June 11, 2009

Denominations of Atheism

I thought denominations were bad enough in Christianity. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. But I just read that even Atheism has its denominations also.

Apparently, John Gray believes there are different flavors of Atheism. I am sure I can come up with more then Gray's five. Wasn't it Christopher Hitchens who proclaimed Protestant atheism, or something to that effect, when asked if he was a Catholic non believer or a Protestant non believer? It appears that even Atheists are at odds with their beliefs and religion.

Gray identified five strains of Atheism:
1. Science-Oriented Atheism. An atheism that grounds itself in scientific modes of understanding, and the discourse of science. My notes are unclear on this point, so I won't say anything more.
2. Ultra-Protestant Atheism. This kind of atheism rests strongly on the idea of individual autonomy, and holds that one shouldn't take anything on authority. Gray thinks this is rooted in Protestantism.
3. Non-Humanist Atheism. Arthur Schopenhauer, Gray says, is a good example of this orientation. Schopenhauer didn't like Christianity or the churches, but he also believed that atheism is its own thing, and owes nothing to science. Science and atheism are, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, "non-overlapping magisteria." One doesn't have anything to do with the other. (It's my sense from reading Gray's work that this would describe his own position -- this, combined with Naturalistic Atheism, see below.)
4. Anti-Liberal Atheism. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example. It as actively anti-liberal, and contemptuous of liberal values. In Gray's view, this is completely logical. Liberal values - ideals of toleration - come straight out of Judaism and Christianity, says Gray. Nietzsche viciously attacked liberalism precisely because of its Christian values (it pitied the weak, for example, and was a slave religion that honored what was contemptible in man, in Nietzsche's view).
5. Naturalistic Atheism. The idea that religion is a normal part of life, that if you try to eliminate the religious sense from life, you're going to get repression of natural instincts. It's a benign or favorable attitude toward religion as a natural expression of what it means to be human. It's interesting to reflect, says Gray, on how atheist regimes -- Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia, the Third Reich -- have quickly adapted a secular sacerdotal gloss, becoming political religions with their own pantheons of saints and sacraments, to speak to the religious sense within man. This sort of atheist isn't threatened by religion, and in fact sees religion as satisfying an important instinct within human beings -- but it must be kept in its place.


Gray added that Atheists cannot deal with the fact that atheism in power has been horrifically deadly, because it would deny the basic dogma of their faith: that atheism leads to liberation and redemption, and that their project of liberating people from their traditions and their history also severs them from their humanity.

Do you have another category that you follow? Maybe you all should have a council of sorts, like Council of Necia, to determine what is, and is not, to be believed.

As a Christian I enjoy being identified by what I believe. It must be horribly difficult to be labeled for something you don't believe. That list is too extensive for me. Proclaiming to be a Non Santa Atheist, for example, seems to be a pointless label. So does Atheism for that matter.

tinyurl.com/DenominationsofAtheism

92 comments:

  1. I'm confused by this post... It doesn't seem to have a point. As Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Christianity or Islam is, there is no codified doctrine, or set of doctrines, to which any professing atheist must adhere.

    Thus, this list is necessarily incomplete. There are potentially as many "denominations" of Atheism as there are atheists.

    As for the Christopher Hitchens statement, he was making a joke of a personal experience, which actually sheds light on your problem of differing theological viewpoints from within one class of religion.

    As the story goes, Hitchens was en route to Belfast (or somewhere in Northern Ireland), during "The Troubles," and was stopped by local authorities. He and his crew were asked if they were "Prods" or Catholics. When he replied that he was an atheist, the questioner appeared puzzled, and after regaining his composure, asked, "Protestant atheist, or Catholic atheist?"

    The joke was on you, not on Atheism.

    Anyway, as I said, this post seems pointless. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any gods. There are "strengths" or degrees of Atheism, perhaps, but no "denominations." Making artificial categories of atheists, then, is disingenuous, and a clear effort to equivocate the dilemma of multi-denominationalism faced by theists.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sure are passionate about your doctrine that doesn't exist. Much like a Christian is for Jesus.

      Delete
  2. I'm curious, what denomination of non-Scientology do you belong to?

    There are several flavors:

    1. Science oriented Non-Scientology: Non-Scientology that grounds itself in the scientific modes of understanding.

    2. Ultra-Protestant Non-Scientology: This rests on the idea that humans do NOT have body thetans and that engrams are NOT the source of humanity's problems.

    3. Non-Auditing Non-Scientology: This type of non-Scientologist believes in engrams but does not thing that auditing is necessary to get rid of them.

    4. Anti-Xenu Non-Scientology: These types of non-Scientologists do not believe in the literal existence of the Galactic Overlord Xenu.

    5. Anti-Hubbard Non-Scientology: Non-Scientology that rests on the premise that L. Ron Hubbard was a schizophrenic and was completely wrong in all his assumptions.

    So, which one are you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Atheist 1- I don’t like the term atheist so much. It’s become too negative. That’s why I belong to the Humanist society.

    A2 - Oh, to me, humanist is too old. The word smells like a basement in an old building. I prefer to call myself a Scientific Materialist.

    A3 - I don’t find anything wrong with humanist, except that I think even spiritual people could be humanists. That’s why I make it clear that I’m a Secular Humanist.

    A4 - Bah humbug! Call me a good old Sceptic. That’s what I am.

    A5 - Well, I think the third atheist is the most correct. But it’s a little too general to just say that I’m a spiritual person. The fact is, while I am an atheist, I’m specifically a Buddhist. Last fall I even had Buddha rays come out my nose on three consecutive days.

    A6 - All of you clowns are a bunch of cowards. We’re all atheists and our biggest enemy is religion. If we don’t show the world a unified front of Anti-Theists like me, then how are we ever supposed to nail down definitions for important things like whether we’re people who deny that god exists, or people who are non believers in god? This is crucial to our cause folks. Somebody get me a drink.

    A7 - Yes, there’s truth in what all of you are saying. Well, I’m not saying that truth actually exists. It’s just that none of those other atheist denominations really express what’s most important to me and that’s that I and people like me are Free Thinkers. If that’s not the part of us that we define clearly for seekers, then people will just think that we are atheists because our parents were atheists. And even though my parents were atheists, denying god’s existence is my own idea. No really! It is! That’s why it’s important to me to show exactly who I am, a free thinker.

    A8 - You see, that’s what I can’t stand about those of us who are atheists. I don’t believe in Creator God, as the Christians do. But I can’t rule out the mysterious either. That’s why I’m a Pantheist. And don’t even start with me about how pantheism goes against all that we know scientifically, at least regarding origins. So does all the rest of our atheist dogma. I like to take a little bit from the free thinkers and that means that I’m free to believe what I want about the universe and damn the scientific evidence. As long as I deny that God exists I can come up with anything else that I want to believe in. Give me back my teddy-bear.

    A9 - I’d like to know from the second atheist what’s wrong with old. We Marxists had it right way back when. And I say that if something was true then, it’s still true now. That doesn’t count for religious truth, of course, but it sure is correct for Marxist truth.

    A10 - I’m sure all you people mean well, but most of you have taken what seems to me to be positions that are too confrontational. The group that I belong to simply identifies ourselves as Non Theists. We aren’t anything regarding religion or God. We’re just, you know, not theists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. and your point would be?

    atheists all agree that they don't believe in any supernatural beings, generally known as gods.

    after that, getting us to agree on anything is like herding cats.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PersonalFailure,

    getting us to agree on anything is like herding cats.  

