poll: are you an ape?

[John53]

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.

I can't speak for others but that is wrong in my case. My lack of belief is based on a lack of evidence of any God or Gods.

 

[ppp]

I’m fine with you believing that.

You are fine with my believing that your inability or unwillingness to answer is sufficient for me? How gracious of you to grant me the contents of my on mind. LOL

 

[Kenny]

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

Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Atheism

Atheism - A practical look at the definitions of atheism, agnosticism and theism. Belief vs. Disbelief. Knowledge vs. Lack of Knowledge.

www.allaboutphilosophy.org

I think weak atheism is more of a strong agnostic.

 

[Kenny]

You are fine with my believing that your inability or unwillingness to answer is sufficient for me? How gracious of you to grant me the contents of my on mind. LOL

I asked you to rephrase it into English where some understanding of what you were trying to say. It became a compilation of words that didn’t have much meaning (in my understanding) - thus… if you want to believe that I was unwilling, I am happy to make you happy.

 

[Kenny]

I can't speak for others but that is wrong in my case. My lack of belief is based on a lack of evidence of any God or Gods.

OK. But aren’t you are basing your lack of belief on a limited scope of evidence and of what you are able to know? Does your “lack of evidence” of what you know dictate that there definitely isn’t a “God”? Or is it that at this time you aren’t convinced and that there might be a God.

 

[Kenny]

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.

An agnostic atheist would definitely be different. You weren’t included in the definition.

 

[exchemist]

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

There are only a tiny handful of cranks that do so. James Tour and.....who? Michael Behe?

 

[John53]

OK. But aren’t you are basing your lack of belief on a limited scope of evidence and of what you are able to know? Does your “lack of evidence” of what you know dictate that there definitely isn’t a “God”? Or is it that at this time you aren’t convinced and that there might be a God.

No one has an unlimited scope of evidence. Anyone who thinks they do is delusional.

My lack of evidence does not convince me that there is definitely no God or Gods but it does tell me it's highly unlikely. Of course that could change in the next 5 minutes if I was shown compelling evidence to support the existence of a God or Gods.

What I'm failing to see how that makes my lack of belief a religion as you claim.

 

[Kenny]

There are only a tiny handful of cranks that do so. James Tour and.....who? Michael Behe?

there are over 1,000 that have publicly signed a letter of dissent.

“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” explained Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and a member of the Brazilian National Academy of Sciences.

There are those who have suffered because they contradicted the “consensus” with evidence.

“When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career,” added Klinghoffer. “So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science, acting self-protectively. That is beyond reasonable doubt.”

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

your statement “ There are only a tiny handful of cranks” is what a dissenter will have to face. Disagree and you are labelled.

Heaven forbid we should have an intelligent discussion about it.

 

[Kenny]

No one has an unlimited scope of evidence. Anyone who thinks they do is delusional.

My lack of evidence does not convince me that there is definitely no God or Gods but it does tell me it's highly unlikely. Of course that could change in the next 5 minutes if I was shown compelling evidence to support the existence of a God or Gods.

What I'm failing to see how that makes my lack of belief a religion as you claim.

I was talking about an atheist not an agnostic or a subset thereof.

So it wouldn’t include you since you agree that “My lack of evidence does not convince me that there is definitely no God” and “ No one has an unlimited scope of evidence”. Yours would not be classified as a “faith” or a religion with a doctrine.

 

[John53]

I was talking about an atheist not an agnostic or a subset thereof.

So it wouldn’t include you since you agree that “My lack of evidence does not convince me that there is definitely no God” and “ No one has an unlimited scope of evidence”. Yours would not be classified as a “faith” or a religion with a doctrine.

I don't know any atheists who claim they know everything or they're 100% certain there are no Gods, and I know my fair share of atheists.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

No. Atheism is not a religion. It is a theistic position that lacks belief in god(s). Atheism is no more a religion than theism is a religion.

 

[ppp]

It became a compilation of words that didn’t have much meaning (in my understanding)

This coming from someone who cannot just say, I don't understand the question.

You asked:

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

Your question is invalid unless one accepts the underlying assumption that someone knowledgeable in science who denies evolution in incompatible with the theory of evolution being true.

That underlying assumption has yet to be justified. Can you justify it?

 

[ppp]

There are only a tiny handful of cranks that do so. James Tour and.....who? Michael Behe?

I don't think they are cranks. I think they are grifters and con artists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This has been pre-recorded.

When you refuse to learn from your errors you will get the same responses.

It is as if you are complaining about how when one asks "what is 2 + 2 equal to" and the answer always comes back "4".

You can learn too if you can get over your fears.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Do you realize that you just told everyone that you are scientifically illiterate and do not even understand the concept of a theory. Most of those are not theories. Some of them were never even accepted. The first example they gave was not a theory. It was never well accepted. The last example that they gave was not a theory, though it was rather well accepted.

To be a theory an idea first and foremost has to be testable. There has to be a way to possibly refute it if it is wrong. Second it has to explain a wide range of events. Not just a small narrow one. And of course it has to have been tested and confirmed quite a few times over the ideas that it explains.

"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.
But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

Many advances in science—the development of genetics after Darwin's death, for example—have greatly enhanced evolutionary thinking. Yet even with these new advances, the theory of evolution still persists today, much as Darwin first described it, and is universally accepted by scientists."

What Is a Theory? A Scientific Definition | AMNH

In everyday use, it may mean a hunch, or a guess. Scientists understand the term quite differently.

www.amnh.org

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Denial, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

So does that make not collecting stamps a hobby? Also, wouldn't that make theism a religion as well? No reason to differentiate between christainity, islam, judaism, hinduisn, buddhism, paganism, etc. since you all belong to the same religion of theism.

 

[exchemist]

there are over 1,000 that have publicly signed a letter of dissent.

“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” explained Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and a member of the Brazilian National Academy of Sciences.

There are those who have suffered because they contradicted the “consensus” with evidence.

“When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career,” added Klinghoffer. “So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science, acting self-protectively. That is beyond reasonable doubt.”

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

your statement “ There are only a tiny handful of cranks” is what a dissenter will have to face. Disagree and you are labelled.

Heaven forbid we should have an intelligent discussion about it.

Hahaha, yes, this is an old and widely discredited publicity stunt by the Disco Tute.

QUOTE

After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press.[39]

UNQUOTE

From: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

See also "Project Steve": Project Steve - Wikipedia

These names do indeed represent a tiny handful. Not all are cranks, admittedly. Some were tricked into signing without realising what exactly their signatures would be used to claim. For instance "Darwin" ≠ "Evolution". There are many non-Darwinian processes that have been discovered since his time, more than 150 years ago.

Do not delude yourself that there is any controversy within science about whether or not natural processes are responsible. The number, roles and importance of the various natural mechanisms are of course the subject of lively discussion, as one would expect in a healthy and vibrant discipline of science.

P.S. Eberlin is not a biochemist, any more than James Tour: Marcos Nogueira Eberlin - Wikipedia

 

[Father Heathen]

there are over 1,000 that have publicly signed a letter of dissent.

“As a biochemist I became skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode, and protect its information,” explained Dr. Marcos Eberlin, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and a member of the Brazilian National Academy of Sciences.

There are those who have suffered because they contradicted the “consensus” with evidence.

“When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career,” added Klinghoffer. “So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science, acting self-protectively. That is beyond reasonable doubt.”

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

your statement “ There are only a tiny handful of cranks” is what a dissenter will have to face. Disagree and you are labelled.

Heaven forbid we should have an intelligent discussion about it.

Would you trust a geologist who believed in a flat earth?