How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3881  Postby Fenrir » Sep 12, 2019 7:33 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Alan B wrote:
OK. Go ahead and list the ideologies and their dogma that have influenced the human origin story.

Well it seems to me that atheist ideology is what has influenced the human origin story, after Darwin. Before that, in the West, it was Christian ideology. So, a dialectic was created in which TofE came to express the opposite of the creation story as expressed in Genesis. Atheists came to regard TofE as both their home and the big stick to hit Christians with.

If the theory of evolution messed up the human origin story, why do millions of Christians - the majority of Christians I'd say - manage to accept that theory while preserving their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything?

In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be the "atheist ideology" that messed up the human origin story when it is accepted by millions and millions of theists.



What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE? Who are growing at the expense of the denominations that do accept it, while others just walk away from accepting denominations into atheism. I admit that some people find the denial demanded of them by groups like the JWs drives them straight into atheism. But less often into the accepting denominations. For Anglicans, accepting Darwin has helped very little.

This is a problem that lies in the lap of the English established church in particular; the legacy of a failure by our forebears back in 1860 and later. All I can see of it is a few loose bricks in the edifice presented to us as human origin story: within-species explanations, denial of the exceptional enabling of humanity, emphasis on random chance. These point to atheists using ToE to feed their ideology.



And there you have it. Apparently JJ's entire posting history is a fictional confection designed to reduce attrition from Anglicanism. It seems JJ has decided fewer people leave fundy cults and the solution is to move Anglicanism slightly further away from reason (but not as far as those fundy's, the gauche swine) and that that will convince members not to jump the gap.

Well good luck with that I guess. I'd have preferred honest enquiry myself, but i'm odd like that.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3382
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3882  Postby Hermit » Sep 12, 2019 8:02 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Alan B wrote:
OK. Go ahead and list the ideologies and their dogma that have influenced the human origin story.

Well it seems to me that atheist ideology is what has influenced the human origin story, after Darwin. Before that, in the West, it was Christian ideology. So, a dialectic was created in which TofE came to express the opposite of the creation story as expressed in Genesis. Atheists came to regard TofE as both their home and the big stick to hit Christians with.

If the theory of evolution messed up the human origin story, why do millions of Christians - the majority of Christians I'd say - manage to accept that theory while preserving their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything?

In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be the "atheist ideology" that messed up the human origin story when it is accepted by millions and millions of theists.

What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE?

Presumably you meant "millions". They don't matter. As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".

Doing so requires no great effort. It breaks no laws, and it does not destroy theism. As I mentioned at least twice already, the theory of evolution is not about where life originally comes from, but how it evolves. It is for that reason that the majority of Christians have no problem accepting it while still believing in a god, an uncaused cause that brought life, the universe and everything into existence.

If you're looking for secular equivalents of ancient origin stories you'll need to familiarise yourself with what some scientists in the fields of biology and chemistry are working on.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2534
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3883  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 12, 2019 9:51 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:[And the example I offered recently, was that Darwin directing the human origin story towards sexual selection, which he contrasted with natural selection as depending on external relations. I claimed that this approach has played out into a piffling dead end exposition on penis size, just when humanity faces baffling and frightening challenges in our relations with global externalities.


This depends on postulating the external. That's exactly the way you assume your conclusion, JJ. The external you denote is fictive, and you assert it so you can have your creative external entity.

If you don't understand or admit that this type of arbitrary introduction of entities is typical of creationism, then you don't. You need to establish external relations, rather than to assume them. Where's the division between that which is external and that which participates in whatever there is?


Fair enough. The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators. And the creative alchemy working in that relationship, was that the hominins used hand-held weapons rather than biting like their primate cousins. I have gone on and on about the way that released skull constraints against the encephalisation that started 3-2 million years ago and about the distinctive human ability which it enabled being the creation of speech.

The way that impacted on the big-penis, small testes, monogamous habit, big breasts explained by Mark Maslin (2017) in terms of INTERNAL social relations, would be that females select for big penises but in other primates where the males bite, big penises are vulnerable to damage (consistent with our lack of pelt, horns, fangs, talons). Small testicles: hominin infants need so much sustained support due to their long lack of coordination associated with speech development, that they need two attendant parents, not a male who runs around having sex with every female that comes on heat. Big breasts: hominin infants need to be suckled right up till the next baby arrives, unlike with female dogs, whose breasts swell and then decline after her pups are weaned.