    Hilarious, that just made the list.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The codified doctrine of atheism is as follows:

    1 There is no God.
    2 Evolution is true(one exception to this that I know of).
    Creationism should not be taught in schools.
    3 Religion should be kept out of the public square.
    4 The bible is not a genuine historical document.
    5 The supernatural does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My "codified doctrine" of atheism is:

    1) I lack a belief in gods.
    2) see point 1

    ReplyDelete

  8. My "codified doctrine" of atheism is:

    1) I lack a belief in gods.
    2) see point 1

    Is evolution true or not?
    should creationism be taught in schools or not?
    should religion be kept out of the public square or not?
    is the bible a genuine historical document or not?
    Does the supernatural exist or not?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is evolution true or not?
    There were atheists before the theory of evolution. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It does not matter if evolution is true or not. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

    should creationism be taught in schools or not?
    I'm one person. Other people have different opinions. Creationism was taught at my school.

    should religion be kept out of the public square or not?
    Some atheists will have different opinions on this issue. Atheists lack belief in gods, they are not one "hive mind"

    is the bible a genuine historical document or not?
    Opinions can differ. Do I believe the sun stopped in the sky so an army could keep on killing? No. Do I believe the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and wandered around town? No.
    Opinions differ.

    Does the supernatural exist or not?
    Opinions can differ.

    ReplyDelete

  10. There were atheists before the theory of evolution. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It does not matter if evolution is true or not. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

    answer the question.


    I'm one person. Other people have different opinions. Creationism was taught at my school.

    answer the question.


    Some atheists will have different opinions on this issue. Atheists lack belief in gods, they are not one "hive mind"

    answer the question.

    Opinions can differ. Do I believe the sun stopped in the sky so an army could keep on killing? No. Do I believe the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and wandered around town? No.
    Opinions differ.

    answer the question.

    Opinions can differ.

    answer the question.

    As anyone can clearly see this ignorant atheist refuses to answer the questions, why? because it proves that he conforms to the codified doctrine of atheism I presented. Typical ignorant atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is no codified doctrine of atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Since we're randomly polling visitors and claiming those results are somehow meaningful beyond the individual polled, I have a few questions for STD:

    1. Is there one correct interpretation of the bible, or are there many (at least two)?

    2. Is there one "codified doctrine of Christianity," or are there many (at least two)?

    3. In the case of (2), are the codified doctrine(s) of Christianity agreed upon by all adherents thereof (as in a council), or are they arbitrarily drawn?

    4. If there is no council, or other form of official, representative agreement, is there a "codified doctrine"?

    5. What would you say if god commanded you to kill every child in Cleveland?

    6. What would you say if god commanded you to drown your own child?

    7. Was Sarah Abraham's half-sister on his father's side, or was she not?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stan, I'd be happy to answer your questions as soon as you and flute answer mine.

    ReplyDelete

  14. There is no codified doctrine of atheism.

    Hilarious, exactly what I've come to expect from an ignorant atheist like you. I expect stan to follow suit and not answer the questions either.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Theological: Atheists are fun aren't they. No one dances around an issue like River dancing atheists. My "Dogma of Atheism" is too long to post here so I'll put it on my blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was not aware those questions were directed at me -- they seemed to be directed only toward Flute. If you are soliciting my responses as well, I shall happily oblige.

    Is evolution true or not? 

    So far as it can be shown, evolution is the only model which is consistently supported by the data. It is, like every other human theory, necessarily false on one or more levels, but it is sufficiently verified that it can be called true. To my knowledge, it is the most documented and verified theory known to humanity.

    [S]hould creationism be taught in schools or not? 

    No, it should not. There are far too many mutually exclusive versions of "Creationism" to teach them all, and no way to reach a consensus on a select few, and such a monopolization of a student's time -- especially a primary student -- would be counter-productive. Rather, the most verified theory to date should be taught, with the caveat that it can and will be revised in the future as new data unfold.

    [S]hould religion be kept out of the public square or not? 

    I do not mean to avoid this question, but I'm afraid you must define your terms more clearly. I am a strong advocate of free speech, which includes what I view as the "public square," and as such I equally fight for the right of the bigot to spew his bile as I do the activist to preach equality. If this is your meaning, then no, free speech should not be restricted beyond the necessary ("fire" in theaters, "fighting words," etc.).

    [I]s the bible a genuine historical document or not? 

    I suspect we mean different things when we say "genuine historical document." Clearly, the bible is a genuine historical document, but if you also mean historically accurate, then no, absolutely not. Striped or spotted livestock are not generated by placing striped or spotted poles in front of feeding troughs. Axe heads [worth using] do not float in water [worth drinking]. The sun will not halt its position across the sky [to an earth-bound, slow-moving observer]. Cities do not crumble to the ground as a result of a week-long parade.

    Does the supernatural exist or not? 

    I wonder how you propose this question could be answered, since by definition a "supernatural" thing could not be described by natural means, and since the only means mutually available to the two of us are natural. Given this paradox, I can only remain agnostic as to the existence of truly supernatural things. In my experience, and in human experience as I understand it, all things once described as "supernatural" are eventually understood in purely natural terms. While certain aspects of our universe remain unexplained (and thus potential candidates for "supernatural" status), I see no reason to expect a natural explanation cannot be found for them, too.

    I trust my honest and undeserved civility in this manner will result in reciprocity on your part.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

  17. 1. Is there one correct interpretation of the bible, or are there many (at least two)?

    Yes, the correct interpretation of the bible would be how the originators made it.


    2. Is there one "codified doctrine of Christianity," or are there many (at least two)?

    Yes, that would be how the originators constructed it, Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.


    3. In the case of (2), are the codified doctrine(s) of Christianity agreed upon by all adherents thereof (as in a council), or are they arbitrarily drawn?

    Modern day? no, there are somethings that all adherents agree on, but most things, no, but that is today.


    4. If there is no council, or other form of official, representative agreement, is there a "codified doctrine"?

    Yes, see #1 and #2.


    5. What would you say if god commanded you to kill every child in Cleveland?

    Care to give a reason why God would do this?


    6. What would you say if god commanded you to drown your own child?

    I would oblige, knowing He would be consistent and tell me to stop just like He did with Abraham.


    7. Was Sarah Abraham's half-sister on his father's side, or was she not?

    Sarah was Abrahams adopted sister on his fathers side. Not biological.

    ReplyDelete
  18. When and where was the Atheist doctrine codified?
    Where's the atheist "Lex Duodecim Tabularum" or "Corpus Juris Civilis"?

    There is no codified doctrine of atheism!

    ReplyDelete
  19. So you say there is one correct interpretation, which has resulted in one "codified doctrine of Christianity," yes?

    You also say that there is much disagreement as to the modern take on this "codified doctrine of Christianity," but in spite of this you still maintain that a "codified doctrine of Christianity" exists, true?

    Regarding god commanding you to kill every child in Cleveland, I take it from your answer that you would question god's will. Is this not a fair assessment on my part?

    Regarding drowning your own children, you would be guilty of hubris if you acted as you suggest. Abraham had no reason to believe god was going to stay his hand when he contemplated the murder of his son on that mountain, and neither should you if god ordered you to drown your children.

    I ask again, then, would you proceed to commit the crime of conspiracy to commit murder, if not attempted murder, against your own child(ren) if god so ordered you?

    Regarding Abraham and Sarah... You lost that and you know it. We needn't dirty this thread with that argument, though -- I just wanted to bust your balls a bit more. If you still feel the need to defend your ridiculous position, please do so there. Everybody knows, though, that you lost.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  20. You know what?

    Forget the Cleveland question, and the drowning question. You can even ignore Abraham and Sarah's status as siblings. You surprised me when you didn't attack my answers to your questions, and I'm intrigued... Because of that, I'd prefer to keep this on-topic as long as possible before the inevitable slip into name-calling and denial of fact.

    If you could simply clarify your position on questions one through three on my list, that would be fantastic.

    I'm also curious as to your reaction to my answers of your own questions. Your uncharacteristic silence is... unexpected. Pleasant, but unexpected.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  21. Is evolution true or not? 

