracie, I am still laughing about this one.
“….Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and…are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconsistency, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason.”
When I read the stuff you blabber on and on about in here this quote comes to my mind! While in your mind you think that you made the monstrosity list!
Either way, you lose.
I am rolling on the floor and my sides are splitting!!!!
Jack
If you were a dairy farmer, would you use selective breeding to improve your herd? But I am guessing that you are too intelligent to fall into that trap. In any case,I am interested in seeing how you would answer that question.
Jack,
Your Darwin quote was answered quite effectively by David J, Tracieh, and Agersomnia. Ignoring the rebuttal and repeating your initial assertion will convince no one of your views. That you would do this and continue to steretype atheists as hypocritical and dogmatic is the height of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, you have completely ignored the question I am asking of you.
I am perfectly willing to take you seriously if you would only show me that you wish to be taken seriously. For all your intelligence, you are showing yourself to be the equivalent of a child who attempts to justify his/her own bad behavior by pointing to the same behavior in another.
Your point about hypocrisy in freethinkers and atheists has been noted. I have noted in return that hypocrisy is a human trait. Your point about Darwin being embarrasingly mistaken in his observation of women is also noted. What you are not taking note of is the responses of others.
You are proving yourself to be a hindrance to the cause you claim to fight for.
Ron says:
“Jack, If you were a dairy farmer, would you use selective breeding to improve your herd?”
If you can tell me at what point the offspring becomes infertile with the parent stock.
You didn’t answer my question Ron.
Jeremy says: It is also obvious that you are here to pick a fight rather than to have a civil dialogue with those who may not share your point-of-view.
JACK: I am always willing to have a civil dialogue, but did you ever try to have a civil dialogue with liberals or atheists? I gave Austin plenty of opportunity to have a civil dialogue, but all he can say is “prove it.”
Jeremy says: You appear to find joy in stereotyping atheists as uniformily arrogant and hypocritical.
JACK: No Jeremy, they are excellent at stereotyping themselves as arrogant, know-it-all, unable to discuss that with which they disagree and finally to censor any dialogue that causes them any degree of discomfort.
Jeremy says: My point being that it is of no help to point the finger at one another, arguing as to who is the pot and who is the kettle.
JACK: Then tell your buddies here to knock of all the snide remarks, name calling, ad hominems, and to back up their programmed answers. If you want a civil discussion here talk to them, not me.
Jeremy says: You strike me as the kind of theist who disdains those who fail to share your view.
And so? Have you ever met an atheist who treats those of different opinion without disdain.
Jeremy says: You rarely address questions and arguments made by non-believers in this forum, instead resorting to rhetoric and sarcasm.
Oh baloney Jeremy. Didn’t you read my above views on evolution? Yet you can’t discuss it? Why not do that rather than begin a diatribe as to how mean I am to atheists?
Jeremy says: Why do you do this? What is your intention for coming here if you do not wish to have a meaningful dialogue?
JACK: Jeremy, where’s the dialogue. I gave you plenty of material.
Jeremy says: Please explain your behavior as I am highly interested in your motives and capacity for honesty.
JACK: My capacity for honest??? What’s with that? Have I lied? But I have been called a liar without the slightest explanation or proof.
The question is, “Are YOU able to be intellecually honest?”
Jack,
Thank you for answering me.
You continue to point out the uncivil behavior of atheists as if I am disputing it. I am not. Let me say it again just in case you have a hard time believing an atheist: I AM NOT.
I don’t know how more official I can make this for you, Jack. If your game is to continue to harp on the point as if I’m denying it, at least come out and say so. (This is why I’m questioning your capacity for honesty, Jack. Your objecting to the behavior of atheists even after I’ve done all I can to throw down my weapons against the claim. Point for Jack acknowledged).
And to answer your question, I have met many atheists who can hold a civil discussion with theists. Austin is one of them. Just because you don’t LIKE that Austin says “Prove it,” when you show up with your guns blazing with assertions and sarcasm doesn’t make him arrogant or wrong. What you must remember is that YOU have done your part to build a reputation as someone who does not care to have civil conversations with atheists. You must own your behavior JUST AS offending atheists must own theirs. Will you need an apology from everyone here before we can move on? If so, then SAY SO.
