Out of 60 people that answered the poll, the results were different then I thought it would be.Have you, as an atheist, read the entire Bible cover to cover?
37 said yes they have read the Bible cover to cover. That is admirable and what I would expect from someone debating against Christianity. These atheists are well informed as to the subject matter. They took the time to educate themselves in dealing with the subjects of Salvation and life after death. It's commendable they, at the very least, were inquisitive about salvation.
It may have been because of their upbringing but they indeed searched for truth in the Bible. From the source, they sought to answer life's questions; Not ones like "Are those cookies made with real Girl Scouts?" or "If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?" Or more perplexing ones like "Can atheists get insurance for acts of God?" but the real big questions of life such as: Why is there something rather than nothing? How Do You Explain Human Nature? What Happens after Death? and How Do You Determine Right and Wrong?
These questions, and many more, are addressed in the Holy Bible and can give people a mere glimpse of the true majesty of God. Written by God and penned by Man, the Bible was created as a way to communicate to us Salvation, even after all these many thousands of years. The Bible is alive even to this very day.
And that brings us to tonight's word: Ignotheists. Three of you said "No" and 20 of you said they read "Parts, but never cover to cover" which to me is the biggest surprise. It means that 30% of you are ignorant of Christianity and the Bible. Basically you are what I call ignorant [a]theists or Ignotheists.So, in the future, if you haven't read the Bible then you cannot refer to yourselves as atheists anymore because you are basing your beliefs on very little information.
Even though a suicidal decision was made, any true atheist would, at least, do the research to make such a important decision about salvation. Anyone not willing to take the time to do the research is called an Ignotheist. And that's tonight's word.
tinyurl.com/ignotheists
I see.
ReplyDeleteI assume, then, Dan, that you've read every "holy book" for every other religion, cover to cover?
Have you also kept yourself completely informed on Evolution? The various other sciences which threaten your worldview?
For the record, I am one of the apparently vast majority who have indeed read the bible cover to cover (in a couple different translations, at that), though I have not given the same treatment to other "holy books" or even to the mountains of documentation on the Theory of Evolution.
So in a sense, I'm giving you a pass on reading all that other stuff, so long as you at the very least keep yourself completely informed on your opponent's views...
Oops.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteOuch, for the link.
"I'm giving you a pass on reading all that other stuff, so long as you at the very least keep yourself completely informed on your opponent's views..."
I believe I have the gist of the argument. I may not have every experiment committed to memory but I do at least understand the basic tenets of evolution. Please don't blame me for scientists failure to persuade the public for the flimsy failed theory.
Nice graphic, but that averages out to 62%, and points to education rather than public persuasion. You may very well understand the tenets of the TOE, but you sure seem to strawman the hell out of it every opportunity you get, and you seem to forget that evolution is hardly the only science which recognizes the extreme age (in human terms) of the earth, solar system, galaxy, and universe -- and everything in or in between.
ReplyDeleteRemember, Darwin himself postponed publishing his theory due to the extreme timescales required, and the fact that the science of his day was all in lock-step regarding the biblical-literalist creation model. Some of the first evidence supporting evolution were de facto predictions of age: fusion in the sun, the geologic column (strata), radiometric dating techniques, etc. It all points to an old universe, and it provides initial support for the TOE. Note that all of those other sciences and processes stand on their own, without any need to appeal to the TOE -- they are simply mutually supportive based on ages.
I don't blame science for failing to persuade, nor do I blame the scientists -- scientists aren't generally educators except in higher learning. Rather, I blame the educational system which refuses to require its students to actually demonstrate their educational prowess prior to graduation. Bush's poorly named "No Child Left Behind" act is an apt example; it should've been "No Child Pressed Forward". Teach them. There's a reason that students in the US (current and former) don't grasp science as well as they ought -- they generally suck at math, especially relative to the rest of the world.
It's tough to understand science without a reasonably solid grasp of mathematics, and it's doubly hard when such a large portion of the US population seems content "educating" their children at home with turn of the first millennium "science". Science is not a dogma, but religion most certainly is. Teach them the math, teach them why we think the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and show them the data.
--
Stan
P.S. - So I'm sorry about linking to TO -- it was begging to be done in response to your post...
Oh dear! Such a good start...
ReplyDeleteWhile of course it is a good idea to be as well-researched as possible befor debating a topic, I'm afraid you approach here has some holes in it...
1. If, in order to be an atheist, I have to read the entirety of the Bible, I will also have to read the entirety of every single other religious work. As an atheist, I'm afraid I don't believe in ANY religions.
2. I don't see how not having read the Bible would disqualify you from debating Christianity, although it might put you at a disadvantage in some topics - say, on Biblical prophecy. But how would it prevnt you from arguing against things like Pascal's Wager?
3. This, coming from a blogger who (I hope you will not mind me saying so) makes arguments quit contrary to accepted scientific fact, is rich.
Strange, I don't remember the definition of an atheist as being a person who has read the Bible and disagreed with it. I was under the impression that to be an atheist you simply didn't have to believe in gods...
ReplyDeleteOh well, thanks for the correction Dan. I'll change my blog name right away...
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI will read the Bible, cover to cover, just as soon as I'm convinced that it is the word of God.
For the record, I'm one of the atheists that has only read parts of the Bible (mainly the new testament). I didn't find it a very compelling read (the movie was WAY better).
By calling us "ignorant theists", are you making an assertion that we actually DO believe in a god whether or not we believe we believe in a god?