You don’t need to be a geography professor at UCL to figure that out. Right or wrong, notice that the model in terms of externalities is in terms of necessities, not chance habit. Also, the focus moves from the male towards the infant. Considering that on average, one female only brings two offspring to breeding and in our species, inordinate resources are poured into the preciousness of human young, in that dangerous process: we must be close to the ultimate k-strategy species. For why? Because of the exigencies in producing an animal that can talk. Not because we are such a “social” species.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1091
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3884  Postby Fenrir » Sep 12, 2019 9:58 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:[And the example I offered recently, was that Darwin directing the human origin story towards sexual selection, which he contrasted with natural selection as depending on external relations. I claimed that this approach has played out into a piffling dead end exposition on penis size, just when humanity faces baffling and frightening challenges in our relations with global externalities.


This depends on postulating the external. That's exactly the way you assume your conclusion, JJ. The external you denote is fictive, and you assert it so you can have your creative external entity.

If you don't understand or admit that this type of arbitrary introduction of entities is typical of creationism, then you don't. You need to establish external relations, rather than to assume them. Where's the division between that which is external and that which participates in whatever there is?


Fair enough. The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators. And the creative alchemy working in that relationship, was that the hominins used hand-held weapons rather than biting like their primate cousins. I have gone on and on about the way that released skull constraints against the encephalisation that started 3-2 million years ago and about the distinctive human ability which it enabled being the creation of speech.

The way that impacted on the big-penis, small testes, monogamous habit, big breasts explained by Mark Maslin (2017) in terms of INTERNAL social relations, would be that females select for big penises but in other primates where the males bite, big penises are vulnerable to damage (consistent with our lack of pelt, horns, fangs, talons). Small testicles: hominin infants need so much sustained support due to their long lack of coordination associated with speech development, that they need two attendant parents, not a male who runs around having sex with every female that comes on heat. Big breasts: hominin infants need to be suckled right up till the next baby arrives, unlike with female dogs, whose breasts swell and then decline after her pups are weaned.

You don’t need to be a geography professor at UCL to figure that out. Right or wrong, notice that the model in terms of externalities is in terms of necessities, not chance habit. Also, the focus moves from the male towards the infant. Considering that on average, one female only brings two offspring to breeding and in our species, inordinate resources are poured into the preciousness of human young, in that dangerous process: we must be close to the ultimate k-strategy species. For why? Because of the exigencies in producing an animal that can talk. Not because we are such a “social” species.


Lol

You have absolutely no idea.

It's hilarious how you can be so earnest and authoritative whilst reliably getting almost every single detail totally wrong.

Hilarious.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3382
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3885  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 12, 2019 10:28 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:[And the example I offered recently, was that Darwin directing the human origin story towards sexual selection, which he contrasted with natural selection as depending on external relations. I claimed that this approach has played out into a piffling dead end exposition on penis size, just when humanity faces baffling and frightening challenges in our relations with global externalities.


This depends on postulating the external. That's exactly the way you assume your conclusion, JJ. The external you denote is fictive, and you assert it so you can have your creative external entity.

If you don't understand or admit that this type of arbitrary introduction of entities is typical of creationism, then you don't. You need to establish external relations, rather than to assume them. Where's the division between that which is external and that which participates in whatever there is?


Fair enough. The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators.


JJ, you've set up humans and something external to humans in order to place humans at the center of whatever relations you're postulating. If you don't understand that this assumes your conclusion, then you don't. You're still trying to portray the environment as forcing human evolution. But that's also your conclusion.

Perhaps you could say a few words about how "atheist ideology" is preventing me from seeing the relations the same way you do. The answer I would give you is that there's nothing compelling me to treat the biome as a forcing externality, unless you make an argument specifically showing me how to treat the biome that way, with humans at the center, and everything else external to them. How does "atheist ideology" lead me to leave humans as just a piece of a biome that's evolving? It's "atheist ideology" that doesn't center humans in the world, but that's just an old creationist ploy, severely obfuscated.

You've really got only one task, JJ, and that is to persuade me to place humans at the center of the biome. Yes, I would have to become a theist in order to place humans at the center of their existence. What else can you use besides the fact that you and I are humans, but I don't find that particularly persuasive, in and of itself. You need to work smarter, not harder.

PS: JJ, your attempts to portray early humans as a prey species have been debunked. By facts. I can't help you with those if you will not help yourself. Please skip trying to reboot that whole fracas, It didn't fly the last time, either.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3886  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 12, 2019 10:48 am

Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Well it seems to me that atheist ideology is what has influenced the human origin story, after Darwin. Before that, in the West, it was Christian ideology. So, a dialectic was created in which TofE came to express the opposite of the creation story as expressed in Genesis. Atheists came to regard TofE as both their home and the big stick to hit Christians with.

