Are Evolution and Atheism Incompatible?

[Uncensored2008]

I don't care what the "american atheist" society said. Are you really that much of tool to think that this would carry any weight in a debate? What someone said? Lol.

Of course you don't, words mean precisely what you which them to mean, nothing less and nothing more.

Humpty lives.

 

[Derideo_Te]

According to Sun Tzu your "clashes with Atheists" are doomed to failure because you don't understand them at all. The first lesson to successfully waging any campaign is to learn all there is know about them. You have clearly demonstrated that you have a very erroneous concept of Atheism. So your efforts are futile and ineffective. Have a nice day.

So I've been told - apparently one should never trust Atheists to represent what Atheists believe.....

So who do you "trust" to "represent what Atheists believe"?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So who do you "trust" to "represent what Atheists believe"?

If I want to know how wasps behave, I watch a wasps nest. If I want to know what Mormons believe, I go to a Mormon church and listen. Now you demand that I not listen to Atheists as a indicator of what Atheists believe, but that seems dubious and self-serving.

Put it this way;

You buy a car; a man comes by with a group of 5 friends and says that he is representing Green Peace, and burns your car. Across town, a different small group saying they are Green Peace burns another car. This happens across town to dozens of cars.

So who's burning the cars? The oil company?

Over the last couple of decades there has been a war waged on basic civil liberties. Those waging this war say they are Atheists - the Atheist web sites say it's Atheists, court documents say it's Atheists.

So, I'll go out on a limb and guess that it just might be Atheists - even if some in a forum say "oh no, Atheists would never attack liberty."

Put another way, when you SEE the dog shit on your rug, it's hard to blame the parrot.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So who do you "trust" to "represent what Atheists believe"?

If I want to know how wasps behave, I watch a wasps nest. If I want to know what Mormons believe, I go to a Mormon church and listen. Now you demand that I not listen to Atheists as a indicator of what Atheists believe, but that seems dubious and self-serving.

Put it this way;

You buy a car; a man comes by with a group of 5 friends and says that he is representing Green Peace, and burns your car. Across town, a different small group saying they are Green Peace burns another car. This happens across town to dozens of cars.

So who's burning the cars? The oil company?

Over the last couple of decades there has been a war waged on basic civil liberties. Those waging this war say they are Atheists - the Atheist web sites say it's Atheists, court documents say it's Atheists.

So, I'll go out on a limb and guess that it just might be Atheists - even if some in a forum say "oh no, Atheists would never attack liberty."

Put another way, when you SEE the dog shit on your rug, it's hard to blame the parrot.

Can you explain what you meant by this statement;

apparently one should never trust Atheists to represent what Atheists believe.....

As opposed to this statement;

Now you demand that I not listen to Atheists as a indicator of what Atheists believe,

What is even more confusing is that you appear to be blaming Atheists for what the extremist Greens are doing.

There is no "war waged on basic civil liberties" by Atheists either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So who do you "trust" to "represent what Atheists believe"?

If I want to know how wasps behave, I watch a wasps nest. If I want to know what Mormons believe, I go to a Mormon church and listen. Now you demand that I not listen to Atheists as a indicator of what Atheists believe, but that seems dubious and self-serving.

Put it this way;

You buy a car; a man comes by with a group of 5 friends and says that he is representing Green Peace, and burns your car. Across town, a different small group saying they are Green Peace burns another car. This happens across town to dozens of cars.

So who's burning the cars? The oil company?

Over the last couple of decades there has been a war waged on basic civil liberties. Those waging this war say they are Atheists - the Atheist web sites say it's Atheists, court documents say it's Atheists.

So, I'll go out on a limb and guess that it just might be Atheists - even if some in a forum say "oh no, Atheists would never attack liberty."

Put another way, when you SEE the dog shit on your rug, it's hard to blame the parrot.

Can you explain what you meant by this statement;

apparently one should never trust Atheists to represent what Atheists believe.....

As opposed to this statement;

Now you demand that I not listen to Atheists as a indicator of what Atheists believe,

What is even more confusing is that you appear to be blaming Atheists for what the extremist Greens are doing.

There is no "war waged on basic civil liberties" by Atheists either.

The posts you snipped my words from make the meaning in context perfectly clear.

And the war Atheists wage against civil rights is unrelenting.