I find it funny that you say that someone who hasn't read the Bible cannot claim to be an atheist because they are basing their beliefs on very little information, yet you claim to be a Christian, basing your beliefs on just one book and ignoring all the other information out there. I think maybe a re-designation of your term, "ignorant theist", is in order.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDon't be intentionally stupid, Dan. Atheism and Christianity are not related in any way.
ReplyDeleteEDIT: accidentally quoted you in my orig post
It is quite obvious that Dan is an Ignostian.
ReplyDeleteDon't have to poll anybody to plainly see that.
Adrian,
ReplyDelete"I was under the impression that to be an atheist you simply didn't have to believe in gods..."
Didn't you get the memo? Dan has been given full rights to re-define any word as he see fit. Please try to keep up.
Dan,
Others have said it, but you really should pay attention; atheism is not the rejection of the Christian God specifically - it is the rejection of ALL gods, past and present, regardless of what their 'holy books' have to say on the subject.
I have read the Bible, cover-to-cover, at least 3 times in my life and the NT many more times. I do not believe it to be the inspired word of God, it's just a collection of books written long ago and I find it highly interesting - as I do for many history books and historic fiction.
I know you like to conflate evolution with atheism so, if I may ask; how many times have you read Origin of Species?
Cheers,
Stan brings up the obvious inference here that I think needs to be addressed on some manner.
ReplyDeleteHow can you say you are following the one true religion if you yourself haven't read all the other holy books which may or may not stand in opposition to the bible?
Yeah, it's a great double-standard that Dan has set up for himself. The Bible must be read in full before it can be rejected, but for everything, only the "gist" of the idea is necessary to repudiate it.
ReplyDeleteFor those who haven't read the Bible in full, here's a tip: you don't need to actually drown to know that drowning is going to suck. You don't even need to read a treatise on drowning. You don't even need to read about other people who've drowned or to see another person drowning to get the point that drowning isn't something that one should aspire to. The "gist" of the idea is plainly good enough.
And along those same lines, there's a pair of Dans here who are crystal-clear examples of what happens when one drowns in Scripture. Don't do it.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"It's tough to understand science without a reasonably solid grasp of mathematics, and it's doubly hard when such a large portion of the US population seems content "educating" their children at home with turn of the first millennium "science"."
Completely unfair/untrue, dude. You do understand that home schooled children are outperform their peers on standardized tests.
"Among the homeschooled students who took the tests, the average homeschooled student outperformed his public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects." (1)
Your reasoning is failing now.
My 7 year old is at the 5th grade level of math and you will see this by her name on the list. See if you are smarter then a 5th grader:
There are 7 girls on a bus. Each girl has 7 backpacks. In each backpack, there are 7 big cats. For every big cat there are 7 little cats.
Question: How many legs are there in the bus? The number of legs is the password to unlock the Excel sheet. If you open it, add your name and send it on to see who else can unlock it. This is a real math problem so don't say that a bus has no legs. PS there is no bus driver. If you get the correct answer that's the password to the spreadsheet. Put your name in the column with the names and forward it on if you were smart enough to get the right answer.
"I believe I have the gist of the argument. I may not have every experiment committed to memory but I do at least understand the basic tenets of evolution."
ReplyDeleteI believe I have the gist of the christian claims. A special insistence on "cover to cover" is, indeed, a double standard.
I just want to jump on board and say I support what Stan, Adrian, Whateverman and all the others with logical brains have said.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even an atheist, but claiming that atheist must read the Bible before they can be choose to not be Christian is ridiculuous because you don't need to reject Christianity in order to be an atheist.
It's just like, saying you don't need to hold your breath until you pass out in order to decide you like breathing.
Seems I can't edit it off the internet. That is, I have to download it first and any edits only apply to the copy. To demonstrate that have seen a copy, I will note that Jenean Gumina gave a "shut up comment" and the last name showing (at the time I write this) is Abby Marvin on line 60. Strange, I expected some sort of trickery, rather than the password being genuine. But, I can admit I was wrong -- when I have the evidence of it.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
ReplyDelete" I believe I have the gist of the [C]hristian claims. A special insistence on "cover to cover" is, indeed, a double standard."
Touché
I hope all of you understood it as a dig instead of being entirely serious. I thought "And thats tonights word." was the tip off but I guess not. Of course you don't have to read the Bible to be anything. But if you want to truly want to understand and seek God you must read the Bible. It is offending Him by not doing so. So, for your own good, and for you own salvation, READ THE BIBLE.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on getting the math right. I had the same problem as you as to editing it but at least you can send it to others with your name entered.
I will admit to you that I failed on my first try so I had to go back and knock some cobwebs off this brain of mine to "get it" the next time.
At least you can say that you are smarter then a fifth grader, but I think we both knew you were before that math test. ;)
Heh. The busdriver couldn't stand the smell... He was probably cheesing.
ReplyDeleteCompletely unfair/untrue, dude. You do understand that home schooled children are outperform their peers on standardized tests.
You missed my meaning, and upon re-reading it, I apologize. I wasn't necessarily knocking on home-schoolers, though I maintain that most parents who home-school their children are quite unqualified to do so. No, I was insinuating that despite the efforts of the [admittedly failing, corporatized] educational system, when students are also being told by mommy and daddy that their teachers are wrong, that the sun was created four days after the earth, and that dinosaurs were probably domesticated, and that all those fossils and all that oil formed in a few thousand years...
When the already troubled efforts of teachers are being undermined by parents, it's no wonder that the U.S. is consistently lower than the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to education.