If the theory of evolution messed up the human origin story, why do millions of Christians - the majority of Christians I'd say - manage to accept that theory while preserving their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything?

In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be the "atheist ideology" that messed up the human origin story when it is accepted by millions and millions of theists.

What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE?

Presumably you meant "millions". They don't matter. As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".

Doing so requires no great effort. It breaks no laws, and it does not destroy theism. As I mentioned at least twice already, the theory of evolution is not about where life originally comes from, but how it evolves. It is for that reason that the majority of Christians have no problem accepting it while still believing in a god, an uncaused cause that brought life, the universe and everything into existence.



When I started replying to your last post, I tried pointing out that TofE isn’t “atheist ideology” but that seemed pedantic so I started again. Now the confusion is persisting. Let me try to clarify.

The theory of evolution as AR Wallace developed it, was the best available explanation for the palaeontological record. That Darwin had long been developing a very similar theory, but had hesitated to present it, shows how entangled he was, as a more significant social figure, in the controversy the theory would raise in Victorian society. Anyway, Darwin presented the theory very persuasively in Origins. In the decade before publishing Descent, Darwin found a powerful and effective ally in the agnostic TH Huxley, and some opposition from Christians. My argument is that Darwin presented a picture in The Descent of Man, that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, while also incidentally, supporting the male-dominated and imperial-minded British establishment. It’s from then that the influence of atheist ideology on the theory can be observed and traced.

Hermit wrote: If you're looking for secular equivalents of ancient origin stories you'll need to familiarise yourself with what some scientists in the fields of biology and chemistry are working on.


No doubt. I suppose you are thinking of Stuart Kauffman, Lynn Margulis, James Lovelock and more recent biologists I’m not aware of. Far from the topic of the human origin story, there must be some interesting stuff coming out of biology. If some of them turned a beady eye on the hugely conservative, stodgy human origin narrative being presented in terms of evolution, and defended in this tiny puddle, then sparks could fly.

The "majority of Christians" (if it is that) are naive about how the human origin story being offered to them in terms of evolution, is laced with what is food for atheists but poison to their belief.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1091
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3887  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 12, 2019 11:09 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
If the theory of evolution messed up the human origin story, why do millions of Christians - the majority of Christians I'd say - manage to accept that theory while preserving their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything?

In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be the "atheist ideology" that messed up the human origin story when it is accepted by millions and millions of theists.

What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE?

Presumably you meant "millions". They don't matter. As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".

Doing so requires no great effort. It breaks no laws, and it does not destroy theism. As I mentioned at least twice already, the theory of evolution is not about where life originally comes from, but how it evolves. It is for that reason that the majority of Christians have no problem accepting it while still believing in a god, an uncaused cause that brought life, the universe and everything into existence.



When I started replying to your last post, I tried pointing out that TofE isn’t “atheist ideology” but that seemed pedantic so I started again. Now the confusion is persisting. Let me try to clarify.

The theory of evolution as AR Wallace developed it, was the best available explanation for the palaeontological record. That Darwin had long been developing a very similar theory, but had hesitated to present it, shows how entangled he was, as a more significant social figure, in the controversy the theory would raise in Victorian society.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that ToE has long since moved beyond the initial theory presented by Darwin?


Jayjay4547 wrote:My argument blind assertion is

FIFY, stop lying.

Jayjay4547 wrote: that Darwin presented a picture in The Descent of Man, that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism,

And since it has been repeatedly explained to you that there is no relation between ToE and atheism, you are just mindlessly regurgitating already refuted claims.

Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s from then that the influence of atheist ideology on the theory can be observed and traced.

Except it can't because you haven't even demonstrated the existence of such an ideology.
You're producing nothing but baseless and counterfactual polemics.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote: If you're looking for secular equivalents of ancient origin stories you'll need to familiarise yourself with what some scientists in the fields of biology and chemistry are working on.


No doubt. I suppose you are thinking of Stuart Kauffman, Lynn Margulis, James Lovelock and more recent biologists I’m not aware of. Far from the topic of the human origin story, there must be some interesting stuff coming out of biology.

See, here you go again, blindly asserting something that's factually incorrect.

Jayjay4547 wrote: If some of them turned a beady eye on the hugely conservative, stodgy human origin narrative being presented in terms of evolution, and defended in this tiny puddle, then sparks could fly.

Again, since people have already explained to you that ToE is not about origins of life, but speciation your assertions are still bullshit.

Jayjay4547 wrote: The "majority of Christians" (if it is that) are naive about how the human origin story being offered to them in terms of evolution, is laced with what is food for atheists but poison to their belief.

