An author named Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. over at SolvingLight.com has a compelling theory as to the Greek mythology and the possible meanings behind the story.
At the moment, I am reading his book called Sowing Atheism (PDF Available) and so far he certainly makes a convincing case which is obvious to everyone that does not adhere to the religious dogma of an Atheist.
From Sowing Atheism:
Science is the systematic, unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos, the formulation of the truths found thereby into general laws, and their application for humanitarian, political, and economic purposes. (emphasis added)
He continued with what we here at DA chant often:
The “unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos” is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist’s task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.
Sound familiar?
I liked how PapaG pointed out the description of science, by quoting another Johnson:
“... the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
and not,
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
There is one point that I need to make though. He distinguishes a term called evo-atheist (evolutionist-atheist), and references to them at times in the book, but to me that is a mere redundancy.
Atheists, naturalists, defend it to the death, no matter what the evidence shows. (With small exceptions) Maybe that is what Johnson means with the term. Although, I have often met critics of evolution that are not necessarily Christian. David Berlinski, and others here, comes to mind for that category. Minor point though.
Is it Greek Mythology and/or Greek Legend?
Are the characters in “Greek mythology,” actually the same historical figures that are described in the Torah?
As Johnson's book Noah in Ancient Greek Art points out:
Artists often depicted Nereus, the "Wet One," on vases with the bottom half of a fish and/or holding a fish, signifying that this fish-man had brought humanity through the raging waters of the Flood. Is this Nereus actually Noah as Johnson provides the case for? If it is, it opens up a great deal of understanding of the past.
Johnson's blog allows us to peek into his book and discusses more about his thesis's interesting claims.
I have yet to read his book "The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble", but if his claims about Greek mythology are anything like his claims about atheism, then he is indeed on to something. I encourage everyone to, at the very least, consider his thesis in reflection, and pick up a copy of his book, and stay tuned to a post about his book(s).
bit.ly/Greekmyth
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou can write about it till you drop over dead, but atheism is not a religion.
It is also absurd that you describe something you despise so much with the definition of your own beliefs.
"An author named Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. over at SolvingLight.com has a compelling theory as to the Greek mythology and the possible meanings behind the story."
ReplyDeleteDan, this was thoroughly debunked six or seven years ago!
Dan,
ReplyDelete" I have yet to meet one atheist that does not believe in Evolution. Someone, please prove me wrong! "
Easy.... Raelians
They are atheists and they don't accept evolution.
From their website:
"The extra-terrestrial human-being that met Rael, dictated to him a series of messages, explaining that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" -- what one can call "scientific creationism." "
"To me, evolution merely is a prerequisite to being an Atheist. All Atheists are evolutionists and defend it to the death, no matter what the evidence shows."
Nope. According to the website there are about 70,000 of them in 97 countries. Each one proves you wrong Dan.
Minor point though ;)
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteI guess I stand corrected(?) I completely forgot about that fringe group the Raelians. I guess that stands as a reason why to call you guys Evo-Atheists.
I sure learn something new every day.
Thanks
Dan,
ReplyDelete“... the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
and not,
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
Science is about knowledge, even if we pretend it isnt about the natural world. How can science take into account the supernatural which has ats its core entities creating life, universe, planets etc instantly? Talking snakes?
Science cannot surely take such things into account, it has to be about evidence. The supernatural by its very nature (lol) will not have evidence ... because it's supernatural.
It's not "logical".
More importantly, if science DID start looking beyond the natural, to religious texts and ideas, which religious texts and ideas? Are you suggesting science should only concern itself with Christianity? Your version of Christianity? Why not other religions? You must see that science would no longer be about evidence.
Yo, Dan, quoting PG isn't a good way to go to heaven. As so many of us pointed out, when the man wasn't lying, he was misrepresenting the facts, or trying to drag the discussion off on a tangent.
ReplyDeleteA scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.
Yes. Like, oh, I don't know, the assumption that the universe was created in seven days by a big bearded man who likes to torture people.
See, there's that part of the Scientific Method that you refuse to use on the the "religious" side of the equation. You've based your entire theory on assumptions that are not testable or verifiable.
Or, in the words of a smarter man than I:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
[Carl Sagan]
The “unbiased examination of nature and the cosmos” is, in effect, the search for truth. Our attitude towards science should ever be one of inquiry. A scientist’s task is to ascertain what a thing does mean. He or she must not presume to dictate what it must mean. Such a predisposition demonstrates bias. A scientific teaching must rest on positive, unquestioned statement of fact, not on gratuitous assumptions or specious arguments.
ReplyDeleteDan, this comment you posted actually describes exactly what your so-called "creation scientists" do - assume that empirical evidence points to the existence of the Christian god, when in fact it almost invariably does no such thing.
To make such an assumption, there would need to be some evidence. A god who is claimed to interact with the physical universe would leave some trace of its existence, but no such trace has so far been found.
And why the insistence that there must be supernatural explanations for anything? I think you underestimate the power and potential of mindless natural forces and the complex entities resulting from such interplay of matter and energy.
I've even heard someone claim - over at Atheist Central - that quantum physics points to the existence of souls. This might well just be pseudoscientific garbage for all I know, but the fact that the claim has been made tends to imply that a soul must be a natural entity, detectable and measurable through empirical means.
Even the very existence of the made-up nonsense called "creation science" is testament to the fact that people generally want at least some evidence on which to base their faith. Christian apologetics only exists as a means of attempting to circumvent this desire and trying to explain why no such evidence is forthcoming.
You asked for an example of an atheist who did not believe in Darwinism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fredoneverything.net/Hart.shtml
Thanks Philips,
ReplyDeleteSo this guy Fred doesn't believe we were created by a Creator and at the very same time doesn't believe we evolved? Where else can he go? Does he explain anywhere what he does believe in reference to our origins?
Anyway thanks, and I will see if I can find these questions out, unless you already know.