Granted, there are clear benefits to private schooling, into which category I'd lump a considerable amount of home-schooling programs, but none of them is a solid understanding of higher order mathematics. Multiplying by seven a few times, and inserting the appropriate number of legs for cats and girls into a fairly simple problem is hardly indicative of your daughter's grasp of calculus. No one expects a fifth grader to know these things, but it isn't unreasonable to expect all high school graduates to pass Calculus I.
Whenever I answer the question, "What's your major?", the questioner perks up when I say, "Physics." They are instantly impressed, despite the fact that if our educational system were at all succeeding, every student would be required to pass a Newtonian statics course (F = ma) in addition to a first-year Calculus course (basic derivatives and integrals, fundamental theorem of calculus). "He must be smart," they are clearly thinking, but it's not that difficult.
So anyway, Dan, I apologize if it seemed I was picking on home-schoolers -- I was instead picking on the entire U.S. educational system, and in particular the fact that so many U.S. parents undermine even that with their insistence on the validity of the writings of bronze-age nomads.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"I was instead picking on the entire U.S. educational system, and in particular the fact that so many U.S. parents undermine even that with their insistence on the validity of the writings of bronze-age nomads."
Funny, your complaints are close to the same as mine. We may actually agree on something, imagine that. Let me break some possible shocking news to you, the school system is pushing government not education. I wish I could convince you to help to fight the good fight! Admittedly though, I believe you are just not ready yet. sigh.
the Bible was created as a way to communicate to us Salvation
ReplyDeleteWell, it's not very good at it. Many people read it and have completely different ideas on salvation. I read through the Bible twice while I was still a theist. And several times (almost) all the way through as an atheist. (I skip the genealogies and things like that).
if you haven't read the Bible then you cannot refer to yourselves as atheists anymore
Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. Reading every holy text as nothing to do with it. (Well, besides pushing atheists further away from theism)
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteI believe I have the gist of the argument.
I can't read anything in your blog that convinces me you "have the gist" of evolution.
The straw-man arguments I've seen you using are rude caricatures that do not resemble the actual theories.
I may not have every experiment committed to memory but I do at least understand the basic tenets of evolution.
I don't believe you.
Please don't blame me for scientists failure to persuade the public for the flimsy failed theory.
It's not the scientists fault, it's your school system. And obviously, by "flimsy failed" you mean highly successful. There must be something wrong with your universal translator. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, only if you are totally ignorant (or disingenuous) can you sweep it aside by saying you "get the gist of it".
Dan wrote "I may not have every experiment committed to memory but I do at least understand the basic tenets of evolution."
ReplyDeleteDr. Mabuse responded I don't believe you
I don't either. Dan, without inserting opinion, can you very clinically list your understanding of the theory of evolution?
Please note: I don't expect you to expansively list all the components, nor am I expecting that you're correct in your understanding. I merely want to know what you know about the theory; your opinion about it (of which you've provided plenty) is not applicable for the sake of this mini-discussion.
I'm with Whateverman on this.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I can demonstrate knowledge of the Bible easily enough. With the Bible as a reference, I can pretty much teach the basics of Christianity to 7-graders just like suppose you could teach them math.
I can do so by temporarily granting the premise that God is real, and the Bible is his inerrant word. I can do so without constantly injecting my objections regarding the lunicy of the Bible and the impossibility of actually providing physical evidence of the existance of God.
If you ever hope to convince atheists that evolution is false, you will need to dispute claims we consider true.
The argument that random events assembling a cell is just as likely as a tornado through a scrapyard assembling a Boeing 747 is not a claim that evolutionary scientists hold (it's a stram-man argument), so disputing it is meaningless.
Likewise, Dani'El's quote: To conclude that someone started out to make a tv and by an error in the blueprint machine, a computer came out is silly. is also just as silly, and only proves that Dani'El is not serious, and thus shouldn't be taken seriously.
In fact, his comment is so stupid I'd feel pity for him hadn't I been busy laughing my ass off.
Dan, prove to me that you understand evolution (even if you don't "believe" in it), and you'll have my ear. Continue burning straw-men at the stake, and I will continue to view your rants against evolution as the ravings of a madman.
And please, please... Don't consult Answers In Genesis or Institute for Creational Research for understanding on modern evolutionary theories. They have an invested interest in lying to you about it.
Consulting a web resource for this would be dishonest, as I'm asking for Dan's understanding, not someone else's.
ReplyDeleteDan, I hope you at least make an honest attempt to answer my request...
This should be interesting....
ReplyDeleteDan?
ReplyDeleteSorry I have been stretched thin lately. I haven't even touched John's book, or the Bible for that matter in four days.
ReplyDeleteLook I perfectly understand that Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. But, in my past posts I attempted to show that mutation are actually a loss of information and not adding. I just don't buy it, I cannot put my brain through the mental gymnastics to go from frogs to humans. It doesn't pass common sense or basic logic tests.
Besides the origin of life cannot even be answered with evolution. You (evolution) can only start at something extremely complex like single celled organisms, that RD believes came from other planets, that cannot be explained as to its origins. The Bible does in a very clear way. Occam's razor fits.
Life just may be too complex for science.
D’Souza said "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."
Origins of life is only one example of these sort of things.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWell done; you gave it your best shot. Your 'A' game, if you will.
Whateverman said;
"Dan, without inserting opinion, can you very clinically list your understanding of the theory of evolution?"
And you said;
"Look I perfectly understand that Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."
Good stuff, good stuff. I don't know if you 'perfectly' understand it, but that would be nit-picking. Still, a good start...
"But, in my past posts I attempted to show that mutation are actually a loss of information and not adding."