What is the Taliban up to today?

{New Jersey-based group, American Atheists, led by its chief cleric, David Silverman, appear to have headed south in search of a soft target – in this case, the small Florida town of Starke. Atheist activists took an aggressive litigation route by suing the municipality of Starke, FLA in an attempt to have the city remove a downtown monument depicting the Ten Commandments, which sits in front of Bradford County’s courthouse building. }

Taliban USA: American Atheists Sue Florida Town in Bid to Remove Christian Monument

 

[numan]

'
Well, I see that Uncensored brings to this topic the same incoherence and lack of reasonableness which I have seen him bring to all other topics on this site.

I will not pay any attention to what he writes, and I think it is profitless for others to become involved in long, pointless exchanges with him.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

'
Well, I see that Uncensored brings to this topic the same incoherence and lack of reasonableness which I have seen him bring to all other topics on this site.

I will not pay any attention to what he writes, and I think it is profitless for others to become involved in long, pointless exchanges with him.

.

So, what is the Taliban up to now, Mullah Neutered?

(The lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation, seeking to remove the religious memorial from a Montana ski resort, has been given a green light by U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen to move forward to trial.

The advocates for the separation of church and state had filed the lawsuit earlier this year but the Catholic group that erected the statue sought to dismiss the case. But with the go-ahead from the judge, a trial is now scheduled to begin in March. }

Atheists sue to remove six-foot tall Jesus statue erected as war memorial at ski resort | Mail Online

Ah those wacky Atheists and their never ending war on civil liberty...

 

[hoosier88]

...

...

...

...

The posts you snipped my words from make the meaning in context perfectly clear.

And the war Atheists wage against civil rights is unrelenting.

What is the Taliban up to today?

{New Jersey-based group, American Atheists, led by its chief cleric, David Silverman, appear to have headed south in search of a soft target – in this case, the small Florida town of Starke. Atheist activists took an aggressive litigation route by suing the municipality of Starke, FLA in an attempt to have the city remove a downtown monument depicting the Ten Commandments, which sits in front of Bradford County’s courthouse building. }

Taliban USA: American Atheists Sue Florida Town in Bid to Remove Christian Monument

(My bold)

Possibly David Silverman's group is attempting to deny liberties. I thought he was objecting to the FL 10 commandments monument.

Please note though - the referenced article argues that Silverman's group is just like the Taliban, destroying religious symbols. But Silverman's crew isn't taking dynamite nor RPGs nor artillery to the 10 commandments monument; he's gone to court. He is within his rights to do so, I sympathize with his position up to a point. The American Atheists' monument was set up by invitation, if I understood the article correctly.

In any event, Silverman's group does not represent all agnostics/atheists in the US; I think it's silly & counterproductive to claim that they do. We might as well claim that the Westboro Baptist crew accurately represents all Christians on the question of homosexuality.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. 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?

I don't reject the possibility of more advanced races than humans.

It's the religious that believe we are special "children of god". I for one believe that the universe is home to other intelligent life and it makes perfect sense that some of that life will be more advanced than we are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

(My bold)

Possibly David Silverman's group is attempting to deny liberties. I thought he was objecting to the FL 10 commandments monument.

He is objecting to it - Atheists seek to stop ANY expression that runs contrary to their belief system.

Please note though - the referenced article argues that Silverman's group is just like the Taliban, destroying religious symbols. But Silverman's crew isn't taking dynamite nor RPGs nor artillery to the 10 commandments monument; he's gone to court. He is within his rights to do so, I sympathize with his position up to a point. The American Atheists' monument was set up by invitation, if I understood the article correctly.

I have no objection to an Atheist monument. I don't view government as sacred in the first place, so the idea of heretical displays on holy ground is lost on me. This forms the foundation of the outrage of Atheists - that one would sully the purity of government by expressing ideas other than those held by Atheists.

In any event, Silverman's group does not represent all agnostics/atheists in the US; I think it's silly & counterproductive to claim that they do. We might as well claim that the Westboro Baptist crew accurately represents all Christians on the question of homosexuality.

He doesn't represent any agnostics - obviously.

And Siverman is but one of hundreds of similar groups.