QED more counterfactual polemics.
All you're accomplishing Jayjay is a demonstration of your inability to have a rational discussion on this topic.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30128
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3888  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2019 11:52 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE?


What about them?

If you want to raise their spectre, then you're presumably doing so for a reason.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Who are growing at the expense of the denominations that do accept it,...


Assertion: show your source


Jayjay4547 wrote:... while others just walk away from accepting denominations into atheism.


What nonsense. Believers don't just throw their hands up in the air because of a scientific theory and say 'well, fuck this for a game of soldiers - I'll just become an atheist'.

You really do talk tripe, JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I admit that some people find the denial demanded of them by groups like the JWs drives them straight into atheism.


Again, straight up bollocks. Atheism is about not believing in gods. Believers who don't get on with a particular sect don't just land on atheism by default - they carry on being believers, just without a church or sect.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But less often into the accepting denominations. For Anglicans, accepting Darwin has helped very little.


Well, first of all it's irrelevant whether it 'helps' or not because credible people with legitimate motivations don't select what they believe or don't believe based on whether it will be useful to them.

I realize that is probably going to be one of the most difficult things imaginable for you to process. Do let me know and I will see if I can draw a picture for you, or find some other way for you to grasp this alien concept.


Jayjay4547 wrote:This is a problem that lies in the lap of the English established church in particular; the legacy of a failure by our forebears back in 1860 and later. All I can see of it is a few loose bricks in the edifice presented to us as human origin story: within-species explanations, denial of the exceptional enabling of humanity, emphasis on random chance.


In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, so you'll just make up some history to go with your other made up, ignorant bullshit which has already been publicly and repeatedly spanked back to the antiquated past where it belongs.


Jayjay4547 wrote:These point to atheists using ToE to feed their ideology.


The purported ideology that only you, the chap with a deep vitriolic prejudice against atheists can see, whereas all the atheists and assorted non-believers you're directing your prejudice at keep educating you that no such ideology exists.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24808
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3889  Postby felltoearth » Sep 12, 2019 12:10 pm

"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11768
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3890  Postby Hermit » Sep 12, 2019 12:39 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Hermit wrote:
If the theory of evolution messed up the human origin story, why do millions of Christians - the majority of Christians I'd say - manage to accept that theory while preserving their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything?

In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be the "atheist ideology" that messed up the human origin story when it is accepted by millions and millions of theists.

What about the missions of theists who don’t accept TofE?

Presumably you meant "millions". They don't matter. As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".

Doing so requires no great effort. It breaks no laws, and it does not destroy theism. As I mentioned at least twice already, the theory of evolution is not about where life originally comes from, but how it evolves. It is for that reason that the majority of Christians have no problem accepting it while still believing in a god, an uncaused cause that brought life, the universe and everything into existence.

When I started replying to your last post, I tried pointing out that TofE isn’t “atheist ideology” but that seemed pedantic so I started again. Now the confusion is persisting.

Let's recapitulate in the hope of clearing up your confusion: I pointed out that the theory of evolution is accepted by millions of Christians without damaging their faith, and therefore cannot be regarded as an atheist ideology messing up the human origin story. You countered by asking "What about the missions(sic) of theists who don’t accept TofE?" My reply to that was that as long as millions of Christians have no problems reconciling the theory of evolution with their faith in the existence of a Christian god, you know, the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology", the Christians who do have a problem with it don't matter. Recognising that your objection made no sense you now engage in what can only be termed a Gish gallop, namely this:

Jayjay4547 wrote:The theory of evolution as AR Wallace developed it, was the best available explanation for the palaeontological record. That Darwin had long been developing a very similar theory, but had hesitated to present it, shows how entangled he was, as a more significant social figure, in the controversy the theory would raise in Victorian society. Anyway, Darwin presented the theory very persuasively in Origins. In the decade before publishing Descent, Darwin found a powerful and effective ally in the agnostic TH Huxley, and some opposition from Christians. My argument is that Darwin presented a picture in The Descent of Man, that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, while also incidentally, supporting the male-dominated and imperial-minded British establishment. It’s from then that the influence of atheist ideology on the theory can be observed and traced.

Darwin's seminal publication was not titled "On the Origin of Life". It was titled "On the Origin of Species", and that is a fundamental fact you keep ignoring. It is true, as you point out, that Darwin's theory presented a picture that showed how human origins could be described in ways more independent of externalities and so more friendly to atheism, but again, this does not make his theory an atheist ideology for the same reason I cited before. To wit: As long as Christians can reconcile their acceptance of the theory of evolution with their belief in the existence of a Christian god, you know the supernatural, uncaused cause, creator of life, the universe and everything, that theory cannot labelled "atheist ideology".