    The process of evolution (i.e. the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms over time) is fact. The Theory of Evolution (i.e. how those genetic changes take place) is the theory best supported by the evidence.
    As such I accept it a true based on the current evidence.

    should creationism be taught in schools or not? 

    Yes, but not in the science classroom as currently it isn't science - save it for comparative religion classes.

    should religion be kept out of the public square or not? 

    Not.

    is the bible a genuine historical document or not?

    As per Stan's response, I accept the Bible as a genuine historical document but this says nothing about the accuracy of it's content.

    Does the supernatural exist or not?

    I do not know.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan,

    This is obviously another attempt to taint atheism, or dicredit it in some manner.

    The definitions of the differnt types of atheists were riten by John N. Gray, as you pointed out.

    John N. Gray is a very intelligent and articulate fellow. I've read his stuff in The New Statesmen. He certainly knows how to throw a new twist on certain matters because that is his job. He's an author and more important, a philosopher.

    If you internalize what he is saying it is obvious that he is saying that atheism is subscribed to by many different types of people who share only one thing in common for certain, and that is that since there is no evidence for the supernatural, they do not believe there is a God.

    Philosophy normally ends up the same as this article, a bunch of words chasing their own tails.

    Nice try, Dan.

    ReplyDelete

  23. So you say there is one correct interpretation, which has resulted in one "codified doctrine of Christianity," yes?

    Yup.


    You also say that there is much disagreement as to the modern take on this "codified doctrine of Christianity," but in spite of this you still maintain that a "codified doctrine of Christianity" exists, true?

    Yup.



    Regarding god commanding you to kill every child in Cleveland, I take it from your answer that you would question god's will. Is this not a fair assessment on my part?

    No, I was asking YOU since you made the hypothetical question. Why is God asking this? He doesn't just ask things like that out of the blue. You're creating this hypothetical situation and before I answer you need to be more clear.


    Regarding drowning your own children, you would be guilty of hubris if you acted as you suggest. Abraham had no reason to believe god was going to stay his hand when he contemplated the murder of his son on that mountain, and neither should you if god ordered you to drown your children.

    I would be guilty of no such thing, unlike Abraham we get the privilege of knowing some of the qualities of God, Him asking me to drown my child I have faith that He will remain consistent and won't let me hurt the child.


    I ask again, then, would you proceed to commit the crime of conspiracy to commit murder, if not attempted murder, against your own child(ren) if god so ordered you?

    So now you make a distinction between conspiracy to commit murder and the actual murder itself right? if that is the case then yes I would.


    Regarding Abraham and Sarah... You lost that and you know it. We needn't dirty this thread with that argument, though -- I just wanted to bust your balls a bit more. If you still feel the need to defend your ridiculous position, please do so there. Everybody knows, though, that you lost.

    HAHHAHA the sign of a sore ignorant loser. I lost nothing, I only exposed your complete and utter ignorance of the word and translation. You have nothing to refute me on that you ignorant atheist since I am using valid translations. Hilarious, I was nice to you in this thread and you did exactly as I expected you to do, be an ignorant athiest. Typical.

    ReplyDelete

  24. I'm also curious as to your reaction to my answers of your own questions. Your uncharacteristic silence is... unexpected. Pleasant, but unexpected.

    Theres no need to react, you basically said
    Evolution is true
    Creationism should not be taught in schools
    the bible is not an accurate historical document(which is what I meant when I said genuine in the first place)
    the supernatural does not exist.

    Clarification on the should religion be kept out of the public square question, I meant should there be rules that have a religious base in the public square? should the government enforce no working on sundays?

    with the exception of the last question(which needed to be clarified) you follow the codified doctrine of atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Theological Discourse, why do you keep calling people "ignorant?"

    Do you think this is constructive?

    ReplyDelete

  26. Theological Discourse, why do you keep calling people "ignorant?"

    Do you think this is constructive?

    I call people ignorant the same reason I call tall people tall or black people black or short people short. It is true. Whether or not it is constructive entirely depends upon how people accept that truth.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "...black people black or short people short."

    But it's pejorative and argumentative, and it instantly turns people off. If you call a black person black, he likely won't get mad, but if you call a black person a n****** or a short person a pygmie, it might make you look childish and ultimately have the effect of distracting from your argument.

    Which it has for me. I don't even remember what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I asked of STD:

    So you say there is one correct interpretation, which has resulted in one "codified doctrine of Christianity," yes? 

    To which he responded:

    Yup. 

    I further clarified:

    You also say that there is much disagreement as to the modern take on this "codified doctrine of Christianity," but in spite of this you still maintain that a "codified doctrine of Christianity" exists, true? 

    To which he again responded:

    Yup. 

    I wonder, then, what he means when he says:

    The bible can be read and interpreted in various ways, valid ways mind you... 

    Tell you what, STD. You get your story straight, and get back to us.

    As to the implications of these 'various, valid ways' might be, let's apply them to your "codified doctrine of atheism":

    1 There is no God. 

    This one is generally held by all atheists, to a greater or lesser degree of confidence, but no, it does not tend to apply to Christians.

    2 Evolution is true(one exception to this that I know of). 

    This one seems to come from both the "codified doctrine of atheism," as you define it, and from the "codified doctrine of Christianity" -- at the least, one of the "various ways, valid ways mind you" of identifying the doctrines of Christianity, per your own statement on your blog.

    Creationism should not be taught in schools. 

    This unnumbered item also seems to fall in the "codified doctrines" of both Atheism and the "various ways, valid ways mind you" of interpreting the doctrines of Christianity.

    3 Religion should be kept out of the public square. 

    With respect to your clarification on "the public square," by citing a government rule enforcing a labor stoppage on Sundays, I'd say this one quite nicely fits into both the "codified doctrine of atheism" as you define it, and one of the "various ways, valid ways mind you" in which the "codified doctrine of Christianity" can be formulated.

    4 The bible is not a genuine historical document. 

    As with items 2, [unnumbered], and 3 above, the historical accuracy of the bible is spurious at best, from both the "codified doctrine of atheism," and one of the "various ways, valid ways mind you" of codifying Christian doctrine. While few would argue that there is no accuracy to the bible's historical claims, just as few would argue that the bible is completely historically accurate.

    5 The supernatural does not exist. 

    As I noted in my initial response to these questions, this one cannot be answered honestly, due to limitations in how we can communicate the subject. In that vein, the answer I gave is equivalent to the answer one would receive from many of the "various ways, valid ways mind you" in which the "codified doctrine of Christianity" can be formulated.


    So what remains?

    1 There is no God. 

    This is, evidently, the only surviving member of your "codified doctrine of atheism" which is exclusive to Atheism.

    Imagine that.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  29. While I can't speak for all atheists, I will answer these for myself.

    1 There is no God.

    Don't know. The only thing I can say for sure is that I'm highly, HIGHLY skeptical of Christianity. To such a degree that, for all intents and purposes, you can call me a "Yawheh atheist." Same goes for Islam, Hinduism, etc. Whether there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe, though... who knows? Have to wait until we know more about the universe, which probably won't happen in my lifetime.

    2 Evolution is true

    Yes. True in the sense that it has been verified on a molecular scale, and has made and continues to make successful scientific predictions.

    2 Creationism should not be taught in schools.

    Not as science. It can be taught as comparative religion.

    3 Religion should be kept out of the public square.

    If by "public square" you mean "in public," then no. I support free speech. If by "public square" you mean government departments showing ANY opinion on religion, such as Ten Commandments in courtrooms, God in the Pledge, etc, then yes. Government should leave religion to the individual and not have an opinion on the matter.

    4 The bible is not a genuine historical document.

    Of course it's a genuine historical document. As is the Popol Vuh, the Enuma Elish Epic, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. Bronze Age mythology mixed with historical events.

    5 The supernatural does not exist.

    Absolutely no idea. What does "supernatural" mean? Something amazing that is outside our current understanding? Something that does not conform to natural laws, but which new laws will be able to explain? What does the term even mean?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Of course there are non-believers who arrived at their conclusions about gods much differently from one another... but so what?

