Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[six7s]

I seem to recall that the US Supreme Court once stated atheism isn't a religion in the philosophical sense but it was a religion in the Constitutional sense and therefore deserved legal protection

The US Army has a similar stance:

Video version:



Text version:

Atheist National Guard Officer Resigns Commission Over Remarks Made By Lt. Gen. Blum and Others
By Wayne Adkins
November 30, 2006

On July 18th, 2006 Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, lumped atheists and agnostics together with bigots and in a paraphrase of an old untrue negative stereotype declared that there are no atheists in foxholes. It is ironic that such a bigoted remark would come during his speech about diversity to the NAACP. The National Guard received a number of letters complaining about his remarks and several atheist organizations denounced them. But the Army, despite how it defines unlawful discrimination in its own regulations, has decided that the remarks were not discriminatory. I disagree.

<snip/>

...complaints by atheist soldiers are ignored despite the fact that Army regulations prohibit such remarks.

Army Regulation 600-20, section 6-2, paragraph a says "The U.S. Army will provide EO and fair treatment for military personnel and family members without regard to race, color, gender, religion, national origin, and provide an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior"

They have failed miserably at providing an environment free of offensive behavior for atheists.

<snip/>

The first response given when atheists complain is that atheism isn’t an organized or acknowledged religion and therefore atheists are not covered by the regulation. But the regulation defines the term "religion" as "A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional views, characterized by ardor and faith, and generally evidenced through specific observances"

The regulation’s definition of religion includes "a personal set" of beliefs and does not require organization or outside acknowledgement.

<snip/>

Claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes is both a "faulty" and "inflexible generalization"

 

[Nogbad]

The "there are no atheists in foxholes" nonsense is appallingly shoddy thinking and it begs the question of why a presumably intelligent man would talk such gibberish.

Essentially all the statement says is that "drowning men clutch at straws". A quick survey of the foxholes after the battle will quickly confirm that straws do not support drowning men.

In short the statement proves the atheist point of view rather than disproves it.

 

[Cold one]

oops accidentally posted in the wrong thread

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The "there are no atheists in foxholes" nonsense is appallingly shoddy thinking and it begs the question of why a presumably intelligent man would talk such gibberish.

Essentially all the statement says is that "drowning men clutch at straws". A quick survey of the foxholes after the battle will quickly confirm that straws do not support drowning men.

In short the statement proves the atheist point of view rather than disproves it.

I think it's more of an indightment of how apologetics in the 20th Century has cozied up to advertizing to the point where it relies on quips and "gotcha" questions to the point where it's lost any and all intellectual credibility. An example of this is the Darwin fish, which is a cute parody of the Icthyos and not really all that confrontative. The response from Creationists? A "truth" fish devowering a Darwin fish.

Really? That's the best you can come up with? 150 years of science being countered with a diecast metal plaque you put on the back of your SUV?

If that, rehashes of Pascal's Wager, borrowed Muslim arguments like Kalaam, bananas and "there are no atheists in foxholes" are the best you've got to offer, please go read some Wittgenstein or spend more time greeting people at Wal-Mart and less trying to evangelize me.

 

[zooterkin]

An example of this is the Darwin fish, which is a cute parody of the Icthyos and not really all that confrontative. The response from Creationists? A "truth" fish devowering a Darwin fish.

Thanks for the mental image; I read that as 'deflowering' rather than 'devouring'.

 

[bokonon]

Thanks for the mental image; I read that as 'deflowering' rather than 'devouring'.

Might as well burn that image into your brain.

 

[DOC]

Frog into a prince?

Here is an interesting quote from Ron Carlson, a Christian apologist:

"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact."

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/

 

[Safe-Keeper]

That post came from the DOC thread! That thing's still operational!

Er, yes, DOC, in universities they teach students evolution is a fact. Your point?

 

[DOC]

That post came from the DOC thread! That thing's still operational!

Er, yes, DOC, in universities they teach students evolution is a fact. Your point?

You make a rude comment in your first sentence and then you ask a question of me. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Cleon]

Here is an interesting quote from Ron Carlson, a Christian apologist:

"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact."

That's not an "interesting quote." It's a lie. No university on the planet teaches such a thing.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

No university on the planet teaches such a thing.

There's that, too.

 

[DOC]

Here is an interesting quote from Ron Carlson, a Christian apologist:

"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact."

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/

That's not an "interesting quote." It's a lie. No university on the planet teaches such a thing.