You may have attempted to show this (I haven't seen it, but I'll take your word that you have) but you'd have to define 'information' and explain why those Croatian lizards managed to evolve a brand new structure in their gut without any new information to go on.
And here comes the inevitable insertion of opinion...
"I just don't buy it, I cannot put my brain through the mental gymnastics to go from frogs to humans. It doesn't pass common sense or basic logic tests."
Was anyone saying that frogs evolved into humans? I don't think they were...
"Besides the origin of life cannot even be answered with evolution."
You're not seriously resorting to attacks on abiogenesis when you're supposed to be outlining your knowledge of the theory of evolution, are you?
"You (evolution) can only start at something extremely complex like single celled organisms, that RD believes came from other planets
[he doesn't, and you know he doesn't - I hope you were joking and not breaking the 9th here], that cannot be explained as to its origins. The Bible does in a very clear way. Occam's razor fits."
I think you should put Occam's razor away before you cut yourself.
"Life just may be too complex for science."
You may be right to a certain extent but, again, this is merely your opinion.
The next bit isn't even your opinion, it's D’Souza's!
I for one am singularly unimpressed. If I were out to 'debunk' Christians and had this kind of shoddy understanding of what I was arguing against, I'd be ashamed of myself.
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't even my "x" game and I thought for sure you would catch my intellectual laziness on the "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." quote I got from 'What is evolution' website.
If you have observable and repeatable tests that proves abiogenesis to the world I am all ears.
[he doesn't, and you know he doesn't - I hope you were joking and not breaking the 9th here]
Are you claiming he didn't say that origins came from Panspermian situation? Do you require proof? I can show you the interview on Youtube if you wish. This from the same man that postulated Autocatalysis as the origins in "The Ancestor's Tale."
I tell you what, show me a repeatable and observable example of Autocatalysis, or Panspermia, or any Primordial Soup experiment. Then I would get serious about this discussion with you.
Yes, there are scientists scrambling to find origins and I wish them well. But, until they find the truth as to what it is, because it will equate to the truth of my understanding of origins, I cannot hold to evolution as truth until that time. It will just be a failed theory among the many in the science history.
Wait I gave RD too much credit. After watching the interview again I see that he wasn't postulating Panspermia at all he is indeed promoting ID just not God. My mistake
ReplyDeleteLife just may be too complex for science.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between you and I is that you're willing to let this idea lead to the conclusion that science shouldn't even try.
Which, interestingly, happens to be the same general methodology that Christianity has employed since science first threw Biblical claims into doubt.
Dan wrote "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." quote I got from 'What is evolution' website.
ReplyDeleteOh FFS, you didn't even TRY to answer the question. It wasn't laziness, it was SHEER INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.
You do not have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory, and you have just demonstrated that quite nicely to those who already suspected it.
Dan: "It wasn't even my "x" game and I thought for sure you would catch my intellectual laziness on the "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." quote I got from 'What is evolution' website. "
ReplyDeleteFAIL. At least partly. I mean, I don't mind you using some website for reference. I can't quote chapter and verse verbatim (except for the classical ones like John 3:16, Rome 10:9. I used to know more, but I've let it slip), but you clearly don't understand what you have been reading at those sites.
Dan: " I just don't buy it, I cannot put my brain through the mental gymnastics to go from frogs to humans."
If your mind isn't capable of that kind of gymnastics, it's way too rigid, weak, and lack in stamina to cope with the modern world. I suggest you attend a training camp where you can work on such things. In fact, that's one of the reasons several of us are here: help you get your exercises to improve your logic, good sense, and intellectual honesty.
Dan: "It doesn't pass common sense or basic logic tests.
"
It doesn't pass your common sense or yourbasic logic tests. Common sense is anything but common. And in quantum mechanics, not even good sense gets it right: It's very often counter-intuitive because it deal with reality on a completely different level than our minds has evolved to perceive. Yet, knowledge about it wasn't beyond sciences.
Don't blame your shortcomings on science: what you have is an argument from incredulity.
Dan: "Besides the origin of life cannot even be answered with evolution."
Correct. At lease in the sense that the "origin of species biological evolution" cannot. Abiogenesis is more a chemical discipline, some would say "chemical evolution" which isn't the same as biological evolution.
Dan: "The Bible does in a very clear way. Occam's razor fits."
No. Just because you think that the Bible is very clear and the Theory of Evolution is not, does not mean that Occam's Razor is applicable for cutting evolution.
Evolution is a materialistic explanation, and the Bible is a supernatural one. As a materialistic explanation, it uses only entities we already know exist and can test: matter (DNA and chemicals).
The Bible (for starters: it's disputed as the word of God but that's another story) says God did it. It gives a supernatural explanation. As such, we cannot scientifically test it: thus it introduces unknown (and/or unknowable) elements. Indeed, the Bible explicitly says that the mind of God is unknowable. So the Bible itself in no uncertain terms states that it is subject to Occam's Razor.
Dan: "Life just may be too complex for science."
It might just be. But that is a very bad reason to stop doing science in order to find out why.
There are many things people thought were just too complex for science, yet scientist didn't quit but pushed the boundaries. We now have weather forecast, microwave ovens, anti-biotics, vaccine, heart transplants, nuclear fission power...
Dan: "D’Souza said "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."
Origins of life is only one example of these sort of things.
"
I think D´Souza is right. But you are wrong in the sense that you are giving up on science too easily. You have already decided that the origin of life has a supernatural cause, and don't want science to push the boundary of knowledge closer. I understand that science is invading, trespassing into domains pertaining to your faith, and it is understandable that you resist and resent that.
But where is your desire for Truth now?
