'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown



I believe in evolution because I have bothered to look at the facts surrounding the theory. But I am still a believer in God as well.

Whose to say God didn't create the universe to evolve?

The image is beautyfully made i don`t comment on the approach of the design...

reply to post by Afrosamurai


Evolution is not limited to athiests. They most certainly do not run hand in hand. Athiests claim there is no god. This is an absolute position on which they claim to KNOW. Again I say, knowing something that you can't know takes faith.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Is it just me or has Atheism become a religion onto itself?
The term Atheist mean without religion (not without god)

You're making stuff up, dude/dudette.

It would be a strange religion with just one position and no other relationship to the features common to religions (no other common practices, beliefs, metaphysical claims, lifestyles, rituals, idols, overarching ethics, sacred/profane distinction, etc etc).

reply to post by melatonin

Biology and Economics

What does Darwin have to do with Marxist Communism?
Maybe I should put a few of his quotes here;

Of Darwin's works Marx wrote:

During my time of trial, these last four weeks I have read all sorts of things. Among others Darwin's book on Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.
- Karl Marx; Letter to Frederick Engels, 1860

Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’[2] in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.
- Karl Marx; Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, 1861

A critical history of technology would show how little any of the inventions of the 18th century are the work of a single individual. Hitherto there is no such book. Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature's Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention? And would not such a history be easier to compile, since, as Vico says, human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter?
- Karl Marx; Das Capital, 1867

The Soviets favored Lysenkoism

Lysenkoism

Lysenkoism refers to an episode in Russian science featuring a non-scientific peasant plant-breeder named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko[1898-1976]. Lysenko was the leading proponent of Michurianism during the Lenin/Stalin years. I. V. Michurin, in turn, was a proponent of Lamarckism. Lamarck was an 18th century French scientist who argued for a theory of evolution long before Darwin. Lamarck's theory, however, has been rejected by evolutionary scientists because it is not nearly as powerful an explanation of evolution as natural selection.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by Clearskies]

reply to post by melatonin


You are correct, but the methodology of their argument is basically the same closed mindedness that is causing the religious to reject the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I actually blame the science community for not being clear about what evolution is, and for being inflammatory to the sensibilities of the religious when they could have just approached with facts and figures rather than condemning religious belief.

I think that to explain evolution in terms of "facts and figures" is why it is taught in schools. And, to be perfectly honest, do you not admit that part of the Intelligent Design agenda is to prevent its being taught in schools? How can you blame the scientific community for not explaining it clearly? Thats one of the issues that has been at the heart of the battle between ID'ers and science. I have had a science teacher in my life that was creationist, and she was very conflicted teaching evolution. So SHE was not clear in class, but that was her own fault. She couldnt leave her personal beliefs out of the picture and just do her job.

And some science lovers do treat science as a religion, and vest it with miraculous powers it does not have. But anyone who really loves science accepts its limitations, doesnt mind that it is a language of probability rather than certainty in most cases, and does not make any claims that science can say anything at all with certainty about the existence of a God or Divinity.

Science cannot tell you if there is or is not a God. And any scientist who says it can is mistaken. Science can rule out creation as stated in the Bible literally. It simply did not happen that way, in that time frame.

There are Christians who accept that the Bible is not the literal word of God, (but who still feel it contains spiritual guidance) and these people do not find evolution a threat to their spiritual beliefs. There are scientists who fall into this category as well. Not all scientists are Atheists. Many are, and should be, agnostic. Because we have no evidence one way or the other relating to all forms of God or Divinity. We have good solid reason to believe certain stories in the Bible are not literally true. Some Atheists forget that the Christian God is not the only description of God. (Which I always find amusing, they are "reverse Christians," in the sense that the only God many of them consider is the Christian God) But there are many different descriptions of God or Divinity, and some of them are not incompatible with what physics is currently telling us.

reply to post by Clearskies


Wow great! Quotes from Marx praising the work of Darwin... and that proves what? That Marx read On the Origin of Species? That he liked it?

What the hell does that have to do with communism and the policies of Communists?

Hitler was a Catholic, he read the Bible, he went to Church. He even wrote in Mein Kampf that by getting rid of the Jews he was doing God's work. If we apply the same logic you are using, Hitler killed 6 million Jews because of the Christian religion.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by converge]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


ID is not science and several court cases have proved it. Creationism is not science it is a spiritual explanation that does not describe the mechanics of nature. I am not here to argue for ID or Creationism(Which another court case proved the two were essentially the same). I'm just saying that the fervor of the science community in which many atheists reside have done a piss poor job of explaining themselves without devaluing religious beliefs. It is not the correct approach and closes ear after ear.

Some previous posters, who had issue with the OP seemed to be lost/confused on the point/purpose of this ad campaign. Maybe the organization behind it can clarify. Here is an easy find from the very top of their "Our Purposes" web page:

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.

In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.

The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.