    Atheism is very unlike religious belief, in that it is not an axiomatic premise from which world-views spring forth, but most often a conclusion arrived at within a world-view. And of course, the lack of belief in god will further affect what beliefs can be accepted within that world view... but I don't think most atheists hold their belief to be axiomatic the way most religious think of their god.

    The variation in "denominations" of atheists, as we seem to be calling them here, is not surprising, given that many people arrive at atheism from within differing world-views...

    And it shouldn't be surprising when we see many atheists that share common beliefs... because often times they do share similar world-views.

    This is really why the oft used (but illusory) "trump card" about atheism and deadly regimes in recent history is so profoundly wrong. The communist regimes sprang forth from philosophies that have little to nothing in common with any of the "atheist denominations" listed in the OP

    ReplyDelete
  31. "True in the sense that it has been verified on a molecular scale,"

    Well, a theory has been developed on a molecular level. It's been surmised that similarity and progression implies common ancestry. However, this is not proven. If we were talking about anything other than living things, we would know that similarity and progression means, not a common ancestry but a common creator or designer.

    Protein sequencing points to a common Designer. Here's why. If all species share a common ancestor, as Darwinists say, we should expect to find protein sequences that are trnsitional from, for example, fish to amphibian, or from reptile to mammal. But that's NOT what we find at all. Instead, we find that the basic types are molecularly isolated from one another, which seems to preclude any type of ancestral relatoinship.

    So even though all organisms share a common genetic code with varying degrees of closeness, that code has ordered the amino acids in proteins in such a way that the basic types are in molecular isolation from one another. There are NO Darwinian transitions, only distinct molecular gaps. If anyone knows why these gaps exist, this would be a good place to explain it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Protein sequencing points to a common Designer.

    Interesting. Explain how.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This is what happens when uneducated people ramble about things they read in uneducated forums...

    If we were talking about anything other than living things, we would know that similarity and progression means, not a common ancestry but a common creator or designer. 

    Let's see if this is true. Let's talk about "anything other than living things," say, computers.

    My HP Pavilion laptop is similar in shape, appearance, function, and composition to my Gateway laptop. Do they have common creators or designers?

    The Macintosh SEs and Macintosh Pluses I used in high school each featured a monitor, a disk reading system, a mouse, and a keyboard -- just like my Compaq Presario desktop PC. Do they have common creators or designers?

    What about Operating Systems and other software? My Windows XP Professional OS features a "desktop," a window-based GUI, a "taskbar," and interactive menus. My Ubuntu Linux (Hardy; Gnome) OS likewise features a "desktop," a window-based GUI, a "taskbar," and interactive menus. Do they have common creators or designers?

    Windows Media Player 11, Winamp, VLC, Totem Media Player, and iTunes all play audio CDs, mp3s, and other audio formats. Do they have common creators or designers?

    Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, and Safari are all internet browsers, and can each display pages written in HTML, PHP, ASP, or XML, including the use of various scripting languages. Do they have common creators or designers?

    What about game consoles? My Atari 2600, NES, SNES, N64, Xbox, Xbox360, and Wii all have game media, and all feature controllers and a connection to a television. They also feature a progression scale, from very low-end graphics, to 1080p. Do they all have common creators or designers?

    Heh.

    I'm going back to Space Invaders.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's been surmised that similarity and progression implies common ancestry. However, this is not proven.

    Incorrect. It IS proven and if you think otherwise you are not aware of all the evidence that supports it.

    Endogenous retroviruses are shared between humans and chimps. The same insertions, in the same place on the genome, in the same order.

    Transposons (viruses that can only be contained within the genome) are also shared between ancestors, but not between animals that are not closely related. These sequences cannot leave the genome. The only explanation of why they match up the way they do is due to common inheritance.

    The entire primate tree, including humans, possess a vitamin C gene that has been deactivated by a mutation. Guinea pigs also share a deactivated vitamin C gene. But here's the thing: the mutation that deactivates it is the same in all the primates, but a different mutation deactivates it in guinea pigs. The only way all organisms can share the exact same mutation of a deactivated gene is through common ancestry.

    Common ancestry has been confirmed on a molecular level to such a degree that it is, for all intents and purposes, a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  35. T.D. said to someone else:
    you follow the codified doctrine of atheism.

    Hang about. Codified, you say? Where?

    On preview: Flute asked this first.

    TD:
    I call people ignorant the same reason I call tall people tall or black people black or short people short. It is true. Whether or not it is constructive entirely depends upon how people accept that truth.

    This reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Homer says "Everyone is stupid except me" before almost setting himself on fire.

    Stan said:
    "I'm going back to Space Invaders."

    I like the 2600 version better than the arcade version. My cart has a piece of paper stuck to it with my high scores. Once I managed to "clock" it four times before I gave up. Good game.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Back in the olden days, to "clock" a game was to make the score roll around to zero again.

    ReplyDelete
  37. If we were talking about anything other than living things, we would know that similarity and progression means, not a common ancestry but a common creator or designer.

    It's fascinating you bring this up, as common ancestry can be proven without even the need for evolutionary biology.

    Try to classify things that are designed. Wine, cars, electronics, etc. Two different people will come up with two completely different classifications. One person might classify wine by grape variety, then manufacturer, then country. Another might classify by country first, then manufacturer, then grape.

    Both completely valid, but both completely different and subjective.

    Now try it with something that shares a common ancestor. Languages are a good example. Two people, completely independent of one another, will always classify Spanish in the same family with French, and English in the same family with German. In other words, it's not subjective, it's OBJECTIVE.

    Life on earth is the same. You have birds and reptiles. Within birds you have Neognathae and Paleognathae. Within Neognathe you have Columbiforms (pigeons) and Apodiformes (hummingbirds). Within Columbiforms you have doves, pigeons, and dodos.

    This is called a nested hierarchy and it alone strongly points toward common ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Stan,

    My HP Pavilion laptop is similar in shape, appearance, function, and composition to my Gateway laptop. Do they have common creators or designers?...What about game consoles? My Atari 2600, NES, SNES, N64, Xbox, Xbox360, and Wii all have game media, and all feature controllers and a connection to a television. They also feature a progression scale, from very low-end graphics, to 1080p. Do they all have common creators or designers?
     

    Yes dork they do. Mankind created all of it. Your point?

    BTW if you still own a Atari 2600 you are indeed an über nerd. I salute you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Now Stan,

    Can mankind create life? I don't mean artificial life either. If not the "Designer" that did is beyond mankind's understanding. Agree?

    ReplyDelete
  40. What designer? No-one's proved life was designed.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yes dork they do. Mankind created all of it. Your point? 

    ...So you are now saying there may be multiple gods?

    BTW if you still own a Atari 2600 you are indeed an über nerd. 

    I do (and it works) and I am.

    I salute you. 

    I accept your apology.

    Can mankind create life? I don't mean artificial life either. If not the "Designer" that did is beyond mankind's understanding. Agree? 

    I will agree that the origins of life as we know it are unclear at present. There is no reason whatsoever to leap to a conscious, intelligent "designer," and there is certainly no reason to suspect the process to be endlessly beyond humanity's ability to grasp it.

    Your specious arguments against evolution are precisely of the sort used against heliocentrism, against a roughly spherical earth, etc. These are not new in form, only in subject. Just because something is today unclear or poorly understood (if understood at all) does not mean we should start sacrificing virgins to it. Even if we did suspect a conscious, intelligent designer, we'd seek to find out more about it, including its origins, rather than ceasing all research and boldly claiming "This far have we come, and no further shall we go."