What are you afraid of? Science may still find the natural explanation to the origins of life. We shouldn't stop short of our goal (one of them anyway) even if it looks unattainable at the moment.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"It wasn't even my "x" game and I thought for sure you would catch my intellectual laziness"
Wow, you really don't care at all, do you?
"If you have observable and repeatable tests that proves abiogenesis to the world I am all ears."
Where did that come from? All I said was that you had resorted to attacking the idea of abiogenesis when you were asked to outline your understanding of evolutionary theory.
Dan, you should pay attention to this next bit and not just ignore it, like you did for most of my previous questions/comments (how many times have you read 'Origin of Species; what do you make of the evolving Croatian lizards; who said frogs evolved into humans?).
"Are you claiming he [Richard Dawkings] didn't say that origins came from Panspermian situation? Do you require proof? I can show you the interview on Youtube if you wish. This from the same man that postulated Autocatalysis as the origins in "The Ancestor's Tale.""
So you claim to have 'proof'? Not just evidence; 'proof'. You seem so certain of this position, so sure...
"Wait I gave RD too much credit. After watching the interview again I see that he wasn't postulating Panspermia at all he is indeed promoting ID just not God. My mistake"
Yes, your mistake. We all make them. Please remember how sure you were of your 'proof' of this the next time you make a claim.
Moving on...
"I tell you what, show me a repeatable and observable example of Autocatalysis, or Panspermia, or any Primordial Soup experiment. Then I would get serious about this discussion with you."
Yet again you move the goal posts to avoid answering questions about evolution. What is it about this theory that scares you so much?
Please, just for fun, play devil's advocate and give us a run-down of current evolutionary theory; what evidence supports it, what it predicts and how it could be falsified.
Pretty please?
Cheers,
Dan: "But, in my past posts I attempted to show that mutation are actually a loss of information and not adding."
ReplyDeleteCan you please provide a link to those posts? I'd like to read what you had to say on it. I suspect your arguments had already been refuted even before you made those posts, but I'm curious to see by how much you missed the mark. Also, what approach you used regarding "information".
This is hilarious. As the first commenter has noted, you would have to have read every holy book cover to cover before you can say that christianity is correct. You don't even know what very many religions have to say about the big questions.
ReplyDeleteThe bible is a pretty poor read in my opinion, full of tribal gibberish. I really can't say I'd blame anyone for not getting all the way through. I think anyone who attempts to read the bible and stops at the point of God commanding the murder of children and justifying rape and slavery has read enough. Just as a reader who throws down mein kampf when they realise that hilter is a jew hating physco. What could possibly be said that could redeem his message? In the case of the bible though, it really doesn't get any better. Even the new testament is largely gibberish and is a collection of plain wierd tales mixed in with a very dubious morality.
I see that you attempt to back out of your ludicrous suggesting by suggesting it was a joke. I'll give you the benefit of the considerable doubt. One thing though your fundie rant does bring up. You obviously consider the bible to be the word of God. Wouldn't you expect God to be a little more convincing though? If a human can convince someone that the bible is a load of bronze age cobblers, they have essentially just been more convinving than God. I would have though that the omnipotent creator of the universe would be a little more convincing than that but maybe writing is not his strongsuit.
I personally think that fastest way of turning a reasonable person atheist is getting them to read the bible.
So is this just getting left to dangle because the next thread has 10 million comments of presuppositionalism going around in circles with nothing actually being discussed?
ReplyDeleteShame.
Hi Dan, thanks for pointing out to me that the Imagining the Tenth Dimension video is down, this is because revver.com is having some issues, looks like it's time to switch to a different hosting service.
ReplyDeleteExPatMatt said: "So is this just getting left to dangle because the next thread has 10 million comments of presuppositionalism going around in circles with nothing actually being discussed?"
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. I'm still waiting of an acknowledgement from Dan that he recognizes that I and Reynold not the same person.
Then there's that pesky quote where John Morris ripped a quote from Michael Ruse completely out of context in order to misrepresent him (Ruse). Dan never got around to acknowledge that Morris was a dishonest prick for doing so.
Rob Bryanton,
ReplyDeleteIts a pleasure to have you, welcome. Although I would rather link it to your website, I was able to link it to the Youtube version so all is good. Great stuff.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhen you've got the time, there are a few outstanding questions from this thread that have been somewhat neglected, namely;
Your actual understanding of evolutionary theory (not a copy pasta or rant about abiogenesis please)
Your explanation of how the Croatian lizards managed to evolve a new organ in their gut, keeping in mind your assertion that "mutation[s] are actually a loss of information and not adding"
Your clarification on who exactly said that mutations go "from frogs to humans"
Your answer to the question: how many times have you read Origin of Species?
Your acknowledgment that you recognize that Dr. Mabuse and Reynold are not the same person.
"Then there's that pesky quote where John Morris ripped a quote from Michael Ruse completely out of context in order to misrepresent him (Ruse). [You] never got around to acknowledge that Morris was a dishonest prick for doing so." - Dr. Mabuse
So, whenever you're ready...
ExPatMatt and others,
ReplyDeletethere are a few outstanding questions from this thread that have been somewhat neglected
Touché, I appologize for that.
