Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Hokulele]

Nope. I've never read Newton's Principia Mathematica either, but I know that Gravity works. I've never read Kepler's Astronomia Nova, Harmonices Mundi, or Epitome Astronomiae, but I know that the planets orbit the Sun in ellipses. I've never read Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, but I know the Earth isn't the centre of the Universe.

Ooh, ooh! I've read these two.

ETA: In translation. But I have seen the originals.

 

[DOC]

It looks like the Ad hominems are flying again. But I'm glad the Jefferson and the "Troubling beliefs of an influential atheist" threads were referenced. If people would read those cherry picked posts in their context, I'll be satisfied.

DOC, there has been no ad hominem. BTW, you mean personal attacks and not ad hom...

So then you do admit I've been personally attacked, thank you. Now you and Houkele ought to stop that Randi rule breaking behavior.

 

[wollery]

So then you do admit I've been personally attacked, thank you. Now you and Houkele ought to stop that Randi rule breaking behavior.

If you think someone has broken the rules then you should report them.

Except, of course, that you were quoting Joobz out of context. What he clearly meant was that you termed it "ad hom" when what you meant to say was "personal attack". He was simply correcting a mistake of terminology on your part, not admitting to anything.

 

[joobz]

So then you do admit I've been personally attacked, thank you. Now you and Houkele ought to stop that Randi rule breaking behavior.

Why DOC, you've just given example number three of you making statements in opposition to reality.

I do not admit to ANY personal attack. Challenging your credibility by presenting evidence isn't a personal attack.



ETA: Congrats on using multiple quotes. it makes following your posts much eaiser.

 

[DOC]

Why would we read a 19th century book when the 21st century work has much better information?

There is no difference in atheists largely basing their beliefs on a 19th century book they never read than atheists basing their beliefs on a 21st century work they never read.

 

[joobz]

There is no difference in atheists largely basing their beliefs on a 19th century book they never read than atheists basing their beliefs on a 21st century work they never read.

Are you claiming that students don't read Biology textbooks?

 

[DOC]

I do not admit to ANY personal attack.

So when you say the following because I didn't critique Ocelot's long and complicated post to your satisfaction, your not making a personal attack?

It only saddens me that you prefer to reject reality and engage in dishonest debate tactics rather than learn.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

So then you do admit I've been personally attacked, thank you. Now you and Houkele ought to stop that Randi rule breaking behavior.

... and you're not reporting them ... why, exactly? If you really think that they're breaking the "Randi rules", then why don't you report it? I mean, Joobz even offered to report his own post for judgement, and you can't so much as be bothered to find out if your gripe is legitimate? BTW, I advise you to recheck the posts in question. Joobz did not say what you think he said.

Every single Moderator here will tell you that if you see that someone is breaching their Membership Agreement (breakin' da rulez), you have the option to report them. In the bottom left-hand corner of a post, you will see a triangle with an exclamation mark in it /!\ -- this is what you click in order to report that post. Please remember to only report legitimate violations -- I also strongly advise checking the MA before you do any actual reporting.

The Mods do not sweep through and monitor every post, or even every thread. They are not babysitters; it's up to us to report any violations we come across. If we don't report these violations, then we really have no right to complain about them.

 

[joobz]

So when you say the following because I didn't critique Ocelets long and complicated post to your satisfaction, your not making a personal attack?

No, it was a personal attack and your continued derailing of this thread with your complaints of personal attacks only strengthens my claim of "dishonest debate tactics".

DOC, I presented evidence regarding your lack of credibility. Why not spend time actually trying to prove my evidence wrong?

 

[DOC]

... and you're not reporting them ... why, exactly? If you really think that they're breaking the "Randi rules", then why don't you report it?

I have reported it in the past several times and it still happens by the same people. Joobz saying I meant personal attack and not ad hom says a lot, don't you think. Why would he say that if he himself didn't believe what I was talking about dealt with recent personal attacks I was receiving.

 

[joobz]

I have reported it in the past several times and it still happens by the same people.

Shouldn't that tell you something? Like, perhaps, the other times you claimed personal attacks, they weren't actually personal attacks? Unless, of course, you believe there's a great conspiracy against you.

Joobz saying I meant personal attack and not ad hom says a lot, don't you think.

Yes, yes it does say a lot.
It says that you do not know what ad hom is. And I was able to infer from your context, what you meant in claiming that I was committing ad hom.

Why would he say that if he himself didn't consider what I was talking about dealt with recent personal attacks I was receiving.

Context, my dear man. Context. I was able to interpret what you were implying by the context of your post.

 

[DOC]

DOC, I presented evidence regarding your lack of credibility. Why not spend time actually trying to prove my evidence wrong?

Suppose what you said is true and few of my 1600 posts in my 20 threads with 135,000 hits has any credibility. What does any of that have to do with my logical arguments in this thread?

You and Houkele are using ad hom arguments by bringing in out of context posts in other threads that have nothing to do with my logic in this thread. You can deny it all you want but that's what your doing.

 

[joobz]

Suppose what you said is true and few of my 1600 posts in my 20 threads with 135,000 hits has any credibility. What does any of that have to do with my logical arguments in this thread?

You and Houkele are using ad hom arguments by bringing in out of context posts in other threads that have nothing to do with my logic in this thread. You can deny it all you want but that's what your doing.