    That's very anti-human, if you think about it, and it's precisely what you theists do when you claim special access to omniscience.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete


  42. Tell you what, STD. You get your story straight, and get back to us.

    Atheist logic strikes again. Did I say those ways are the CORRECT WAY? no I didn't. More evidence of your complete lack of reading comprehension and logical thought. You have shown your complete and utter ignorance of differentiating between

    1. "one correct interpretation," which is the original interpretation.
    2. "on codified doctrine of Christianity" which was what the originators had in mind.

    Due to your overwhelming ignorance that is common in atheists you fail to grasp the simple concept that because there are so many meanings to the words there will be multiple valid interpretations of 1 and 2.

    Example: the word 'bath' means biological sister, sister in law or adopted sister. Each is a VALID interpretation, but we can never for sure which interpretation was originally intended by the person that wrote it. We have evidence that supports one interpretation over the other, but that still does not invalidate the other interpretations, it just allows us to choose with some sort of confidence one translation over the other.

    How ironic that you take your complete ignorance of the above then apply it to your own atheist doctrine. Hilarious. Exactly what I come to expect from an ignorant atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Nice try, douche. It must suck being a complete loser with only an inflated, imaginary, online ego to keep you going.

    Next time you try to argue with the big boys, get permission from your mom first.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. There's a perfectly good word for "sister in law" in Hebrew.

    Strong's Number: 02994
    Link

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mackey, STD is grasping at straws when he cries about Abraham banging his half-sister, just like he is grasping at straws when he tries to think.

    He's a little bitch, nothing more.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

  47. Nice try, douche. It must suck being a complete loser with only an inflated, imaginary, online ego to keep you going.

    Next time you try to argue with the big boys, get permission from your mom first.

    Hilarious. As anyone with a decent grasp of logic can see, stans ignorant comment does not qualify as a rational coherent rebuttal. It is nothing more than a frustrated ignorant atheist who is upset because he thought he had a point, only to have it blow up in his face.

    ReplyDelete

  48. Mackey, STD is grasping at straws when he cries about Abraham banging his half-sister, just like he is grasping at straws when he tries to think.

    He's a little bitch, nothing more.

    Hilarious, the frustrated ignorant atheist stan states that appealing to a valid form of interpretation is 'grasping at straws.' He's just frustrated because once again he thought he had a point only to have it blow up in his face and make him look even more ignorant than before.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Saying you're grasping at straws IS a valid interpretation. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. If STD is a Christian, I am the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There's only one denomination of atheists: Hellbound.

    Theological Discourse, pretending to be a Christian will get you nowhere. You can NOT pull your monkey tricks with God.

    ReplyDelete
  52. STD,
    "Hilarious, the frustrated ignorant atheist stan states that appealing to a valid form of interpretation is 'grasping at straws."

    Deluded much?
    You wouldn't know a valid argument if it kicked you in the ass.

    You're cracking me up! :>

    ReplyDelete
  53. Atheist1: Hi, I'm an atheist.

    Atheist2: Oh, wow, I'm an atheist as well!

    Atheist1: Let's talk about life and science! And have a scientific debate based on evidence!

    Atheist2: Cool!

    -----Two atheists end up having an extensive scientific debate, with mutual increase in scientific knowledge-----


    Christian1: Hi, I'm a Christian.

    Christian2: Oh, wow, I'm a Christian as well!

    Christian1: Serious? Which church do you go to?

    Christian2: I go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

    Christian1: Oh.

    Christian2: How about you?

    Christian1: Err, I'm a Catholic.

    Christian2: Oh, you are not a Christian the, you are a Catholic.

    Christian1: (frowns) What do you mean? I'm a Christian, and you're a Mormon.

    Christian2: Yeah, whatever, I'm going to heaven and you are going to hell.

    Christian1: Take that back! You blasphemy!

    -----Two Christians end up with bleeding noses and hatreds in their minds-----

    Don't take this too seriously, it's just a satire.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Martin:

         Except that -- absent the "right way" to classify -- some people classified bats with birds. They also classed whales and dolphins with fish.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Except that -- absent the "right way" to classify -- some people classified bats with birds. They also classed whales and dolphins with fish."

    Ironically, this is mainly in the Bible and other primitive works. Before we much enough about the world. In 1735 Linnaeus classified animals according to their morphological characteristics.

    It didn't take a very hard look to realize that bats are mammals, as are whales.

    Regardless, all you're saying is that "without enough data, you will get the classification wrong."

    If you only had bits and pieces of Spanish and French, you may very well classify them wrong as well.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Except that -- absent the "right way" to classify -- some people classified bats with birds. They also classed whales and dolphins with fish. 

    The "right way" is appropriately scare-quoted, but I'd still prefer saying "absent a better way."

    I doubt any of us would blame a primitive culture for categorizing bats as birds, and I wouldn't even blame [the more advanced] 19th century cultures for categorizing dolphins and whales as fish. To quote Melville (Moby Dick, Chapter 32: "Cetology"):

    In his System of Nature, A.D. 1766, Linnaeus declares, "I hereby separate the whales from the fish." But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnaeus's express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan." 

    The problem with classifications such as are made in the bible lies only in the fact that the bible is treated as sacrosanct, as inerrant and completely true in every respect, by many of its followers. If the ridiculous position that the bible is the lone completely inerrant document on this fine earth were relaxed, there would be no problem at all. It is only by insisting that the bible is thus unique that the problems arise.

    When the earth is shown to be far older than 10,000 years, or when the sun is shown to be far older still, and when the impossibility of the sun's relative position in the sky remaining still is shown, and the nonexistence of a global flood event is shown, and countless other fictional -- nay, mythical -- events are shown to have been embellished at best, or outright invented at worst, the continued insistence upon biblical inerrancy becomes not merely ridiculous, but openly mockable.

    That is where we sit today.

    You are openly mocked.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  57.      Well, Stan, you would do well to remember that I do not treat the bible as sacrosanct. I am only pointing out -- quite correctly -- that (left to their own devices) people and cultures will have differing classifications for life forms. The "objective classification system" is only objective when one particular system is taken as the "right one." (Incidentally, the quotes here are to indicate that other people call it "objective" and "right." I, however, do not vouch for the terms.)
         Martin's argument is based on the implication that any human classification system for life on Earth will generate the same nested heierarchy. This is manifestly not true. One only gets the same heierarchy if one is trying to fit the classification to evolution. Otherwise, people will differ on what broad features are important for grouping. As Martin said about wines, electronics, etc., "Two different people will come up with two completely different classifications."
         "When the earth is shown to be far older than 10,000 years, or when the sun is shown to be far older still, and when the impossibility of the sun's relative position in the sky remaining still is shown, and the nonexistence of a global flood event is shown, and countless other fictional -- nay, mythical -- events are shown to have been embellished at best, or outright invented at worst, the continued insistence upon biblical inerrancy becomes not merely ridiculous, but openly mockable.
         "That is where we sit today.
         "You are openly mocked."
         Unless you can find any place anywhere where I have supported the concept of biblical inerrency, you have a problem. You have just set up a straw man. I'm used to it. Christians do it all the time. It would have been better to note that Martin's argument was indeed poor. My post couldn't even serve as an argument that evolution is false. It only shows that a particular argument is bad. But (assuming large-scale evolution true) it wouldn't be the first time that someone made a bad argument for something that is true. People sometimes hold true beliefs for invalid reasons.
         Your post, on the other hand, does a bit more damage. You have reacted to a perceived threat to your position with a deliberate misrepresentation of mine. (Christians do that all the time.) That is evidence that you (at the very least; there are likely others) hold the belief as a sacred belief and not subject to critical thought.

    ReplyDelete
  58. You have just set up a straw man. 

    You misunderstand me, my friend. I am not mocking you, nor am I claiming you hold the bible as inerrant. I'm mocking those who do, with the full recognition that you are not one of them.

