poll: are you an ape?

[Heyo]

Denominations are nonsense.

True Christians are Bible-believers and followers of Jesus Christ.

Jesus and His Word are the True Witness.

So you have problems with all kinds of classifications, not only biological taxonomy?
Like "ape" is a crown category for all lesser and great apes, Christian is a category of all Christian denominations.
When I state that I am a homo sapiens, I say at the same time that I am an ape.
When you state that you are an ape Christian you don't reveal that you are also a human (or chimpanzee or gorilla) protestant (or orthodox or catholic). Be a bit more specific, you give other apes Christians a bad name.

 

[exchemist]

Denominations are nonsense.

True Christians are Bible-believers and followers of Jesus Christ.

Jesus and His Word are the True Witness.

Nevertheless, denominations are a fact. The members of all of them would say they are bible believers and followers of Christ, because that is what being Christian means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignorance limits our ability to have a meaningful discussion - and your ignorance stems from your brainwashed habit of accepting anything your told by those you deem to be authorities on a matter without honestly and diligently looking deeply into that matter yourself.

It's really not that hard to discover that the theory of evolution is completely false, whether one is Christian or atheist.

Wow! You really have to stop making false statements about other. I can guarantee you that you are the ignorant one here. Nor am I brainwashed, but you appear to be. If one understands the basics of science one can usually slog through new findings oneself. In fact I used to argue against AGW because I accept the claims of right wing hacks. For me my initial resistance to AGW was because I really did not like Al Gore at all. I still do not like him and can still see his many flaws as one of the early people alerting us to AGW, but no matter how much I do not like him the science for AGW is still correct.

You see, you probably are brainwashed. I am not. When I debate with others seriously I not only read my sources, I read theirs too. You would not believe how often the sources of science deniers say the opposite of what they think that they say. Reading the sources of my opponents has paid off over the years. When it came to AGW I could see that my sources made errors (usually they were always local studies and not global ones) and that global studies were ore reliable. Not only that I had to relearn the Greenhouse Effect since it was poorly taught when I went to school in the 1800's (yes, I old, okay maybe not that old). And once I learned the basics of AGW I could see how it was an observable fact.

I doubt if you even understand the basics of science, but I am willing to go over them with you. I can tell you that creationists to date have only embarrassed themselves when they have tried to argue against evolution. Do you think that you can do so? I am betting that you will fail too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your religion, where did apes come from?

Technically atheism is not a religion since it is just a lack of belief.

Let's just call humans every other species that came before. Shall we?

Cladistically we could, but it is not very useful

So humans are REALLY:

paramecium

Okay, paramecium is not a proper term. At best it only refers to modern paramecium. But we are eukaryotes. You can say that.

frogs

No, frogs are later amphibians. But just as we are "fish" by cladistics we are also "amphibians" but once again a more general term is "tetrapod". And though limbless snakes are still tetrapods.

lizards
birds

No, the split between man and those groups occurred before they evolved.

rodents

See above.

all manner of fish, maybe?

No, just the lobe finned fish. We cannot claim to be ray finned fish or sharks, again, you need to look at a chart on cladistics.

all kinds of smaller land species?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Yes?

Sometimes, but usually no. Do you know what a cladogram is?

 

[Kenny]

Technically atheism is not a religion since it is just a lack of belief.

Not that this is the subject matter, but it is a religion and it is based on the “belief” that there is no God/god/gods.

It is the definition for atheism and based on faith since one does not know if it is true or not.

Atheism defined:

1. The doctrine that there is no God; denial of the existence of God.

 

[Kenny]

If empirical science shows evolution to be false, why do all people with knowledge of science accept the theory?

If empirical science shows evolution to be true, why are there people with knowledge of science deny the theory?

 

[ppp]

Denominations are nonsense.

True Christians are Bible-believers and followers of Jesus Christ.

Jesus and His Word are the True Witness.

All that you are saying is that only people who agree with you about what the Bible says are True Christians(tm). Which is just the definer for a denomination.

 

[ppp]

If empirical science shows evolution to be true, why are there people with knowledge of science deny the theory?

Why would it be necessary for there to be no people with a knowledge of science who also deny a theory, in order for a theory to be true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not that this is the subject matter, but it is a religion and it is based on the “belief” that there is no God/god/gods.

It is the definition for atheism and based on faith since one does not know if it is true or not.

Atheism defined:

1. The doctrine that there is no God; denial of the existence of God.

What makes you think that that cherry picked definition is even correct? That reeks of being written by a Christian. The only "doctrine" in atheism is that there is no doctrine in atheism.

atheism​

noun​

athe·ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

Synonyms of atheism
1
a
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b
: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

No doctrine there.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.​

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

No doctrine there either.

atheism​

[ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for atheism on Thesaurus.com

---

noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings.
   