What is the Foundation's purpose?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

It never ceases to amaze me how knee jerk emotional and intellectually lazy people can be. Those who are offended by this ad campaign need to re-evaluate their state of mind in terms of objectivity... and in turn note how their faith can blend their line of perception between fact and fantasy.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by Clearskies

What does Darwin have to do with Marxist Communism?

You hit it right on the head, Marx's ideas.

What do Karl Marx's opinions on Darwinism have to do with the atrocities committed by Stalin?

Adam Smith is often thought to be the father of "capitalism" but as it plays out in our society, we do not have Smith's capitalism. We can not blame him for its failings. We have to blame those who implemented it poorly.

Stalin's communism was not Marx's.

reply to post by converge


Do I have to spell it out for you?
Religion was the enemy of the communists!
Millions of Christians, Jews and anyone else who wouldn't become a state robot were killed!
IN THE NAME of Communism with Darwinian evolution as a reason for a no-holds
-barred attack. They even wanted everyone to 'evolve' away from religion or they would kill them!
Hitler was Catholic with almost COMPLETE sanction from the Vatican!
Some protestants were behind him, too, sadly.
Maybe that was before they knew what he really was about.
He wanted a New World Order, Third Reich.

reply to post by Clearskies


Uh, every one was an enemy of Communism. I guess we can blame Darwin for the persecution of the Gays and the blacks under Communism to huh? Or how about we blame those persecuted in China for liking Hello Kitty on Darwin? Once again, ID/Creationists are just like Holocaust deniers, they deny only one Scientific theory, like HD only deny the Jews and accept the Russians and Poles and others killed.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
Athiests claim there is no god. This is an absolute position on which they claim to KNOW. Again I say, knowing something that you can't know takes faith.

Whoa there, before you start pulling out the "KNOW" card.

Atheist "THINK" there is no god, based on the total lack of evidence presented. Nobody "KNOWS" anything on the subject of the existence of god.

Agnostics "DON'T CARE" either way... and the Religious "THINK" there is a god.
(Though I will admit the religious often confuse the words "know" and "think" when describing their own beliefs.)



So sorry pal, no faith there... just opinions.

I'm an Atheist (though sometimes I bounce over to Agnosticism). Do I have "faith" in a lack of a god? Nope... I just don't see any evidence to point to this god fellows existence.
If evidence were to arise showing god to exist, I'd examine it just like all other evidence presented to me, without bias, and I'd have to accept the conclusion.

What I do see though is evidence that contradicts the religious texts, and a complete lack of evidence from religions side of the argument.

Ergo, I have no reason to believe in something if I have no evidence to point to it's existence.



I love how people keep confusing Atheism with some form of religion or organization. Sure there are a few atheists here and there who decided to get together (such as these excessive fellows posting signs, personally I call them COUNTERTheists, not Atheists, as they attack religion, rather than avoiding it.), but there's no organization to Atheism itself.

I'll use an example someone else used, and forgive me whoever that was, I can't remember your name...


- You, being of a Christian faith likely do no believe in Buddha.
- Do you attend meetings to discuss your non-belief in Buddha?
- Do you worship Buddha's non existence?
- Do you take donations based on Buddha's lack of presence?
- Do you in any way pledge your life to Buddha's non-existence?
- Do you wear a symbol that explicitly means "I don't believe in Buddha"?

- Of course you don't, that would be absurd, even more absurd if you did the above for every other belief and system you don't believe in.

- It's just as absurd to most Atheists to congregate on the same principle.


Yeah, I don't believe in your god... I'm not going to go to meetings about it.
I just simply don't believe.

That is atheism.




[edit on 12-2-2009 by johnsky]

Originally posted by Clearskies
Do I have to spell it out for you?
Religion was the enemy of the communists!

They saw religion as one of the barriers to the implementation of their social structure and economic policies, it wasn't the only one.

Millions of Christians, Jews and anyone else who wouldn't become a state robot were killed! IN THE NAME of Communism with Darwinian evolution as a reason for a no-holds-barred attack.

Yes, in the name of Communism. But the part about Darwin's ideas on Evolution being the primary reason for it... big f*n stretch.

Hitler was Catholic with almost COMPLETE sanction from the Vatican!
Some protestants were behind him, too, sadly.
Maybe that was before they knew what he really was about.

He wanted a New World Order, Third Reich.

As much as I despise religions, the work of Hitler was not a product of religion in itself. It did have some influence in some of his ideas but Hitler was a psychotic man, anything that would have helped him do what he wanted to do he would have used.

Religion was just another way of controlling the masses, after all it's much easier to have people's obedience if they believe you are doing God's work.

And the same applies to Communism. Their atrocities weren't done in the name of atheism or anti-religion ideas in itself. Religion was simply something they had to get rid of to implement their ideologies and control.

But saying that Darwin's ideas or atheism were the main reason for the atrocities committed by some communists is a stretch.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by converge]

They sound like Dr. Dino. He blamed slavery and the Trail of Tears on Darwin. Ignoring that both happened before his book was written.