Your actual understanding of evolutionary theory
I don't want the smack down if I don't get it exactly as you believe it to be, I am tender so teach me. For argument purposes lets just say very little and I need more study about it. Wish I had time for such "stories." :-)
Croatian lizards is a fine example and we can agree that they adapted to their environment, just as the finches. It is old news, nothing new. I remember reading that if humans lived in space we would lose our bone mass and become somewhat of blobs floating around. So what? I have said in the past, we can agree that evolution within a species is perfectly fine and in line with progression and environment. There is just no proof for evolution turning one species into another. From a caterpillar to a butterfly so to speak. Show me lizards growing wings and I will be curious. Show me lizards progressing into furry bunnies and I will listen. Show me cold blooded animals evolving into warm blooded animals to adapt to their environment. If evolution is true then it should be repeatable and observable such as the Croatian lizards. If evolution is actually true you could in an experiment submit rats to very harsh oceanic conditions and then they would, over time and generations, evolve into fish. If the environment is the precursor to evolution mutations and species changes then we could easily, and without effort, show such a thing for the world to see. Like you, I will remain skeptical until evidence presents itself. You say that you have a plethora of "evidence" and we, as Christians, say we have a plethora of evidence for God. If the plethora of evidence did exist then there would be no argument or wiggle room.We both rely on faith.
Remember that Carnivores are secret vegans also.
Your clarification on who exactly said that mutations go "from frogs to humans"
Whatever the classification is evolution claims that there was a progression from one species to an plethora of others. Prove that claim.
Your answer to the question: how many times have you read Origin of Species? Absolutely zero times cover to cover, just parts of it. So you might say I can be described as an ignolutionist.
Your acknowledgment that you recognize that Dr. Mabuse and Reynold are not the same person.
I fully concede to the claim that Dr. Mabuse and Reynold are not the same person, that they just are similar in thoughts and writing styles. They are brothers in antitheism, oops sorry atheism. :-)
[You] never got around to acknowledge that Morris was a dishonest prick for doing so. I cannot judge a man's motives, since I am not clairvoyant. Are you claiming some extra perception to know otherwise?
Enough? Sometimes I avoid until I get the revelation as to what is the correct answer. I sometime sit in thought experiments contemplating such things and, of course along side prayer, I come to the viewpoint I want to project. Now, I remember reading that even Einstein did the same thing. So please be patient and persistent, like you were, and I will get that answer, that you seek, addressed.
Dan wrote For argument purposes lets just say very little and I need more study about it.
ReplyDeleteLots of stuff going through my head. First and foremost: you've said nothing surprising. Your critics knew you were talking out your arse when you claimed to understand the basics
Second - for someone who claims to be debunking atheists, and alternately cursing their names or praying for their souls, you've hurt your own credibility. I'll be completely honest: the only way I'm truly suprised by your admission is that you fail to see just how this makes you look. it's not good, Dan.
Finally - I'm not claiming this is the first time you've done so, but Good Job on being honest with your critics.
Let's see where we go from here...
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding, I know it can get difficult to keep track of multiple threads (especially when one is running over 500 comments!)
I don't think anyone is expecting you to be an expert on, well, anything. And neither are we; we're all amateurs here and, I hope, we all approach the discussion as equals; some with something to teach, all with something to learn. That's how I see it anyway.
I'm going to mostly leave these questions as they are because I think the conversation probably needs a re-boot via a new post, but I will pick up on a couple of things that caught my eye.
You said;
"Croatian lizards is a fine example and we can agree that they adapted to their environment, just as the finches"
Can you not see how this is an example of moving the goal posts?
You say that that mutations never 'add information' and never result in any novel features, just minor adaptations (like beak length) or loss of information (like bone mass in space). Then we present you with a species that, over a period of 30 odd years, has evolved a brand new organ that no other species in it's family has and you hand-wave it away as just 'adapting to it's environment'.
This is frustrating because, limited as your knowledge may be, you know full well that evolutionary theory predicts small changes over many generations.
Here we see a very significant change - a complex and fully-formed, new organ - happen in the span of a few decades and with no good reason the Creationist dismisses it as 'adaptation'.
It is especially galling that you say;
"There is just no proof for evolution turning one species into another."
When there are countless examples of observed speciation all over the natural world. Unless you have a very different definition of what constitutes a 'species' of course - maybe you'd like to amend that to 'kind'?
It's just annoying that you start off by admitting you don't know much about evolution and then slowly progress to dictating exactly what it is that scientists should be able to show to provide proof!
It'd be like me saying; "I've never read the Bible, but if you want to show me it's true then you have to show me how unicorns can be ground to a fine powder that turn lead into gold."
So if you're going to rip into atheists and their worldview, feel free. But if you're going to make a serious attempt at 'debunking' the theory of evolution, please learn what it is first; otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself and annoying everyone else. Ok?
Cheers,
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDeleteBrand new organ?
That is a stretch. Manipulation or adjustment of a current organ would be a better description. Like the bones in space, example.
Unless you have a very different definition of what constitutes a 'species' of course - maybe you'd like to amend that to 'kind'?
For kicks I looked up 'species' and found one definition as: A group of plants or animals having similar appearance.
So if Poodles and Great Danes are indeed different species then I would mean Families or "Kind."
Are Zebras and Donkeys part of the same species (horses)? My definition would say yes. So would it be more clear to you if I described them as 'families'?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll find a way to disregard this, but according to National Geographic:
"Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine...
"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."
It's a brand new structure. Ok, not a brand new organ as I previously said, but a brand new structure. Still - where did the information come from for the lizard to develop this 'brand new structure'?
You said;
"For kicks I looked up 'species' and found one definition as: A group of plants or animals having similar appearance."
Interesting, I know how much fun you have with definitions, but the very next definition on 'Wiktionary' was for use in Biology/Taxonomy (probably the one we're talking about here, no?):
"A rank in the classification of organisms, below genus and above subspecies; a taxon at that rank"
Sort of makes your next statement...