Further, are you claiming that Christian message boards NEVER contain snide remarks about atheists, Jack? Maybe you should examine why you feel the need to come here and put all us “know-it-all” atheists in our place. Does it keep you up at night to think that somewhere out there a rotten atheist has advanced a logical fallacy + ad hominem combo against god belief? Do you feel you must avenge it?
Are you justified in being upset at the snide remarks of atheists? YES, JACK, YES. Let me validate those feelings for you, as it seems to be the thing you cannot get over.
However, if you can get over it, I’d be happy to discuss your claims about evolution and/or anything else under the sun. If you’re into UFO conspiracy theories, hell, we can even discuss that, too. We can trade recipes and maybe become really good friends. As long as you can at least conceive of the possiblity of being mistaken about your convictions, we can be productive. I can’t speak for all atheists, but I am open to being wrong.
For all your blustery talk, you actually seem like a pretty cool guy. If you’re interested, I’ll give you my email address and we can have a civil dialogue extravaganza.
Would you like my email address?
Jack–one more thing:
I really am willing to hear you elaborate on your “evolution as a political force” argument. But I did not take you seriously to begin with because you did not come into this forum in a spirit of goodwill. (Yes, yes, I know atheists fail at this as well). I don’t like being talked down to as much as the next guy, so I was hesitant to trust your intent. That is why I chose to highlight your behavior instead of your contention. Give respect to get respect, you know? I won’t be your enemy if you won’t be mine. If you can find a way to separate your finely-honed skill of rhetoric and sarcasm from your evolution argument, taking care to give me “just the facts” as you understand them. I am more than willing to listen. Really.
Jeremy, I will be glad to discuss whatever with you. You are going to have to ask Austin to knock off the censorship and quit deleting my posts.
I didn’t not seek out this blog. An atheist in my forum linked to it for me to read something he thought would convince me of something. Whatever it is I have forgotten by now, but that’s how I ended up here.
I have to admit that I have a hard time not responding when I see nonsense that is considered to be true by those who have had it programmed into them.
BTW I don’t censor in my forum. I am not afraid of what someone is going to say.
You can post your email. I will respond.
I’ve never touched any of your posts.
Yet you have no problem utilizing logical fallacies on a regular basis.
Yet you aren’t entirely honest or civil in any other forum.
AUSTIN SAID: BTW I don’t censor in my forum.
JACK: Then turn off you comment moderator.
AUSTIN SAID: Yet you aren’t entirely honest or civil in any other forum.
JACK: Have you been to any other forums where I am? And you’re telling my you’re honest? Now prove your statement that I am “not entirely honest.”
The only “moderator” that’s on is the spam filter, and I wouldn’t turn that off if I could.
I don’t need to. If you disagree with it, it’s your job to prove me wrong. If you can’t, then my statement stands as correct.
Though if I wanted to, I could just point to the fact that you attributed your own words to me.
Jack,
My email is jeremy@delmarus.com
Jeremy, I will send you a copy of this post in email since I cannot depend on Austin’s posting it. He says he’s not doing comment moderation, but so many of my posts never see the light of day except in my forum.
This last post by Austin is typical of what I have come to expect from atheists. Can you not see why I might get frustrated with them. You are actually the only atheist who has ever made a good faith effort to communicate. Oh, I take that back. I do have one who just showed up in one of my forums a couple weeks ago.
Now let’s look at what Austin said.
AUSTIN: “The only ‘moderator’ that’s on is the spam filter, and I wouldn’t turn that off if I could.”
MY REPLY: So why Austin, do so many of my posts fail to be posted?
AUSTIN QUOTING ME: “Now prove your statement that I am ‘not entirely honest.’”
AUSTIN’S REPLY TO ME: I don’t need to. If you disagree with it, it’s your job to prove me wrong. If you can’t, then my statement stands as correct.
JACK: Austin, your mother should take your keyboard away from you before you hurt yourself. Let me explain. I previously said that when Columbus arrived here in America he didn’t find any atheist Indian tribes. Now any dimwit knows that to be a fact, otherwise he’d be able to name them. Remember, common knowledge? Austin, you then told me that I need to “prove it.” I explained that I had stated a premise and that the burden of proof was upon you to disprove it (e.g., name an atheist tribe). You couldn’t do it and still can’t therefore my premise still stands. Austin, only a nitwit would challenge it.