An ad hom fallacy is one where you claim an argument is wrong becuase of some unrelated (typically disparaging) comment about the individual.
For instance, "You are wrong, because you are christian." would be an ad hom.

To say, "Your beliefs regarding verifiable facts are unreliable, because you have previously presented beliefs as fact despite contrary evidence," is not ad hom. It is a viable, acceptable logical argument. It is for you to prove the argument wrong.


But, let's stop this derail: To put you back on track

I would have to believe that even a greater number of atheists have not seen this so called supporting evidence you are talking about.

As I have established that your word isn't credible, your only recourse in this argument is to provide evidence for your statement. Otherwise, you would be honorably obligated to amend the claim as your unsubstantiated prejudice and not a logically rooted claim.

 

[wollery]

Suppose what you said is true and few of my 1600 posts in my 20 threads with 135,000 hits has any credibility. What does any of that have to do with my logical arguments in this thread?

You and Houkele are using ad hom arguments by bringing in out of context posts in other threads that have nothing to do with my logic in this thread. You can deny it all you want but that's what your doing.

They are demonstrating a pattern, which has persisted despite numerous attempts to point it out to you and make you understand that it is both dishonest and fruitless.

Why should anyone take things seriously if they are said by someone with a proven track record of obfuscation, dodging the question, quote mining, refusal to acknowledge evidence and refusal to accept their own errors?

 

[Hokulele]

I have reported it in the past several times and it still happens by the same people.

So what does that suggest to you?

 

[six7s]

Well the suicide issue is off topic. I hope no one believes your data just because it looks long and complicated. If people read my posts concerning this topic they will see they are much more concise, and in my opinion have more weight.

If you're quantifying the errors, distortions and delusions, then yes... your opinions may well be described as being immensely (but not massively) wrong

I could begin to enumerate the errors, but there's no need:

1. You don't acknowledge your errors
2. The forum software records your last 200 posts

 

[Hokulele]

If you're quantifying the errors, distortions and delusions, then yes... your opinions may well be described as being immensely (but not massively) wrong

I could begin to enumerate the errors, but there's no need:

1. You don't acknowledge your errors
2. The forum software records your last 200 posts

To give DOC credit, he did agree to stop linking to white-supremacy/anti-semitic sites when quote mining.

 

[bokonon]

If some atheists knew that science says all the millions of plant and animal species along with their family and friends all came from the same single cell they might not be so confident in their beliefs. Right now a lot of atheists think "OK we're descendant from the apes" and they stop there because that can be somewhat believable. But they don't go back any further in time. If they did go all the way back it would be more difficult to believe and their faith in atheism might not be as strong.

This looks like the same empty claim that opened the thread. Since we're now about 1000 posts in, there must either be evidence of the claim, or the baseless repetition of the claim is evidence that Disciple of Christ is not capable of substantiating his opinion.

Is there a credible peer-reviewed publication which says that the common ancestor of all life today is a single cell? Not a pool of single-celled organisms, but a single cell? Frankly, I WOULD be skeptical of that claim, and would like to read the evidence used to justify it, if a reputable scientist is actually making such a claim. I assume, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that it is only Disciple of Christ who is making this claim, because he doesn't understand scientific claims and can't be bothered to try.

I assume, until I see evidence to the contrary, that established science claims only that single-celled organisms (rather than a single single-celled organism) gave rise to all the more complicated forms of life. My understanding is that, since conditions on the early earth were so different than conditions today, no scientist can state with any confidence even what sort of one-celled creatures inhabited the early earth. The only claim I've heard is that single-celled life arose quite early in the earth's history, within the first billion years of the earth's existence. Single-celled life was the only life on earth for a couple of billion years after that.

At some point, the pool of single-celled organisms gave rise to multicellular creatures, which continued to diversify and became every species (plant and animal) surviving on earth today. A recent show on the Science Channel, Snowball Earth, informs me that the earliest evidence of multicellular life is fossils from a mine in China.

I doubt that any atheists would have a problem with the claim that all life evolved from a pool of single-celled organisms, or that many atheists are unaware of it. If Disciple of Christ would be so kind as to provide a list of atheists who reject the notion that every species alive today evolved from one-celled organisms, I'll be happy to donate $10 per name (up to a total of $100) to the church or charity of his choice, for each living atheist who is on the record as taking such a stand as of midnight, 4/14. I personally doubt that he can name even one, but we'll see.

 

[zooterkin]

If some atheists knew that science says all the millions of plant and animal species along with their family and friends all came from the same single cell they might not be so confident in their beliefs. Right now a lot of atheists think "OK we're descendant from the apes" and they stop there because that can be somewhat believable. But they don't go back any further in time. If they did go all the way back it would be more difficult to believe and their faith in atheism might not be as strong.

You persist in this false belief that evolution is somehow tied to atheism, and opposed to Christianity.

What is your opinion of the millions of Christians that believe in evolution? Are they not true-believers?

 

[Worm]

Just de-lurking for a moment to comment that I wouldn't consider myself particularly highly-educated regarding evolutionary theory. I did Biology at school, and I think I understood it, but it's not an area of great interest for me.

I'm happy to be classed as atheist, (although I don't think life is as black and white as that) , and I have no problem with the idea that all life evolved from single-celled organisms.

Do I understand every detail of the theory? Probably not, but c'est la vie. If any theist thinks that they understand everything of their own religion, then I think they may be mistaken....