    I apologize for any confusion.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  59. Stan:

         "You misunderstand me, my friend. I am not mocking you, nor am I claiming you hold the bible as inerrant. I'm mocking those who do, with the full recognition that you are not one of them."
         That doesn't seem to fit the fact that you quoted me, went into a rather long belittlement (directed at others?) and concluded with "you are openly mocked." Your assertion that you were not seeking to mock me is something I find as plausible as Dan's assertion in the other thread that the bullet points were jokes.

    Martin:

         "Ironically, this is mainly in the Bible and other primitive works. Before we much enough about the world. In 1735 Linnaeus classified animals according to their morphological characteristics."
         And you have not offered a compelling reason not to classify them by morphology. My stance is that there is no right way or wrong way to make classifications -- any more than there is a right way or a wrong way to classify wines.
         People tend to devise classifications to suit what purposes they have at hand. However, the evolution-supporting system is achieved by noting what system best supports evolution or by explicit conformity to the system so devised. To turn around and use the system as though it were inherently natural is nothing more than begging the question.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Your assertion that you were not seeking to mock me is something I find as plausible as Dan's assertion in the other thread that the bullet points were jokes. 

    Wow. Well fuck you, then. If you need to be persecuted, I'll not stop you, but it's imaginary, you know.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  61.      "Wow. Well **** you, then. If you need to be persecuted, I'll not stop you, but it's imaginary, you know."
         I don't need to be persecuted. But I will call you on misrepresentation. I suppose you will also say that I imagined that you said "Well **** you, then." The reality is against you. You claim that I am imagining persecution. But I am only quoting your words. (Indeed "persecution" is your claim, not mine. That would go a lot farther than making up straw-man arguments.) I called them a straw man as they were clearly directed at me, but misrepresented my beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  62. If the ridiculous position that the bible is... That is where we sit today.

    Cool down, everyone! The first guy was talking about IF that position was held and then he started talking about others who hold that position. It wasn't a great idea to do it so close to the second guy's quotes though.

    Can't we all get along? Everyone here is so great. Except for TD. He sucks. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Cool down, everyone! 

    I'm calm, Flute, I'm just annoyed that Pvblivs would resort to calling me a liar, and I expected he'd know me better than this. I understand the offending comment was poorly stated (the pronoun "you" was unreferenced), but I figured an apology and brief explanation was good enough.

    Apparently it wasn't. Whatever. I'm not about to beg him to believe me, and it's really not a big deal. By saying, "fuck you, then," I was just letting it go.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  64. Stan:

         Your "explanation" was to claim that you did not do what I clearly saw you do. And, no, I don't accept that. Instead of an apology, you decided to feed me some baloney. So, I will give you the same type of apology. I am sorry that you set up a straw man and then lied about it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You're an idiot if you think I don't know you aren't a bible-believer, and I'm an idiot if I knowingly misrepresented you as being one. Now, I don't think either of us is an idiot, but one of us is sure acting like one...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  66. Pvblivs,

    It seems that this conversation has reached an inpasse, of which now can only be resolved by you.

    I, for one have given you a lot of lattitude in the past, but it is now time to pay the fiddler.

    Are you, or are you not, a "bible believer?"

    What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Froggie-

    Far be it for me to presume to speak on Pvblivs' behalf, but perhaps doing so will further convince him that one less person is out to get him...

    As I understand his position, Pvblivs does not accept the bible as inerrant, and he does not take the age of the earth/solar system/universe to be ~6,000 years. That being said, he also does not accept the ToE as fact, necessarily, but merely as the most plausible theory regarding the diversity of life.

    He seeks to avoid dogmatically accepting any particular view, which I admire, but he also seems so set on avoiding choosing sides that his position is muddied, and his points are diminished. This is not true of all of his opinions and viewpoints, of course, but for the more controversial religious/philosophical points, it seems to hold.

    So no, he's not a "bible believer" -- certainly not in the sense that Dan is -- but he's not prepared to endorse Big Bang cosmology or Evolution, either...

    ...or so I have gathered from our past interactions.

    Truce?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  68. Froggie:

         I believe that the bible is a reflection of the culture in which it was written and nothing more. It is useful for telling us what those people believed. But, primarily, it is a book of legends. I am not a "bible believer" in any normal sense of the term as I stated plainly that I do not consider it sacrosanct.

    Stan:

         I would suggest that dogmatic conformity to a position weakens one's points as they then only hold on the assumption of that position.

    -------------------

         It is my observation that people tend not to like to hear perspectives other than their own. They like to identify dissent in advance so that they may ridicule and mock. As I think for myself, I am apt to dissent from any given person on some topic. So, no, I don't think these attacks are personal. They are little more than the equivalent of plugging ears and shouting "La, la, la, I can't hear you." The same person may attack when I show dissent but turn around and speak kindly when the subject turns to something in which there is agreement. I only wish that more people could entertain ideas without committing to them, that more people could understand perspectives with which they do not agree.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Pvb,

    It is my observation that people tend not to like to hear perspectives other than their own. 

    I do applaud your openness on matters and I applaud a person that doesn't just get in line without figuring things out for themselves.

    I respect you views on ToE because you observed something that most of us haven't, that many people take things as truth under the umbrella of the Lab Coatauthoritarians. But remember even you put things through a "filter" to understand them. You have presuppositions that everything is understood by. We all do. I believe that you do not have a neutral stance on anything and have a definable worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Pvblivs:

    "Martin's argument is based on the implication that any human classification system for life on Earth will generate the same nested heierarchy. This is manifestly not true. One only gets the same heierarchy if one is trying to fit the classification to evolution. Otherwise, people will differ on what broad features are important for grouping."

    You are completely wrong. The nested hierarchy of life is objective, and today is backed up by molecular data. While details have changed over the years, as I said this is due to lack of data, and there is still some argument today over some specifics. As data comes in, it becomes more and more accurate.

    No one, even if they dispute language common ancestry, would classify Spanish and Chinese in the same group. They will always come to the conclusion that Spanish, French, and Italian are related, and that Icelandic and Norwegian are related. They will thus place these languages in the same groupings. This is because Latin evolved into Spanish, French, and Italian, and North Germanic evolved into Icelandic and Norwegian. Nested hierarchy.

    The same for life. Whether you accept evolution or not, you will always group crows together with ravens, pigeons together with doves, and each of those two you will always group with perching birds. You will always group ostriches and emus together, and those you will group together as flightless birds from Gondwana.

    Whether you accept evolution or not, you will always split mammals into placentals and marsupials, and each animal falls neatly within those groups, and groups within groups, on down the line. There simply isn't any other way to do it. I guess if you WANTED to you could, for instance, classify whales into one group, and land-dwelling animals into another, but it doesn't make any sense because you then have one group of placentals, and another group of placentals mixed with marsupials. Your classification would be senseless and useless and unable to make predictions.

    It really IS objective.

    This is not something that is up for dispute or a matter of opinion. It's an objective fact.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Martin:

         You will manage to convince precisely those people who already agree with you. The historic classifications that I brought up were not useless. And I note a remarkable absense of predictions even with the evolution-based classification heierarchy.
         "You are completely wrong. The nested hierarchy of life is objective, and today is backed up by molecular data. While details have changed over the years, as I said this is due to lack of data, and there is still some argument today over some specifics. As data comes in, it becomes more and more accurate."
         You are describing fitting it to evolution. You note what system best supports evolution. And molecular analysis is very good at identifying what classification system best supports evolution. But someone uninterested in evolution is not likely to use it in classifying. The "additional data" can best be summed up as "fit it to evolution."

    ReplyDelete
  72. Pvblivs said...

    "You are describing fitting it to evolution. You note what system best supports evolution. And molecular analysis is very good at identifying what classification system best supports evolution. But someone uninterested in evolution is not likely to use it in classifying. The 'additional data' can best be summed up as 'fit it to evolution.'"