Now here we are and you accuse me of being “less than honest” (i.e., a liar?).
You have made an accusation not a premise. The main principle of accusation that has stood forever since the founding of this nation is that a man is “innocent until proven guilty.” The accused bears no burden of proof to prove his innocence. Now since my M.O. is to always tell the truth I must understand that there is a problem here. Either #1 you have misunderstood something or #2 your honesty is in question. I never lie Austin. The reason is because it keeps me out of trouble. It has always given me an edge over everyone I deal with. I have dealt with a lot of liberals and atheists over the years. You are the first to insinuate that I might be lying about something.
So come up with the proof or shut up.
AUSTIN SAID: “Though if I wanted to, I could just point to the fact that you attributed your own words to me.”
JACK: Oh really Austin? What words of mine did I attribute to you? Are you going to take advantage of some misunderstanding of all the quotes going back and forth to attempt to grasp a straw? You better come up with something good Austin or guess what? Yes, you are the “less than honest.”
C’mon Austin, where’s the proof?
But you know what Austin, I already know that your honesty is in doubt from the beginning with your snide, “prove its.”
Now the question is: Will Austin allow this to be posted?
Any bets?
OH before I forget:
AUSTIN SAID: Yet you have no problem utilizing logical fallacies on a regular basis.
JACK: BALONEY Austin. The accusation of a fallacy does not so make.
Beat’s me. Maybe the system thinks they’re spam. Profanity will cause them to be removed. Maybe you simply aren’t doing it right. What are you doing with the ones that do get posted?
I stated a claim, just as you did. An accusation is a type of claim, but it’s not inherently different from other types of claims. A “premise” is a part of a logical argument, but since you openly refused to actually provide any complete arguments, you didn’t actually provide any premises. All you provided were isolated claims.
So, by your standards, it’s your job to prove my claim is wrong.
We can expand the use of your standards further to stipulate that your relative lack of honesty is my premise. Indeed, I’ll claim that it’s common knowledge around here. Ask anyone. The burden of proof is yours to disprove it.
Only in courts of law. This isn’t a court of law.
From #29: “AUSTIN SAID: BTW I don’t censor in my forum.”
I didn’t say that. You did.
Expecting you to support your claims doesn’t draw my own honesty into question. Your refusal to abide by your own standards, though, does say something about your own honesty.
True, but working under your standards I don’t have to support my claim that you utilize fallacies. That you engage in repeated logical errors is my premise. It’s common knowledge around here. Ask anyone. If you disagree with my claim, it’s your job to prove me wrong.
Austin, I will reply to this later on. I don’t have time now and I am laughing too hard.
I am amazed at the alleged education level you tout on your bio page.
Amazing, simply amazing!!!
In the words of C.S. Lewis while he shakes his head, “What ARE they teaching in schools today?”
It needs to be said that BOTH religion AND science are language based, and reality (the “real world”) could care less what abstract and artificial defintion is laid across it by way of interpretation. The world goes on regardless.
If we completely remove language (words, written or spoken) from the equation what continues to exist in the silence? Is religion possible in the absence of language (the notion of God or gods, angels, Heaven and Hell, the soul, life-after-death, eternal damnation, the apocalypse, etc) or is science (experimentation, examination, analysis, etc). In the absence of words I can still touch a tree, eat an apple, play with my child, but where can I point to anything having to do with religion? Religion and religious doctrine/dogma exists only INSIDE of language and is no where found outside it the ‘real world’. This is one of the reasons why religious folks are so all fired up about quoting their religious books and religious apologists, because without deferring to words they have nothing else they can point to. The world exists in the absence of language, while religion cannot.
And this makes for a simple test of reality. Can you experience it (whatever ‘it’ may be) without ever pointing back to words? If you can, then it’s real. If you can’t, it’s artificial plain and simple.
The key to this whole mess isn’t recognizing the issues inherent in religion OR science but with the memes of western culture.
‘ You are going to have to ask Austin to knock off the censorship and quit deleting my posts.
I’ve never touched any of your posts.’
Shame.
Here’s the thing about science vs. faith: Reality doesn’t care one wit what we believe. Gravity and evolution will go on all around us even if every one of us denied them.