People like Silverman and Richard Dawkins are not spokesmen for all Atheists, but are representative of the attitudes of Atheism as a movement.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

Atheism is an active campaign to silence religious expression.

Simple as that.

 

[oldfart]

So who do you "trust" to "represent what Atheists believe"?

If I want to know how wasps behave, I watch a wasps nest. If I want to know what Mormons believe, I go to a Mormon church and listen. Now you demand that I not listen to Atheists as a indicator of what Atheists believe, but that seems dubious and self-serving.

At least you are beginning to articulate what you mean. Now we can work on straightening out the reasoning. You begin with naming a group, be it atheists, wasps, Mormons, or Christians. You observe what you take to be members of this group doing something. The (self-proclaimed) atheists are proclaiming something that you believe is against civil liberties. The wasps are swarming. The Mormons are knocking on doors. The Christians (Westboro Baptist Church) are disrupting the funerals of servicemen killed in action.

So how do you evaluate all this? You conclude that all atheists believe as those you observe. You conclude that all wasps swarm, and that Mormons solicit door-to-door. Do you also conclude that all Christians behave like those of Westboro? I would hope not.

Stripped to its bare elements your argument is "I see members of A doing Z; therefore all members of A must do Z." But you do not treat A and B the same. When Christians do things you do not agree with, you inquire further, because you believe that not all Christians would behave as some have. But you will not make the same inquiry about atheists, even when the diversity is presented to you.

I think that you are aware of what you are doing, because you are a troll. You are one of the whiney "Christians" that want to feel persecuted. What "civil liberties" do you think you are being denied? The right to force others to participate in your public prayers? The right to have your dogmas taught in public schools? Is this your complaint?

A good Taoist, or Confucian, or Buddhist, or many other forms of atheist would not make such a self-serving and intellectually dishonest argument. But experience teaches us that it takes a true-believing Christian to lie and dissemble in "God's" cause.

 

[numan]

'
I am an atheist.
I am quite uncompromising in my hostility to the organized religions and all other forms of popular superstition. Supporting any of them seems to me to be as silly as supporting the gods of ancient Egypt or the Greek Olympian gods.

I reject all faith and all beliefs -- without exception! I consider that to hold any belief is harmful to intellectual clarity.

I know most people will think that it is impossible to live believing nothing, but it is not hard at all, once you get the hang of it.

I am quite willing to consider hypotheses -- all hypotheses -- but I do not adhere or give my consent to any of them.

Some hypotheses may be judged more probable than others -- or, at least, of more practical utility. But that is no reason to believe them. Moreover, I find that it is always possible to find a reason by which any belief could be false.
.

 

[prepster]

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. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. 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?

Atheism rejects the belief in the existence of deities and/or rejects the existence of deities. A deity is a supernatural being that may be thought of as holy (declared to be deserving veneration or respect in terms of religion), sacred (deserving of veneration or respect in terms of religion), or divine (having powers that affirm supernatural authority). Something that is supernatural is an entity not subject to the laws of physics. Unless a species evolves insofar as their abilities transcend the laws of physics, they cannot be considered "gods". Hypothetically speaking, if such a species evolves, the conventional understanding of not only evolution, but of all scientific disciplines, most notably physics, will have to be reevaluated. The atheist position will also lose any objective tone it had (it does not have any legitimate objective tone to begin with). However, because we are operating on a hypothetical, and not certainty, we can simply call your inquiries mere speculation.

 

[numan]

'
The only concepts which I reject utterly, or give scant consideration, are those which are :

1. By any reasonable definition, counter to fact

2. Meaningless

3. Logically inconsistent

For instance, it is not fact that phlogiston exists.
It is not fact that the present King of France is fat, because there is no present King of France.

The concept of the "supernatural" is meaningless, because everything that exists, or ever could exist, is natural.
The concept of "free-will" is meaningless, because no one has ever been able to define it in such a way that made sense.

The notions of a "square circle" or "2+2=5" may be rejected out-of-hand because they are logically incoherent and contradictory.

The notions of religion are counter to fact, meaningless, or logically inconsistent -- and often all three at once!! They need be given little consideration.