"So if Poodles and Great Danes are indeed different species then I would mean Families or 'Kind'."
... kind of irrelevant, eh?
Either way, you now seem to be re-phrasing your statement to say that:
"There is just no proof for evolution turning one *family* into another."
Is this what you are saying?
"There is just no proof for evolution turning one *family* into another."
ReplyDeleteIs this what you are saying?
Yes.
"There is just no proof for evolution turning one *family* into another."
ReplyDeleteIs this what you are saying?
"Yes."
Well that's good then, because that isn't what evolution proposes. I guess we can all go home now.
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDeleteOK teacher, what does evolution proposes?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to place myself in a 'teacher' role, and I don't get the feeling that your too keen on being a student either (at least not a student of a heathen like me).
All the information you could ever want is at your fingertips; you only need to look in the right places with an open mind. I've done it - and continue to do it - with the Bible, which is why I enjoy discussing it and feel like I am able to be reasonable about it.
All I'm saying is that if you wish to have an intelligent discussion regarding evolution, you should do the required leg-work first. If you choose not to, then don't be surprised when people start calling you on your mistakes and misunderstandings.
Cheers,
Dan wrote: "I fully concede to the claim that Dr. Mabuse and Reynold are not the same person, that they just are similar in thoughts and writing styles."
ReplyDeleteThank you.
They are brothers in antitheism, oops sorry atheism. :-)
I thought I told you I was an agnostic. But easy to generalise, so I forgive you. But I do have an issue with organised religion. Rather than labeling me an anti-theist, you could say anti-religionist.
[You] never got around to acknowledge that Morris was a dishonest prick for doing so.
I cannot judge a man's motives, since I am not clairvoyant. Are you claiming some extra perception to know otherwise?
Clairvoyance is not necessary. Morris quoted Ruse, giving Ruse himself as reference. This means that Morris must have read Michael Ruse's article, or he would be lying.
Let's assume that Morris wasn't outright lying about where he got the quote. This means that Morris must have known the context from which the quote was taken.
Reynold has evidence both from the article itself, and from correspondance with Ruse, that the quote was completely out of context. Which means that Morris did indeed misrepresent Ruse (which equal lying). I don't need to know Morris' inner thoughts or motives to judge his actions: he acted like a dishonest prick, so I called him that.
Morris could be lying his ass off to further the glory of Christ by making Ruse appear to indirectly support theism by attacking atheism.
The question then follows: Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying? What do you think, Dan?
When you're quoting a statement as loaded as Michael Ruse's, it's your bloody duty to make sure you don't screw up.
It's your duty to Michael Ruse.
It's your duty to us (if you're honest about wanting to save us: truth shall set us free, lying to us could damn us to hell, and all that...).
And I thought it was your duty to yourself as a Truthseeker.
Finally:
Dan, if you want to know the inner workings of a ferry, do you go to the ferry manufacturer/shipyard asking, or do you go to a bridge-building contractor?
You need to stop relying on Answers in Genesis, and Institute for Creational Research for information about Evolution. It's in their interest to misrepresent evolution.
Dr. Mabuse,
ReplyDeleteRather than labeling me an anti-theist, you could say anti-religionist
Well we have more in common then I thought then. False religions and denominations destroys.
Which means that Morris did indeed misrepresent Ruse (which equal lying).
That is harsh. Did I lie then? after all I misrepresented you by calling you an atheist.
Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying?
Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?
You need to stop relying on Answers in Genesis, and Institute for Creational Research for information about Evolution. It's in their interest to misrepresent evolution.
You need to stop relying on Richard Dawkins for information about God. It's in his interest to misrepresent Christianity.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou do realize, aside from avoiding all the other issues raised, that by saying this;
Dr. mabuse: "Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying?"
Dan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?"
And bearing in mind you are trying to save us from the wrath of God - you're actually comparing God to an abusive husband. And saying that it's ok to lie to us to help us avoid our next (eternal) beating.
I find the analogy to be quite apt.
This is one of the many reasons why atheists find your God distateful (regardless of what Dawkins might say).
Cheers,
I assume, then, Dan, that you've read every "holy book" for every other religion, cover to cover?
ReplyDeleteHave you also kept yourself completely informed on Evolution? The various other sciences which threaten your worldview?
I think you could ask atheists the same questions and for many the answer would be "no" to the former and "no" to the latter. Yet they would still dishonestly claim to be opining from a position of education.
In fact it's embarrassing how many atheists reference evolution and when questioned about origin of life will reply that "evolution did it!!!!!".
The fact is that for many of the adolescent-esque "on the bandwagon" new atheist followers of the New Atheists their disbelief is founded on a faith in things about which they know nothing and they gain inner confidence from a supernatural ability to cut and paste.
Dan wrote: "Well we have more in common then I thought then. False religions and denominations destroys."
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase someone (I can't recall who said it): "When you understand the reason you're rejecting all other religions, you'll understand why I'm rejecting yours".
That is harsh. Did I lie then? after all I misrepresented you by calling you an atheist.
I suppose from your narrow perspective, being agnostic or atheist is the same thing. Context is everything. It's the foundation for how a word (or a paragraph) is to be interpreted. In the case of Morris quoting Ruse, the context is defined by the paragraph Reynold is asking you about.
In our case, it's your religion and my rejection of it.
Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?
You're avoiding answering the question. You have given me the impression that you believe my morals are different from yours, so making me answering your question doesn't necessarily provide an answer to mine.
Remember, you're the one who believes that lying is a mortal sin. I just think it's wrong.