Savage,
Save what you try to post. Then note what goes public and what does not. See if you can spot a trend. The system and Austin seem to let your spew sarcastic fallacy rife vitriol just fine. Try speaking to us the way you’d like to be spoken to, or better yet, the way we’d like to be spoken to. If something hurts your feewings, just turn the other cheek.
i’d say more, but i’m already late for Tuesday Conservation of Mass.
Todd says:
“Reality doesn’t care one wit what we believe. Gravity and evolution will go on all around us even if every one of us denied them.”
JACK REPLIES: And so will Hell.
TODD: Try speaking to us the way you’d like to be spoken to, or better yet, the way we’d like to be spoken to.
JACK: Todd, I speak to you and the others the same way you speak to me. Why is that a problem for you? I learned from people just like you. You can spew, but can’t take it.
TOOD: If something hurts your feewings, just turn the other cheek.
JACK: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
You crack me up Tood!
You’re the one doing the whining here. Are yur wittle feewings huurt? I don’t think I have complained about my treatment here. Why are you crying?
Now go see your mommy and tell her the heat in the kitchen is just toooooo hot……
Wah wah wah.
Whining at the top of your voice is still whining. You have nothing useful to contribute and you’re not here to make honest inquiry. You’re here to be a condescending jerk. If your feewings weren’t hurt, you’d be more polite. May we didn’t, but someone did, and you’re taking it out on us. Your complaint and insecurity are writ large.
JACK REPLIES: And so will Hell.
There is as much evidence of hell as there is of Yggdrasil, Santa Living at the North Pole, pots of gold at the end of a rainbow, etc.
TODD: [Some kind of childish deliberate misinterpretation]
JACK: [Fallacy laden vitriol! Sarcastic condescension. Recitation of myths. Accusation of censorship. I can't think of anything intelligent to say so I'll call people names. Followed by bluster I wouldn't dare say to someone's face.]
Get a job or a puppy. Or seek therapy. Being that angry all the time can’t be good for your health. Hurting other people might give you a brief kick, but in the long run it’s going to take a toll on you. Does your god really want you to speak for him like this? If you think he does, i wouldn’t want anything to do with him.
Dear Austin,
JACK: “What words of mine did I attribute to you?”
AUSTIN: From #29: “AUSTIN SAID: BTW I don’t censor in my forum.”
AUSTION: “I didn’t say that. You did.”
JACK: You are correct. My mistake Austin. You actually said, “I’ve never touched any of your posts.”
I did say, “BTW I don’t censor in my forum.”
Austin, you are so lame.
Now, as I said before you knew it was a typo on my part. Even if I did it on purpose it was no big deal yet you insinuated that I am less than honest. So as I said, we did find out just how honest you are didn’t we? If you keep checking you’ll surely find another straw to grasp for.
Now down to the real problem here Austin.
JACK: The main principle of accusation that has stood forever since the founding of this nation is that a man is “innocent until proven guilty.”
AUSTIN: “Only in courts of law. This isn’t a court of law.”
JACK: Oh really Austin? Now that’s just the kind of reasoning that makes it mandatory that no atheist ever be allowed into a position of authority. Atheists have no grasp for justice. Your knowledge of law is exceptionally lacking. And your ideas of justice are unjust.
Where do you think the civil law came from Austin? It came from Ecclesiastical law which came from moral law. Since Atheists reject moral law they reject justice as well. Don’t tell me that you believe in Christian moral law. What morals do you believe in Austin?
It is unjust to accuse someone of lying without proof of it whether in the courtroom or anywhere else. But since you are totally ignorant of moral laws I guess it’s understandable.
AUSTIN: “I stated a claim, just as you did. An accusation is a type of claim, but it’s not inherently different from other types of claims. A “premise” is a part of a logical argument, but since you openly refused to actually provide any complete arguments, you didn’t actually provide any premises. All you provided were isolated claims.”
JACK: I am so amazed at this statement that it’s taken me 2 days now to reply to it. I find it difficult after reading your reply to me to believe that you actually went to college and even graduated.
I am having a problem answering it because, well you know I have dealt with some really ignorant people on the internet that have said some outrageously idiotic things, but your last statement is so moronic that I just don’t know where to start.
OK Austin, let’s go back to a 4th grade level since apparently neither your graduate or post graduate studies gave you much background in anything requiring thought, reason, or logic. BTW did you learn anything there? Man you need to get some experience in the oil fields or on a road construction crew or something doing a man’s work that will teach you some common sense.