One of my favorite quotes on this subject was by Bernard Shaw, about the atheism of Percy Bysshe Shelley (who was, ironically, one of the most spiritual people who may be imagined) :

Shelley was an atheist.... He never trifled with the word "God"; he knew that it meant a personal First Cause, Almighty Creator, and Supreme Judge and Ruler of the Universe, and that it did not mean anything else, never had meant anything else, and never whilst the English language lasted would mean anything else. Knowing perfectly well that there was no such person, he did not pretend that the question was an open one, or imply, by calling himself an Agnostic, that there might be such a person for all he knew to the contrary. He did know to the contrary; and he said so.

.

 

[oldfart]

I think you need to read the pans your post got again. The thrust is that biologists don't impose value judgments on the results of evolution. You are engaged in circular reasoning at best; "survival of the fittest" is true by definition if fitness is defined as the ability to survive! It's also meaningless as are all definitions. Give me a counterexample where the fittest did not survive.

For your specific references, the most successful creatures today (or in all of evolutionary history for that matter) by number of individuals or by gross biomass are single celled creatures. Dinosaurs and humans are fragile fringe players compared to algae.



Most everyone who has looked at it call philosophical Taoism atheist and I concur. One of the tenets of my school is that personified deities are social institutions designed for social control and do not exist independently. You can lump them with fairies and egg-producing rabbits.



I define a personified god as a supernatural deity that interacts with humans in history and has aspects of personality (like being capable of being flattered, cajoled, or bribed; of experiencing anger, lust, affection, or disappointment; or of preferring one group over another). This leaves room for deities that do not interact with humans, such as the Theists "Clockmaker God" who sets Creation in motion and then retires from it, or those who identify a deity as identical with Creation, or Nature, or Tao. But in each of these the believer does not expect a deity to intercede for them.

I find it peculiar that you appear to get your information about atheists from sources other than atheists, and your concept of evolution from people other than evolutionists. Thus your attempt to make a connection here is flawed on many levels. It makes my head hurt.

What makes your head hurt is all the dodging and weaving you do to avoid answering simple questions. Atheists are strident in their condemnation of other religions, but get all squishy and word mincing when it comes to their own beliefs, preferring to masquerade as Agnostics. In reality, they are profoundly ignorant individuals who are terrified of the unknown and want to prevent anyone else from talking about it in their presence.

OK hot shot. You seem to believe you know everything about my faith. An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of "god". So the term only has meaning when applied to a specific concept of God. Do you believe in Thor? If not then you are an atheist with respect to the existence of Thor.

I stated that I did not believe in personified deities and explained what I meant by "personified deities". This makes me an atheist with respect to any faith based on personified deities such as Christianity, Islam, and other Abrahamic faiths. Am I going too fast for you here?

I assure you I do not get "squishy" in discussions of faith; I do however have little tolerance for whiney brats who feel persecuted because other people do not drink their brand of koolaid. Religious people in general and Christians in particular, are not persecuted or disadvantaged in the United States. Period. To claim otherwise is simply to look silly.

Now what exactly what are the "simple questions" you want answered that I have not addressed, sport? And do you feel persecuted just because I call you whiney?

Well, more than four days have passed and jwoodie has been active on other threads, but not this one. I must have hurt his delicate feelings. If you run into him, tell him "squishy" says "Hey!"

 

[newpolitics]

I don't care what the "american atheist" society said. Are you really that much of tool to think that this would carry any weight in a debate? What someone said? Lol.

Of course you don't, words mean precisely what you which them to mean, nothing less and nothing more.

Humpty lives.

What does that even mean? "Humpty"? WHAT??? You are being ridiculous and childish. Try actually explaining where I went wrong in my semantic usage, if this is even what you are implying. If you can't, then stop being an idiot by inferring that I did. The fact of the matter is that the "american atheist" society doesn't have anything to do with the definition of atheism. They are a group of people. A definition is a definition. A definition of a word, and a group of people are not the same thing. That's simple enough, right? Therefore, the actions of a group of people who go under a certain title or word, do not change the definition of that title or word by their actions... Now we can move past this point, and you can discontinue acting a fool. The truth is, You simply don't agree with my beliefs, so automatically assume that there is something wrong with my logic, when there isn't. If there was, you would have pointed it out by now, but you can't.

 

[newpolitics]

Isn't the belief in a "creator" an absolute?

Yep, religious people tend to deal in absolutes. Atheists, the Taliban, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al...