   
   
   
   And yet another one with no doctrine.

 

[Kenny]

Why would it be necessary for there to be no people with a knowledge of science who also deny a theory, in order for a theory to be true?

LOL… I love how this is going.

We will end with a philosophical statement that basically no one with any knowledge at all will understand just what was said.

 

[Kenny]

What makes you think that that cherry picked definition is even correct? That reeks of being written by a Christian. The only "doctrine" in atheism is that there is no doctrine in atheism.

atheism​

noun​

athe·ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

Synonyms of atheism
1
a
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b
: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

No doctrine there.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.​

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

No doctrine there either.

atheism​

[ ey-thee-iz-uhm ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for atheism on Thesaurus.com

---

noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings.
   
   
   
   
   And yet another one with no doctrine.

Yes… that is a modern reinterpretation to get atheists off the hook of what they just said… “I don’t believe there is a god” based on faith.

A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God is the other side of the coin of a belief that there is no God in existence. Do you believe that there could be a possibility of there being a God or gods?

 

[ppp]

LOL… I love how this is going.

Cool.

Why would it be necessary for there to be no people with a knowledge of science who also deny a theory, in order for a theory to be true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If empirical science shows evolution to be true, why are there people with knowledge of science deny the theory?

I would say that it is due to cognitive dissonance. When a cherished belief is threatened, especially a belief that started at birth and ha been reinforced quite often with threats of torture, then it can be very hard to overcome that early life indoctrination when key aspects of that belief are shown to be wrong.

 

[Kenny]

Cool.

Why would it be necessary for there to be no people with a knowledge of science who also deny a theory, in order for a theory to be true?

Now, rephrase it into English and in context of my previous statement.

But, really, do we really know?

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular...

www.famousscientists.org

The reality is that those WITH knowledge are still battling with each other.

 

[Kenny]

I would say that it is due to cognitive dissonance. When a cherished belief is threatened, especially a belief that started at birth and ha been reinforced quite often with threats of torture, then it can be very hard to overcome that early life indoctrination when key aspects of that belief are shown to be wrong.

This has been pre-recorded.

 

[ppp]

Now, rephrase it into English and in context of my previous statement.

Why would it be necessary for there to be no people with a knowledge of science who also deny a theory, in order for a theory to be true?

You don't have to try to squirm away with a redirect. Your inability or unwillingness to answer is sufficient.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not that this is the subject matter, but it is a religion and it is based on the “belief” that there is no God/god/gods. It is the definition for atheism and based on faith since one does not know if it is true or not. Atheism defined:

1. The doctrine that there is no God; denial of the existence of God.

That's not the definition that most self-described atheists use. It's not mine. It would exclude somebody like me, an agnostic atheist, who does not assert that gods don't exist.

Yours is a definition Abrahamic theists like, because it allows them to present an artificially low estimate of the number of people in the world with no god belief. The rise of the nones and the increasing social acceptability of atheism along with a concomitant fall in the relevance of religion in daily life results in positive feedback accelerating the trend toward irreligiosity, which threatens to organized religion.
If we can assign the meaning of saying that gods don't exist to disbelief, and unbelief to mean a lack of a god belief, then we can see that the former is a subset of the latter and it becomes redundant to specify the subset. And that's not the only redundancy in the OED definition. "God" is a subset of gods. The succinct form of the definition of atheist is the absence of belief in gods, but I know that many theists like to cavil about that definition because it includes people who have never thought about gods, prelinguistic infants and children, dogs, and even stone. For them, we can expand the definition of an atheist to anyone who answers no to the question of whether they hold a god belief.

To expand on that attempt by the faithful to try to present atheism as anomalous and atheists as marginalized by defining atheist in the narrowest possible way, I believe it's related to why you call atheism a religion and to the rise of creation pseudoscience. They're both attempts to put science and religion on equal footing first to try to get gods into science classes ("Let the kids decide"), and also to comfort creationists who are troubled by the differences between science, which has been wildly successful at discerning how nature works and improving the human condition and creationism, which offers guesses that would be useless even if correct. What useful ideas have followed from creationism? None. So, the apologists want a bit more science on their side and a bit more religion on the other.

 

[Kenny]

You don't have to try to squirm away with a redirect. Your inability or unwillingness to answer is sufficient.

I’m fine with you believing that.

 

[Viker]

Not that this is the subject matter, but it is a religion and it is based on the “belief” that there is no God/god/gods.

It is the definition for atheism and based on faith since one does not know if it is true or not.

Atheism defined:

1. The doctrine that there is no God; denial of the existence of God.

That doesn't match up with this definition from a quick googling.


a·the·ism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

 

[Viker]

I'm going to stick with humans are apes until someone can come up with something otherwise compelling and convincing.