But modern science teaches we came from amphibians. Aren't frogs amphibians?

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/f...aboratory/History of Life/History of Life.htm

And if we didn't come from frogs what amphibian did we come from?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Modern science teaches that we gradually evolved from 'lower' lifeforms to what we are today, via a lot of other species. The quote, on the other hand, mimics the 'frog giving birth to human' caricature of evolution spouted by Creationists.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But modern science teaches we came from amphibians.

That is not true. We share a common ancester with amphibians.

Aren't frogs amphibians?

They are. We, however did not evolve from frogs, we evolved from an amphioid common ancestor with amphibians.

And if we didn't come from frogs what amphibian did we come from?

From other tetraphods.

 

[Careyp74]

Where did he say One single cell? It could have been a cluster of pre cellular globs of RNA and protein that kicked things off. Interestingly, he simply stated a ancestral organism. Such a word is intentionally vague enough to prevent such missgivings from arising.

Not vague enough, evidently.

 

[-Fran-]

Here is an interesting quote from Ron Carlson, a Christian apologist:

"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact."

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/

It IS interesting, since it shows that obviously Ron Carlson didn't learn anything in university, and doesn't seem to have learned anything since either. Though I am inclined to partly blame his grammar school since I bet they neglected to inform him what ELSE is also a collection of fairy tales!*


*I'd better add... DOC, I mean the bible.

 

[articulett]

http://nyas.cachefly.net/shubin.mp3

Doc, have you heard of tiktalik?

 

[Tricky]

Here is an interesting quote from Ron Carlson, a Christian apologist:

"In grammar school they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In the university they taught me that a frog turning into a prince was a fact."

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/

Fairy tales do include things like creatures being poofed into existence, and it is instantaneous, not covering millions of years like boring old evolution does. As such, the Genesis story has a whole lot in common with fairy tales. Children do so love stories that include magic.

 

[JoeEllison]

Fairy tales do include things like creatures being poofed into existence, and it is instantaneous, not covering millions of years like boring old evolution does. As such, the Genesis story has a whole lot in common with fairy tales. Children do so love stories that include magic.

No coincidentally, that's the reason I became a lifelong atheist, as soon as I was old enough. The day my mommy told me that fairy tales with magic and talking animals weren't real, I decided I was going to be a big boy and know the difference between fantasy and reality.

Christians, apparently, are still singing the Toys-R-US jingle: "I don't wanna grow up..."

 

[joobz]

DOC, what does this new post have to do with the discussion that was occuring in this thread? From your last two posts...

Posted by DOC

Atheism needs abiogenesis and evolution to be true.




The "American Atheists" organization would strongly disagree with you. I counted them using the word believe or beliefs about 8 times in their definition of atheism.

From American Atheists website:

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers
of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”



http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

If that was true they should of said that to the Supreme Court (see previous post) instead of giving a long detailed definition full of specific beliefs.




Including the "American Atheists" organization.

You made the claim that atheism was a belief system and quoted AA to prove this. It was CLEARLY demonstrated by multiple people here that AA does not represent atheists only themselves and that the only thing that unites atheists is a lack of a belief in god. King merv made the excellent point:

DOC absolutely loves arguments from authority doesn't he?

If you are an atheist, you can be:

Humanist
Anarchist
Facist
Communist
Capitalist
Republican
Democrat
Socialist
Pro-life
Pro-choice
etc.

Atheists can believe in:

The afterlife
Souls
Psychic Powers
Dowsing
Aliens
Ghosts
Pixies
etc.

Do you understand yet or should I go on?

Edit: Also not a member of AA.

Your last post in this thread was Jan26th. King Merv Posted on Jan28th. This means you had >2months to respond to these points. 2 months to admit that you were wrong and apologizing for it. Yet, you posted something 2 months later which had no bearing on the thread conversation.

Most recently, in the troubling beliefs thread, a clear argument was made against your statement that "atheist states have greater suicide rates". this was proven conclusively false, yet you have ignored this. When I had asked you to respond to this argument, you demanded that I do not derail that thread and post my argument in the other thread. I complied with this accurate wish, and my post goes unanswered.

DOC, it is clear you use time as a way to avoid answering uncomfortable questions or admitting error. This type of responisiblity avoidance is something I'd expect from a child and wouldn't tollerate in a teenager. You now have a choice to either be an adult or continue behaving as a child.