Name ONE absolute that atheists "tend to deal in."

Then, define religious, please, and show how atheism is a religion, using the correct definition of atheism: A (a prefix denoting "without)- Theism (belief in god). Hence, Atheism is simply a "lack of belief in god." Thank you. I look forward to what will likely be a completely vapid response.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What does that even mean? "Humpty"? WHAT???

LOL

Sorry, I often assume people to be at least somewhat literate.

{Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' }

Humpty Dumpty | Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

You voted for Obama, yes?

You are being ridiculous and childish. Try actually explaining where I went wrong in my semantic usage, if this is even what you are implying. If you can't, then stop being an idiot by inferring that I did. The fact of the matter is that the "american atheist" society doesn't have anything to do with the definition of atheism. They are a group of people. A definition is a definition. A definition of a word, and a group of people are not the same thing. That's simple enough, right? Therefore, the actions of a group of people who go under a certain title or word, do not change the definition of that title or word by their actions... Now we can move past this point, and you can discontinue acting a fool. The truth is, You simply don't agree with my beliefs, so automatically assume that there is something wrong with my logic, when there isn't. If there was, you would have pointed it out by now, but you can't.

Rational people have a grasp of what "Nazi" means. They may not have met every Nazi from the Third Reich, they may not have met any. Still, through the deeds of the group as a whole, a basic model of what a Nazi is can be formed.

Same with Atheists. The basic act of Atheism is to attack civil liberty and crush religious freedom. You whine that not every Atheist has beat up a little girl for saying a prayer at the school flagpole, so Atheists must be excused.

Which is bullshit - because as a group, there is only one attribute to be associated with Atheist - it ain't charity, it ain't setting up hospitals, it isn't working with the homeless.

No, Atheists are known for one thing, their incessant war against civil liberty. The desire to silence any view contrary to their own, the demand that any display contrary to their dogma be forcibly suppressed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Name ONE absolute that atheists "tend to deal in."

There is no god.

Gee, that was easy...

Then, define religious, please, and show how atheism is a religion, using the correct definition of atheism: A (a prefix denoting "without)- Theism (belief in god). Hence, Atheism is simply a "lack of belief in god." Thank you. I look forward to what will likely be a completely vapid response.

Atheism is a dogma based on the absolute rejection of the possibility of a god.

I'm an agnostic - that means I don't give a fuck what you believe. I support your right to believe as you will - where we cross is that as an Atheist, you will seek to silence the religious expression of others. A prayer at a football game, a memorial to fallen soldiers, anything other than what you believe will be attacked.

 

[Montrovant]

What does that even mean? "Humpty"? WHAT???

LOL

Sorry, I often assume people to be at least somewhat literate.

{Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' }

Humpty Dumpty | Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

You voted for Obama, yes?

You are being ridiculous and childish. Try actually explaining where I went wrong in my semantic usage, if this is even what you are implying. If you can't, then stop being an idiot by inferring that I did. The fact of the matter is that the "american atheist" society doesn't have anything to do with the definition of atheism. They are a group of people. A definition is a definition. A definition of a word, and a group of people are not the same thing. That's simple enough, right? Therefore, the actions of a group of people who go under a certain title or word, do not change the definition of that title or word by their actions... Now we can move past this point, and you can discontinue acting a fool. The truth is, You simply don't agree with my beliefs, so automatically assume that there is something wrong with my logic, when there isn't. If there was, you would have pointed it out by now, but you can't.

Rational people have a grasp of what "Nazi" means. They may not have met every Nazi from the Third Reich, they may not have met any. Still, through the deeds of the group as a whole, a basic model of what a Nazi is can be formed.

Same with Atheists. The basic act of Atheism is to attack civil liberty and crush religious freedom. You whine that not every Atheist has beat up a little girl for saying a prayer at the school flagpole, so Atheists must be excused.

Which is bullshit - because as a group, there is only one attribute to be associated with Atheist - it ain't charity, it ain't setting up hospitals, it isn't working with the homeless.

No, Atheists are known for one thing, their incessant war against civil liberty. The desire to silence any view contrary to their own, the demand that any display contrary to their dogma be forcibly suppressed.

You consider knowing a particular quote from 'Through The Looking Glass' to be the measure of being somewhat literate? That seems to be a fairly arbitrary standard.....