A "real" atheist...

[Aepervius]

My point exactly

In other words, Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so.

In case you missed it the first time. Our point exactly.

 

[!Kaggen]

In case you missed it the first time. Our point exactly.

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

from wiki

In the United Kingdom the term retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil's Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[20]

 

[Monketi Ghost]

My experience with atheists, outside of the internet, is with folks that deny the existence of any deity. It was a dichotomy between atheist and theist. When I got on the internet and started getting into forums, I found atheists with a whole spectrum of beliefs, and the term qualified with words like "weak" and "strong". I was looking around a new site I found, and looked up the words "atheist", and "agnostic".

Here's "atheist": http://www.wordnik.com/words/atheist

vs "agnostic": http://www.wordnik.com/words/agnostic

Now, I think that most folks who claim they are atheist are, in fact, agnostic, but for some reason don't want to label themselves agnostic, or want the label of atheist. In fact, in my internet travels I notice most folks would be considered a "weak atheist". I don't see the different between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic.

To complicate my brain more, I can certainly see how someone can be a "strong atheist" against most religious beliefs. Yet, when all is said and done, I remain an agnostic mainly because I recognize our insignificance in the universe.

Okay... well, my own self-description to others is as an atheist, but if the discussion becomes deeper than simply "this is what I am"s, I must be intellectually honest and say it's closer to agnosticism since I can't be sure.
So, an agnostic who would bet heavily against the existence of a superbeing.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

Incorrectly used, yah.

 

[slingblade]

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

Um....you realize we don't all know each other just because we're atheists, right?

I'd have no idea how to answer any question for you regarding Dawkins. I don't know him.

 

[Foster Zygote]

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations.

Could you describe this belief system/mythology in a bit more detail? I'm sure the atheists on this forum would be interested in learning about it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My point exactly

Your statement: "Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone."

My statement: "Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so."

Your response: "My point exactly."

If you claim your statements to be synonymous with their opposites, then by definition none of your statements can contain any information, therefore it is pointless paying any attention to them.

Dave

 

[Foster Zygote]

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

from wiki

In the United Kingdom the term retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil's Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[20]

And?

"Darwinist", in this context, is obviously simply a term used to describe one who accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection which was first put forth by Charles Darwin. What does the fact that others have used the term in a negative context have to do with Dawkins' semantic choice?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Speaking for everyone perhaps you could enlighten me as to why Dawkins insists on being a Darwinist
Is it because he is dishonest?

Thanks for pointing out a counter-example. Personally, I think Dawkins is a bit of a jerk about religion; he seems to care rather too much about it. To many of us, it's simply irrelevant.

Dave

 

[Improbable Joe]

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

That's just a lie... which is why only liars tend to use the term "Darwinism," at least in America. Everyone else uses the term "evolution." We recognize that Darwin was wrong on all sorts of details, and there's no sort of worship or idolizing involved.

 

[Improbable Joe]

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Incorrectly used, yah.

Yes. The fact that some people have misappropriated the term "Darwinism" in an attempt to legitimize their pseudo-scientific justifications of racism and class hierarchy has no bearing on the veracity of the actual theory of evolution by natural selection in the same way that some spiritualist's use of the word "quantum" has nothing to do with physical science.

 

[arthwollipot]

Alternate states of consciousness are states of consciousness other than the analytical waking state. They are more common in non-western society's and it there is an hypothesis that they were integral in the development of art, religion and the domestication of plants and animals.
See my thread what is religion for the evidence of this hypothesis.

Well, thanks, but this still does not explain how such altered states aid our understanding of the universe.

 

[!Kaggen]

Your statement: "Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone."

My statement: "Darwinism (the usage) is just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone, and dishonestly so."

Your response: "My point exactly."

If you claim your statements to be synonymous with their opposites, then by definition none of your statements can contain any information, therefore it is pointless paying any attention to them.

Dave

Your right I need to clarify.

My Statement
I was meaning that Darwinism is used in other contexts apart from just naming the "Theory of Evolution" after someone and my arguments have been directed at those who use the term in these other contexts.

My response to your statement
I agreed with the negative aspect of the use of the term in your statement which you alluded to, dishonesty.

I am still interested in the how the term is used, which I believe tends to be much more not about the Theory of Evolution, but more about belief systems and therefore my interpretation of it as a myth.

I realize the connotations that this term carries because of the whole creationist thing, but it still needs to be dealt with by people like myself who take for granted the Theory of Evolution and I believe others who understand the Theory of Evolution should also critique its use as a myth.

 

[Trakar]

Just my Opinion

But anyone who feels strongly enough about their opinion on the issue to respond to a discussion board post on the general topic of atheism or theism, explaining their personal beliefs and/or considerations with regards to the subject, should probably capitalize the A or T in reference to themselves (regardless of issues of gnosis). In my experience those who truly earn and deserve the weak label, aren't interested enough in the topic to read posts about it, yet alone consider or discuss it.

 

[!Kaggen]

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he?

I am not sure but on the forum management forum I was wrapped on my knuckles by a moderator for telling someone to "get a life".

This seems a little stronger than that or am I mistaken?

Perhaps you should take a moment and re-read your Membership Agreement; especially Rules 1 and 12. is what the moderator said and that's what I say too

 

[!Kaggen]

Well, thanks, but this still does not explain how such altered states aid our understanding of the universe.

Apart from the domestication of plants and animals and the development of abstract representation i.e. language your right not much understanding required for that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.

And everyone seems to be hardwired to interpret the Earth as a plane, rather than a sphere. But we aplanists simply do not need the concept of the Earth as a plane.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am still interested in the how the term is used, which I believe tends to be much more not about the Theory of Evolution, but more about belief systems and therefore my interpretation of it as a myth.

Personally I think it has more to do with deliberate dishonesty and well-poisoning, and reveals more about a set of belief systems which are quite irrelevant to the interpretation of evidence and the use of predictive theory.

Dave

 

[!Kaggen]

And?

"Darwinist", in this context, is obviously simply a term used to describe one who accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection which was first put forth by Charles Darwin. What does the fact that others have used the term in a negative context have to do with Dawkins' semantic choice?

Your right bad example.