You need to stop relying on Richard Dawkins for information about God. It's in his interest to misrepresent Christianity.
I have never relied on Richard Dawkins for information about God. Whoever told you so was a lying sack of shit. I got my information about God reading the Bible, and spending about 10 years in the Pentecostal Church in Sweden as a born again Christian.
I haven't read any books by Richard Dawkins, only recently seen short video snippets of him on youtube. Until a few years ago, I had no idea who he was.
AGS,
ReplyDelete"In fact it's embarrassing how many atheists reference evolution and when questioned about origin of life will reply that "evolution did it!!!!!"."
Please show me one instance of this occurring and explain why I should care that someone who holds no belief in God/gods is also misinformed about science.
Or you could just stop trolling and join in the conversation.
Please show me one instance of this occurring and explain why I should care that someone who holds no belief in God/gods is also misinformed about science.
ReplyDeleteLife evolving from non-living matter is unscientific? Please tell. I do agree, however, that any atheists that are scientifically mis-informed are irrelevent.
Or you could just stop trolling and join in the conversation.
Or you could stop trying to moderate on a blog that isn't yours.
AGS,
ReplyDeleteHow does this;
You - "Life evolving from non-living matter is unscientific?"
Follow from this;
Me - "Please show me one instance of this occurring and explain why I should care that someone who holds no belief in God/gods is also misinformed about science."
I was talking about an instance of an atheist saying that 'evolution did it!!!!!' in reference to the origins of life. I haven't seen anyone making this claim - that's what I was saying. Your question doesn't even make any sense.
Though, I'm glad you concede that it doesn't actually matter when an uninformed person makes mistakes about things he doesn't understand, I don't think that makes the person 'irrelevant', do you?
"Or you could stop trying to moderate on a blog that isn't yours."
Not trying to moderate, just saying that diving into a conversation making random accusations about entire groups of people without any supporting evidence is very troll-like behaviour, and nobody likes a troll.
Dan,
Are you still following this thread or what? Should I just take it that you see God as an abusive husband and leave it there?
Cool.
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDeleteAre you still following this thread or what? Should I just take it that you see God as an abusive husband and leave it there?
Sure am and I thought you were making an absurd exaggerated comparison as a flip response. Didn't think you were serious.
Are you?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThis is what was said;
Dr. Mabuse: "Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying?"
Dan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?"
In the first instance a person is lying for Christ, to win a soul to salvation and escape the wrath of God.
In the second instance a person is lying for the wife, to secure her safety and escape from the abusive husband.
You said the the first one might be ok because the second one certainly was (I agree that it is ok to lie to save a wife suffering from spousal abuse BTW). The inference is clearly that the two situations are analogous to each other. The wife is equivalent to the unbeliever you're trying to save and the husband is God, whose wrath you are trying to save the unbeliever from.
I didn't make this comparison, you did. If you'd like to clarify your position on this, I'm all ears.
Matt
Matt,
ReplyDeleteDan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?"
First one might be ok. The second one might be ok also
"Should I just take it that you see God as an abusive husband and leave it there?"
No.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your eloquent and thought-provoking response - it really cleared things up for me.
Of course, I'm sure that now this whole misunderstanding has been resolved in a mature and amicable way; you'll be off to the local library to do some basic research on the theory of evolution so you can avoid any silly mistakes or misrepresentations of the theory that have so plagued your previous posts.
Cheers,
Looks like I spoke too soon...
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteLooks like I spoke too soon...
I thought you would enjoy that post, but your comment cracked me up! Good times.
You've made a baseless assumption that an Atheist that has read the Bible (in more depth than most Christians, at that) doubts their beliefs, or that they've sought salvation in your book. Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan? The Nag Hammadi? Liber AL vel Legis? How about something philosophical, So Spoke Zarathustra?
ReplyDeleteMind you all, I'm not an Atheist, and certainly not a Theist. I am an Agnostic Egotheist. I believe myself to be my own God. I haven't created any worlds, I have no followers, and my existence is measurable. I argue that Theism and Atheism are both baseless assumptions, because the existence or lack thereof of a God is neither verifiable or falsifiable. They are both beliefs. Science does not disprove a God's existence, and a God's existence does not disprove Science. Truth is Truth, Science is never going to be 100% accurate, theories are proven and debunked all the time. You can argue till the cows come home, but I know that there will never be conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of a God.
You've made a baseless assumption that an Atheist that has read the Bible (in more depth than most Christians, at that) doubts their beliefs, or that they've sought salvation in your book. Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan? The Nag Hammadi? Liber AL vel Legis? How about something philosophical, So Spoke Zarathustra?
ReplyDeleteMind you all, I'm not an Atheist, and certainly not a Theist. I am an Agnostic Egotheist. I believe myself to be my own God. I haven't created any worlds, I have no followers, and my existence is measurable. I argue that Theism and Atheism are both baseless assumptions, because the existence or lack thereof of a God is neither verifiable or falsifiable. They are both beliefs. Science does not disprove a God's existence, and a God's existence does not disprove Science. Truth is Truth, Science is never going to be 100% accurate, theories are proven and debunked all the time. You can argue till the cows come home, but I know that there will never be conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of a God.
>> Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan?
DeleteYou mean the book that says Scripture of the Bible is truth? Parts of it. Let me ask you though, if you lost your keys in the kitchen, found your keys in the kitchen, would you look in the trash for your keys afterwords?
>> I believe myself to be my own [g]od. I haven't created any worlds, I have no followers, and my existence is measurable.
Congratulations, you worship the same god of atheists and satanists. The god of self.