    I don't think you actually read anything I wrote. Whether you accept evolution or not, two people will always split mammals into placentals and marsupials. Under placentals, the same two people will group primates into old world and new world. Under new world primates, the same two people will always group tamarains with marmosets, and cappuchins with squirrel monkeys. Regardless of whether you accept evolution or not.

    Why? Because that's the only way to classify them that makes sense,regardless of whether you accept evolution or not.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Martin:

         You wrote that. But that doesn't make it true. Indeed, it is historically false. I need only one counter-example to an "always" statement. I provided two historical ones -- before you made your "always" statement. And contemporarily the people making the "acceptable" classifications all believe in evolution and make the classifications to fit. I can safely rule the claim of "regardless of whether you accept evolution or not" as categorically false. People who do not accept evolution do not invariably divide along those lines.
         It is not the "only way to classify them that makes sense." It is the only way to fit the classification to the idea of evolution. It makes sense to talk about aquatic life as a group. It also makes sense to speak of terrestrial life as a group. Obviously, this is not useful when talking about evolution as the groupings don't match the idea. But anything that affects land and sea differently will affect those groups differently and so (e.g. with some environmental / pollution considerations) it is a useful grouping.
         Furthermore, if there was a sentient species of bird (hypothetical, but not an implausible scenario, even under evolution) such birds would be grouped with humans -- for certain purposes. I did read what you wrote. I rejected it as false. It isn't even contingent upon evolution. Your claims were false even if evolution is true.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Pvblivs, Stan,
    Thanks both for taking a moment to qualify your positions for me.

    Carry on!

    ReplyDelete
  75. "You wrote that. But that doesn't make it true. I provided two historical ones -- before you made your 'always' statement."

    Yes, and I already responded to that. Before people had a good look at bats, it would have made sense superficially to classify them as birds. But as we learned more about them, they were clearly mammals and can now ONLY be placed in the mammal category. There is now no other way to classify them. They are objectively mammals, period. They will never be classified as birds ever again, evolution or not.

    But disagreements on specifics where data is lacking does not invalidate the whole process.

    There is a distinctive difference between automobiles and languages. The former can be placed into separate groups of your choosing, the latter can ONLY be placed in groups within groups within groups.

    I'm not speaking from an "evolutionary bias." This is a mathematical process: Theory of Branching Processes.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Martin:

         Of course you are speaking from an evolutionary bias. Indeed, you are speaking from an even sharper bias. One can be wholly convinced of evolution and yet recognize that there are classification schemes that have little correlation with it.
         It can still be meaningful to group bats and birds together as flying animals. You are correct that bats will not be called birds. (The grouping would necessarily be given another name.) But this is a nod to the idea of evolution. The claim of "evolution or not" is false. Absent the idea of evolution and the requirement not to tread on its toes, in discussions of flying animals, it would be convenient to call bats "birds." It is perhaps a testament to the insecurity of some evolution supporters that that does not happen.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "...in discussions of flying animals, it would be convenient to call bats 'birds.'"

    No, it would not and it never would and you betray your complete ignorance and denial of basic biology. You might as well be telling me that 2+2 can sometimes equal 8.47574.

    Bats are 100% mammals and nothing else.

    All you are saying at this point is "la la la I can't hear you." You have nothing of substance except "nope!"

    ReplyDelete
  79. I wonder what's the point of the argument at this juncture...

    Pvblivs is right on a trivial level; bats are flying creatures. Just the same, then, are most insects. While it is clearly possible to classify fauna in arbitrary and subjective ways, the current taxonomy of species is quite objective, regardless of any truth claim pursuant to the Theory of Evolution.

    Yes, bats fly, as do butterflies, but no, neither is a bird, and while they can be classified among the flying creatures, they would nonetheless find themselves grouped with mammals and insects, respectively, rather than with any avian species.

    Just so with whales and sharks; while each lives exclusively in the ocean, and such a simplistic classification is possible, a cursory glance at the anatomy and physiology of the two quickly shows that whales are mammals, and are far more similar to bovines than to sharks. The one obvious similarity between sharks and whales quickly dissolves in the face of the countless less obvious similarities between whales and bovines.

    Indeed, Martin's point seems to be that any objective classification system will necessarily become evidence for evolution, rather than being something based on it. Clearly, though, one isn't required to accept evolution to be able to see the fact that bats and whales are each mammals.

    Am I missing something?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  80. Martin:

         There are other motives for classifying life forms then just to print in a biology text. (Biology texts assume evolution and so defeat the notion of "evolution or not.")
         "You might as well be telling me that 2+2 can sometimes equal 8.47574."
         A more effective analogy would be that I was telling you that holes can be dug at other than 6 feet, while you were telling me that the only depth of hole that made sense was 6 feet "burial or not" and finally telling me that I knew nothing about grave-digging.
         Modern biology assumes evolution. Its classification schemes, therefore, deliberately conform to evolution. In effect, all this time, by saying "evolution or no" you have been denying that the discussion was specific to biology. (That is, unless you can find biologists that don't assume evolution. Good luck with that. It is a requirement for admittance.) My discussion has, in turn, been independent of biology.
         By saying "and you betray your complete ignorance and denial of basic biology," you reveal what I expected all along. When you said that it was the "only classification system that makes sense," you meant the "only classification system that makes sense under the specific scheme of evolution."
         "All you are saying at this point is 'la la la I can't hear you.' You have nothing of substance except 'nope!'"
         Quite the contrary. I do hear you. And I note a contradiction in your statements. I expected that your claims required an explicit fitting to evolution -- as modern biology does. But you were denying that that is what you were doing. So I kept talking about conditions that were not specificly set up to fit evolution. It was only a matter of time until you would make plain that you were speaking only of things set up to fit evolution, even though you said, "evolution or no." You only wish I wasn't paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "A more effective analogy would be that I was telling you that holes can be dug at other than 6 feet, while you were telling me that the only depth of hole that made sense was 6 feet 'burial or not' and finally telling me that I knew nothing about grave-digging."

    False analogy. Correct depth for grave-digging is indeed subjective. The best analogy is still languages. I'm telling you that Spanish and Italian can be grouped together, and that Norwegian and Icelandic can be grouped together. This is objective, no a prior assumption required. You are trying to tell me that Spanish and Icelandic can be grouped together, which they cannot, regardless of a priori assumptions.

    "When you said that it was the 'only classification system that makes sense,' you meant the 'only classification system that makes sense under the specific scheme of evolution.'"

    No. What I meant was 'the only classification that is not rambling and useless.' It's useless to group bats as birds because they are not birds. You might as well put cows in with fish. Do we classify cows and buffalo together only because we assume evolution, or because it makes sense to group them that way? How about ostriches and emus?

    "I expected that your claims required an explicit fitting to evolution -- as modern biology does."

    The classification does not require evolution, and that's my point that you keep missing or ignoring. A bat is a mammal, independent of a priori assumptions. A whale is a mammal, independent of a priori assumptions. Mammals are either placentals or marsupials, independent of a prior assumptions. Organisms are prokaryotes or eukaryotes, independent of a priori assumptions.

    None of this REQUIRES evolution; this is objective observation ONLY. This is my whole point. The nested hierarchy does NOT assume evolution and does NOT require it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Martin:

         "The classification does not require evolution, and that's my point that you keep missing or ignoring."
         You keep saying that. But all you have is an empty assertion. As a brute fact, modern biology assumes evolution. It is based on those divisions that support evolution. So, a mammal is defined as any animal that grows hair. What's the significance of that classification? Well, it supports evolution. That's about it.
         Similarities in ecological niches also provide a means of classification. Similar ecological positions require similar features -- even if the life forms are not closely related. Stan speaks of less-obvious similarities. Classifications based on far-from-obvious similarities can be defined and be "objective" based on the given definition. But they will always smack of an agenda. It is a special-purpose classification. General-purpose classifications tend to rely on more obvious similarities.
         The statement that the classifications do not require evolution just does not fit. The idea of evolution went into the classification. When evolution goes into the definitions it is no longer "objective observation only."
         Now, "having hair," on its own may have been an observation derived independent of evolution. It may have fit coincidentally. Other observations, carnivore / herbivore, flying / land-based, climbing / running have their own uses, but are uncorrelated. Placental / marsupial would not even be considered absent the idea of evolution. It was derived from trying to devise an evolutionary tree. So the system pruned things uncorrelated with evolution and added things otherwise unlikely to be considered that supported evolution. And people try to tell me that evolution was not put into the system. I have looked at this and determined that this is based on evolution. To convince me otherwise you will need more than your say-so.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Similarities in ecological niches also provide a means of classification. Similar ecological positions require similar features... 

