Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:38 PM by feydrautha

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

suspicion confirmed, you are a clueless troll.

you win a spot on my ignore list, congratulations.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:39 PM by Jay-in-AR

reply to post by feydrautha

I feel you are being just a bit obtusive. Although I'm not sure why. I just asked you a simple question. I even stated beforehand it was completely off topic. You have since thrown me into the ring as devil's advocate. I'll play the role if you'd like.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:41 PM by Jay-in-AR

Surely this person isn't being serious.

I guess I should feel ashamed that I'm on ignore? I'm sorry, but the question I asked about was in response to a simple statement. Two is the smallest number that works. That simply isn't true.

Editing for hypothetical: What about the possibility of NON-sexual reproduction? silly stuff. On to bigger things.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:44 PM by JaxonRoberts

Wow, this thread just got started and already it's a hotbed!

Here's my two cents worth. I am one of those who believes in a Divine Creator and also accepts the theory of evolution as well as abiogenesis, and the big bang theory. The way I look at it is theology and metaphysics, as philosophical disciplines are apples and the various fields of science are oranges. Science will not even attempt to tell you what was before the Big Bang or what caused it, leaving plenty of room for a Creator. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving things that belong in the realm of philosophy. But those who disagree in matters of philosophy, such as athiests and religious fundamentalists just love to use science as a battering ram against their philosophical opponents, basically using oranges to prove the existance of their apple.

I would argue the validity of religious fundamentalists using evolution as a weapon against athiests as much as I would the validity of athiests using evolution as a weapon against religious fundamentalists. Science is science. To religious fundamentalists I would ask, did your faith in Santa and his reindeer make him real in the current fictitious use of Santa? No. To athiests I would ask, just because there is no Santa Claus, does this mean that Nicholas of Myra aka Saint Nicholas, on whom the legend is based, did not exist in history? No.

Apples and Oranges, my friends, Apples and Oranges.

To have a debate on the existance of 'God' must both sides try to use science to prove their point or disprove their philosophical opponents point? For that matter, why debate it at all. Such opinions should be a matter of personal faith, and not be debated at all.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:48 PM by Jay-in-AR

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

The scientific method is a philisophical construct. The end of the argument is doomed from the beginning.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:53 PM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

And then someone tries to throw in a pear.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Source

Now, would you like to show me how that is a philisophical construct?

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 09:58 PM by Jay-in-AR

Oh, quite simply. The scientific method is a way of testing our senses against one another. Perception of observation, rationalization of said perception, hypothetical prediction of another observer's perception, perception of another observer. Shall I go on?

Granted, as of yet, it is the best we have, but it is a philisophical construct. It is a means to derive the best sociological truth.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 10:01 PM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

Physics, which is mathematically based, and has nothing to do with the five senses, and is subject to the scientific method, is not philosophical at all. You are arguing the 'reality is an illusion' topic, which is not part of this discussion.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 10:20 PM by Jay-in-AR

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

I am not arguing that "reality is an illusion" at all. I am pointing out that the "Scientific METHOD" is just that... a "method." But, like I said, it is the best we have.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 11:19 PM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

method

1. a procedure, technique, or way of doing something, esp. in accordance with a definite plan: There are three possible methods of repairing this motor.

2. a manner or mode of procedure, esp. an orderly, logical, or systematic way of instruction, inquiry, investigation, experiment, presentation, etc.: the empirical method of inquiry.

3. order or system in doing anything: to work with method.

4. orderly or systematic arrangement, sequence, or the like.

Dictionary.com

I still don't see anything philosophical there. There isn't any method to philosophy. But instead of philosophy, let's look at what theology, which is far more pertinent, is:

theology

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

These are disciplines of the mind, and are neither provable or unprovable. Science, by definition, must be supported by the facts observed in nature. Theology and Philosophy do not have this requirement. I stand by my original post.

reply posted on 3-10-2008 @ 11:28 PM by Torsten

reply to post by solomons path

Well said. Starred.

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 12:40 AM by Clearskies

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

theology

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

These are disciplines of the mind, and are neither provable or unprovable.

UMMMM, OR, you might want to give the definition of

Atheism

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of NO God and of non-God's attributes and RELATIONS TO THE UNIVERSE; study of mundane things or blasphemous fallacies; humans are animals.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

These are the psychosis of the mind and are neither here nor there.........

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 12:48 AM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by Clearskies

OK, first of all, because it's apparent you did not read my original post, I am not an athiest. Second, you should not use something that is portrayed as an 'external source' when that source is yourself. Hopefully the Mods will catch this and edit it out. The true definition is:

atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Source.

Notice that I gave a source for this, unlike yourself. Now how about getting back on topic.

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 12:57 AM by solomons path

Oh . . . I don't think she made it up . . . she took that from a christian site, I'd bet. "Study of blasphemous fallacies" . . . Really.

There is NO study to Atheism . . . there's no need for study on the supernatural. You can't study that which can not be proven . . . you can speak philosophically, as previously mentioned.

So not believing in man-made, invisible, supernatural forces is a psychosis now . . . now that you wish to label science is your buddy? This is like debating somebody out of bizarro world . . .

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 12:58 AM by Clearskies

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Clearskies

OK, first of all, because it's apparent you did not read my original post, I am not an athiest.

It's 'ATHEIST', but, the way you try to discredit 'the divine creation of Earth', I would have thought you were, in fact, an 'atheist'.
What God do you serve?

Second, you should not use something that is portrayed as an 'external source' when that source is yourself. Hopefully the Mods will catch this and edit it out. The true definition is:

It got you to thinking, though, didn't it?!!!
I just wanted mine to match yours for symmetry.

atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Source.

Notice that I gave a source for this, unlike yourself. Now how about getting back on topic.

Yes, but for Dawkins, Harris and the like, it goes WAY beyond their 'opinion' to the open HATRED of Christian belief, to the point that they sound JUST like Stalin when quoted!!!!!!
These are our professors and mentors?

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 01:00 AM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by solomons path

No, she didn't. Read the definition for theology. She cut and pasted it, then changed the words. I believe that is known as plagerism!

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 01:03 AM by Clearskies

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

HEY! I typed ALL those words, myself.
I'm not lazy!
Deal with the subject, please.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Clearskies]

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 01:06 AM by JaxonRoberts

reply to post by Clearskies

Oops a typo, how nice of you to point that out. And you are showing the same type of hatred that they do. Makes me think of the acronym WWJD. As for my beliefs, my dear, that is neither here nor there and certainly not part of the discussion of this thread. You just appear to be trolling for a fight, and you will not find one here. Please take your hatred and aggression elsewhere please.

reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 01:08 AM by AshleyD

Anyways, to bring us back on topic. The simple answer is yes, some atheists have hijacked evolution in an attempt to disprove the existence of a creator. Authors like Dawkins even admit their acceptance of evolution 'killed' their belief in God and subsequently go on some sort of campaign to bully others into their way of thinking.

Edit to add a side note: Let's all play nice, OK?