Originally posted by Clearskies
What does Darwin have to do with Marxist Communism?
Maybe I should put a few of his quotes here

Cheers. Never seen them before...

/sarcasm

So what? None of that has anything to do with what you are trying to associate with Darwin and evolution. You state that darwinian theory (a biological theory about the origin of species) and communism (a sociopolitical theory) have close ties? How?

Because Marx mentioned and found inspiration from Darwin, author of a groundbreaking contemporary biological theory, in his writings?

lol.

The Soviets favored Lysenkoism

Yeah, I said. And the same applied to other communist states. And scientists who went against those state-imposed ideas were sent to gulags. That include holding darwinian ideas.

So you are saying that the close ties between Darwin and communism are obvious, even though the communists who killed millions were not darwinists?

Your ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time is awe inspiring.

Even today, other economists have tried to support unfettered capitalism using darwinian-style ideas. So his ideas support both communism and capitalism?

lol

[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by projectvxn


And I would say part of that is that not all scientists argue on ATS. And not all who argue in favor of science are scientists.

Just like creationists do not speak for all Christians. And they certainly do not speak for all people who believe in some form of a Divine.

If you seek out clear explanations, I promise you they are there. Some people on this board who claim to love science and support it clearly do not have a real understanding of what it can and cannot do. Some of them do use science merely as a tool to bash anyone who believes in a form of God over the head, and they do make a mess of explaining evolution sometimes. Some here do love science, and understand it, but still want to bash all religions over the head.

Someone who really understands and loves science knows that it cannot say with certainty anything about the existence of a God or Divine force. What it can do is rule specific claims out. Like the creation story. It can say it did not happen that way. In 6 days, 6000 some odd years ago.

Many Christians do accept that the Bible contains allegory. That the stories in it are not necessarily the literal truth.

www.biblegateway.com...

10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a]

Jesus himself says this in Matthew 13:11.

There are those who believe in evolution, who accept the science of it, and who feel it is the way God creates. A way that the people of that time, in that culture could not explain in writing, and so they wrote it down to the best of their ability to understand. Which turns out to have been incorrect.

Evolution is not the end of God. It is not proof there is no God. It is merely evidence that creation did not happen literally as stated in the Bible.

Science is NOT at war with God, it is at war with dogma. There is a huge difference there.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Maybe most of the atrocities were NOT carried out by Stalin, but Trotsky and Lenin.
Both of whom adhered to Marxism!

For Karl Marx, the study of philosophy and economics were both inexorably linked. In the study of his works, particularly those of an economic bent, it is necessary to understand a basic outline of the philosophy and ideas which came to be known as Marxism. Initially, one must remember that Marx was clearly a product of his time, and his economic and philosophical ideas are focused toward the perceived evils of industrialization and capitalism. Marx's philosophy is derived from many sources, most notably the influence of Georg Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach.
Leon Trotsky, or to be more precise, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, was a pragmatist and interpreter of the doctrines of Marxism. From an early age, he espoused the revolutionary doctrine of change in Russia, and eventually became one of the preeminent figures in Lenin's Bolshevik Party. In brief, after successfully reorganizing the Red Army during Russia's Civil War after the 1917 Revolution, Trotsky more vocally espoused the doctrine of "Permanent Revolution." This led to conflict with Josef Stalin, and Trotsky's eventual ouster from the Soviet Union and assassination in 1940 (Payne, 1977).]

And Lenin;
Marxist.org

Before the books of the master, impertinence and banter automatically departed from this altered spirit who was capable of the deepest gratitude. To follow the development of Marx’s thought, to feel its irresistible power, to discover deductions from incidental phrases or remarks, to renew each time his conviction of the truth and profundity of Marx’s sarcasm and to bow down with gratitude before this relentless genius – this became for Vladimir not only a necessity but a joy. Marx never had a more attentive reader or one in closer harmony with him, nor did Marx have a better, more perceptive and grateful disciple.

“With him Marxism was not a conviction, but a religion,” wrote Vodosov. “In him one feels a degree of conviction that is incompatible with a genuine scientific approach.” For a philistine no sociology merits the designation “scientific” except the one which leaves intact his right to keep on vacillating. To be sure, Oulianov, as Vodosovov himself testifies, “was deeply interested in all the objections raised against Marxism and reflected upon them”; but he did so “not for the sake of seeking out the truth,” but simply to uncover in these objections some error “of whose existence he was already convinced in advance.”

Originally posted by projectvxn
You are correct, but the methodology of their argument is basically the same closed mindedness that is causing the religious to reject the theory of evolution.

So you define a religion as being an idea which can be held closed-mindedly?

Makes the definition a bit useless. Perhaps we should just use 'dogmatic'?

Then we wont have to worry about people holding several religions at once? Otherwise, it would make forms a bit wieldy...


[edit on 12-2-2009 by melatonin]