    Okay... First, similarities provide a means of classification, yes, but can we not agree that simple classification systems are most often the least useful...? I'll tell you what; I'll return to that in a moment. Suffice it to say that classification can result from 'obvious' features, for better or for worse.

    -- even if the life forms are not closely related. 

    I think this qualifier gives away the truth: "not closely related" means what, precisely, in a non-evolutionary model? If life forms are "closely related," then the model in question provides for close relationships, which puts it a hell of a lot closer to evolution than it does to creation...

    Stan speaks of less-obvious similarities. Classifications based on far-from-obvious similarities can be defined and be "objective" based on the given definition. 

    Why the scare quotes? Could such a system be objective or not? When I spoke of "less-obvious similarities," I said there are "countless less obvious similarities, and I preceded that with "a cursory glance at the anatomy and physiology..." The similarities are less obvious only to a superficial observation. A dissection of a whale will quickly prove that the similarities between whales and sharks end at their habitat (and diet, in some cases). Those newfound features are "less obvious" to the casual observer, but to a zoologist, or a marine biologist, they are immediately and unequivocally apparent, and void any classification -- other than the trivial, superficial, and casual observation that whales and sharks live in oceans [and eat fish].

    Now, I think I know your objection to 'zoologists' or 'marine biologists,' but I'll let you say it first...

    But they will always smack of an agenda. It is a special-purpose classification. General-purpose classifications tend to rely on more obvious similarities. 

    The agenda to which you refer is evidently a requirement that the taxonomy agree with the ToE, but you seem to forget that whales were classified as mammals long before Darwin. Linnaeus classified whales as mammals in 1778 -- eighty years before Darwin published Origin, and thirty-one years before Darwin was even born. The classification of whales as mammals cannot, therefore, be due to any "agenda" of promoting evolution. If this "less obvious" classification schema can be "objective," then surely other rigorous classification methods can be likewise objective and agenda-free, yes?

    (Caveat: I freely admit that "cladistics" is based on the evolutionary model, but this does not affect the point that an objective system can easily identify whales as mammals, and not as fish, absent any reference whatsoever to the ToE. If it can be true for one species, then why could it not be true for another. Indeed, cladistics was introduced only because of advances in the study of DNA, and the enormous success the ToE has had. It's analogous to the use of the metric system as SI units: it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot easier, and it makes sense.)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Finally, the statement that "[g]eneral-purpose classifications tend to rely on more obvious similarities" is, again, trivially true, and ultimately useless.

    Are generalizations useful? Sure, in the short run, they are, but they are also harmful, and necessarily result in a lot of "false positives." I daresay we don't need to dwell on the fiction produced by generalizations, and I should think we can agree that a run-of-the-mill generalization -- a stereotype, as an example -- is quite well described as a "general-purpose classification [which tends] to rely on more obvious similarities."

    A system of number classification is objective and valid if it separates even numbers from odd numbers, but it isn't especially helpful. Setting up a hierarchy from whole numbers, to counting numbers, to integers, to rational numbers, to real numbers, is not only objective and valid, but it is useful, and it is relatively simple to identify the even from odd from within this system...

    ...Perhaps that's it! It is easy to identify discreet physiological similarities between species via the current taxonomy scheme (whether that be a strict Linnaean system or through the use of cladistics), and easy enough to identify also the "obvious" similarities -- the fact that whales and fish each live in oceans, for instance -- but with a less objective system, or a less rigorous one, it would be nigh impossible to identify discreet physiological similarities based on the species' location in the hierarchy.

    The system which can output the "obvious similarities," as well as the "less obvious similarities," is the better. If you propose some new order of taxonomy which you claim does not rely on evolution, and if that system facilitates easy identification of discreet physiological similarities in addition to the "obvious similarities" that a zoo's visitor might notice, then pony up. If not, I'd say the current system is far better.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  85. I find it interestingly that so many debates on religion vs. atheism end up having evolution/creation brought up. While many of you might not care for Richard Dawkins, his new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is an excellent composition of the evidence of evolution, as it is evident that many comments here are ignorant of the facts. And as many people have said already, atheism is merely a lack of belief in the supernatural. If it takes such a leap of blind faith to believe in God, why is it so hard to understand that many people aren't willing to make that leap because of rational and logic barriers it presents?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Seek the Truth,

    Apparently you are lying to yourself, Seek the Truth.


    >>If it takes such a leap of blind faith to believe in God...

    Faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

    Webster says:

    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

    Faith, in a sense, is synonymous with loyalty and TRUST. In fact the synonyms are: confidence, trust, reliance, conviction, belief, assurance, devotion, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, constancy, fealty, dedication, allegiance

    So you COMPLETELY misrepresented what faith is, and we expect the apology or acknowledgment before we continue here.

    ReplyDelete
  87. so i was just reading this topic and got very interested and thought id throw in my "2 cents" evolution is a change over time to suit an enviornment and if you look around its plain to see evolution and how things have changed even without looking at genes and everything. so how many "breeds" of dogs are there? have u ever seen a Black or an Asian next to a caucasian? well have u ever wondered why they all look so different? maybe its because they evolved to fit in their enviornment so they could survive just seeing this small window in the evolutionary process points to evolution

    and @ pvblivs all your doing is over generalizing things not proving a point at all just presenting a childish argument

    ReplyDelete
  88. Tyler,

    Welcome, and you made a great point. Evolution within a family does indeed exist! But it is merely variances of a species/ family. The DNA is already coded and there to make such changes.

    I hope you understand that the different dogs analogy, that you pose, is a MAN MADE DESIGN construct. Intelligence outside of the environment makes decisions for the family of dogs to evoke the change. Same with people. We CHOOSE who to be with and what our kids will look like. Tall or short, dark or light, black hair or blond, and those variables determine the outcome. It is the 'choices' that we make that makes the difference. We are the designer, to make decisions, that will make the outcome favorable. The environment, itself, is not making the decisions.

    I just read a great article that I really want you to read. It poses a great question that the evolutionist just cannot answer.

    (http://www.icr.org/article/5295/)

    "Darwin's theory provides no useful knowledge, claiming, "nature's designer is nature"--an intrinsically circular explanation. It becomes undeniable since "cause" and "effect" are seen as equivalent. Not a single advocate of evolution can escape this circular reasoning."

    "...the ability to generate "beneficial variations" already resides in the living organism. This is the source of design that natural selection fails to explain. The theory fraudulently ascribes the powers of diversification to variables outside the creature when diversity depends solely on variables inside the creature. (DNA)"

    It is worth the read to at least understand our side of the equation.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dan

    thank you for the welcome and unfortunatly i could only skim over the article right now because i dont have to much time to but i will read it later and than make a comment on that but i would just like to say that yes now we do choose who to be with but thousands of years ago they didnt do that thats why people from different regions look different and why black people didnt exist in germanic lands or why asians didnt exist in america they became that way because of where they lived and the enviornment they lived in and the same goes for the different variations of animals. and im sorry theres alot of spelling mistakes in this but like i said im pressed for time right now and i will comment again when i have more time after i read that article thoroughly

    Tyler

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>