OK, here goes:
1. A claim is something you do with insurance, a lotto ticket, or a gold mine (e.g., mining claim).
2. An accusation is an accusation not a claim. You have to prove an accusation for it to stand. Your accusation proves to be lame (i.e., false). Making accusations that you cannot prove is immoral and unjust.
3. A premise is an opening statement in a debate that is to be rebutted by the other team. You couldn’t rebutt my atheist Indian premise because it is true. And nobody in this blog could come up with an atheist indian tribe. The thought is ridiculous. See if you can find the phone number of your Basket Weaving 101 teacher or any football coach and even he/she will be glad to tell you that there aren’t any.
BTW you didn’t play football did you?
PS. Austin, call Tood off, he’s going hurt himself!
Yes, the letters for “Jack” are right next to “Austin.”
My dictionary lists a different definition first.
My dictionary defines an accusation as a claim.
My dictionary doesn’t say that.
So either you have no idea what you are talking about, or you’re lying. Either way, you’re not worth talking to. Why don’t you post the address of your forum, where you apparently have learned how post successfully? Maybe some of your “missing” posts had something of value in them.
Austin, why did you have to go to a dictionary to double check what I said? These are simple things. Even so your dictionary is a problem for you so no wonder your having this problem with definitions. You need a new dictionary. Yours must be out of date.
AUSTIN: “So either you have no idea what you are talking about, or you’re lying.”
JACK: Lying? Austin, a college master degree edumucated nerd like you shouldn’t go around accusing people of lying when they present you with a problem that is beyond your mental capacity.
If you can’t intelligently discuss an issue you shouldn’t be a blog owner. Quit calling people who disagree with you liars and telling them to “prove it.” It only makes your lack of knowledge public.
I find value in checking my facts before making claims.
Feel free to post the definitions in your dictionary.
If you aren’t lying, then you necessarily don’t know what you are talking about — those are the only two options given how egregiously false your statements have been.
I notice you don’t post a link to your forum where you presumably have more success posting your insightful and informative comments. I think you should, because you’re posts are getting to the point where may decide the start deleting them. The falsehoods combined with the personal abuse – and you haven’t made a post yet that didn’t consist exclusively of both – may have served an illustrative purpose to begin with but have ceased to add even that much to the site. If you continue in this matter, your posting privileges will cease.
C’mon now, people. Ignore Savage long enough and eventually he’ll go away. The loonies always do.
Where do you think the civil law came from Austin? It came from Ecclesiastical law which came from moral law. Since Atheists reject moral law they reject justice as well.
We’re talking about the same ecclesiastical law that protects child molesters because they work for the Church? Or the same that tortured folks in the middle ages until the “right” answers came out of the “witch”? Maybe the heirs to the ones that did not accept Giordano Bruno’s writings, and Galileo’s heretical ideas when he had hard evidence?
I mean, if that’s the ecclesiastical law you are referring to, then maybe it’ll take 353 years to realize you made a mistake, as with Galileo. Some 500 years to give an apology for the excommunication of the Orthodox Church. 905 years for an apology on the Crusades, which also addressed the Inquisition (that lasted from 12th century to well into 1800). It took 65 years to give an apology for the Christians’ tacit acceptance of the Holocaust… and justified that era’s Pope inaction.
Jack, you seem to respond to any statement that is not in complete agreement with you with a hahahahahahahahahaha somtimes acompanied by a description of yourself as laughing hystericaly and even rolling around on the floor. I can see why you like this forum, what a great way to employ the ‘best medicine’ principle. I hope you continue to coment and never run out of laughs. You provide a great example of the Christian perspective and I, possibly alone, appreciate it. I dont need you to prove anthing just being a good example of a Christian man is valuable to me. I also find you to be very informative about what being a real man is all about. I would like a little more detail on that latter though, am I supposed to hate women? Or just subjugate them and keep them in their place. Your authority on the ’secret’ beliefs of athiests is unquestionable, I would like to be privy to more of their secrets, maybe you could post a list. It would be helpful to me, because try as I might I can’t get them to reveal these things to me in their writings or even in conversation. ps. Even though I completely agree with everything you have ever posted, I would love it if you could include a hearty BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in your response.