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you cannot define that thing you label "atheist ideology". You now even deny explicitly that the theory of evolution is not it and retreat into a vague assertion that it might be
Jayjay4547 wrote:...how the human origin story being offered to them in terms of evolution, is laced with what is food for atheists but poison to their belief.

Wow! What is left of the presumed "atheist ideology" now? A poison that Christian fundies perceive, but somehow does not affect the vast majority of members of all mainstream Christian denominations?

Surveys are hard to come by, so I go to the statements of the leaders of the Anglican and the Catholic Church.

When asked "Are you comfortable with teaching creationism?", the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams replied: "Ahh, not very. Not very. I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Turning to the Catholic Church, it laid out its official view in the papal encyclical "Humani Generis", wherein Pope Pius XII laid out the Catholic Church's accommodation with Darwinian evolution—provided Christians believed the individual soul was not the product of purely material forces, but a direct creation by God.

Between your prevarications and what church leaders actually say about the matter, you don't appear to have a leg to stand on.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2534
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3891  Postby aban57 » Sep 12, 2019 12:43 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:These point to atheists using ToE to feed their ideology.


The purported ideology that only you, the chap with a deep vitriolic prejudice against atheists can see, whereas all the atheists and assorted non-believers you're directing your prejudice at keep educating you that no such ideology exists.


Not only that, but in the real world, it's believers that refuse to accept evolution, because it contradicts their belief, who make it a religious issue. Atheists only talk about evolution when forced by believers, as they have no emotional link to it.
Atheists don't care much about evolution. They accept it because it's the only explanation to the mountain of data we have at the moment. But if it were proven wrong one day, they would just accept the new one. Just like other theories (gravity, etc.).

So pretending that some atheist ideology has anything to do with evolution is not only stupid, but hypocritical, because this assertion is here to hide the fact that the opposite is actually happening here : some form of christian ideology pushing away evolution because it makes said ideology uncomfortable.
User avatar
aban57
 
Posts: 6793
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3892  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2019 1:11 pm

aban57 wrote:
Not only that, but in the real world, it's believers that refuse to accept evolution, because it contradicts their belief, who make it a religious issue. Atheists only talk about evolution when forced by believers, as they have no emotional link to it.


Of all the non-believers I know in the UK (which is nearly everyone I know in the UK), I don't think I've ever had a conversation with any of them about evolution. I expect if I collected all they know about evolution and collated it together, it wouldn't fill a particularly robust paragraph.

JJ lives in a fantasy land arrived at wholly via emotional instability and projected prejudice.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24808
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3893  Postby aban57 » Sep 12, 2019 1:17 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
aban57 wrote:
Not only that, but in the real world, it's believers that refuse to accept evolution, because it contradicts their belief, who make it a religious issue. Atheists only talk about evolution when forced by believers, as they have no emotional link to it.


Of all the non-believers I know in the UK (which is nearly everyone I know in the UK), I don't think I've ever had a conversation with any of them about evolution. I expect if I collected all they know about evolution and collated it together, it wouldn't fill a particularly robust paragraph.

JJ lives in a fantasy land arrived at wholly via emotional instability and projected prejudice.


Yeah you're right, I should have said "it's some believers". I didn't mean to generalize, as shown by my last sentence.
User avatar
aban57
 
Posts: 6793
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3894  Postby theropod » Sep 12, 2019 2:23 pm

I see JJ still has his blinders in place, and it seems his vision is selective.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3895  Postby newolder » Sep 12, 2019 2:25 pm

Probably the result of living in a tunnel. :nod:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6486
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3896  Postby Macdoc » Sep 12, 2019 3:27 pm

with pews :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15830
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3897  Postby SafeAsMilk » Sep 12, 2019 4:13 pm

I have to admit, I do feel a bit sorry for JJ that people were shown the evidence that things evolve via natural processes rather than the choices of a magical man, and are now biased against believing other ridiculous things like our survival methods are somehow cosmically special, and therefore must be granted by a magical man. I can't imagine the sadness that comes with having to contend with people discovering more about how the world works over time, whereas his beliefs can only be maintained by discovering less.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13317
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3898  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2019 5:52 pm

All I can see of it is a few loose bricks in the edifice presented to us as human origin story: within-species explanations, denial of the exceptional enabling of humanity, emphasis on random chance.


Indeed: all you can see being the operative term.

Of course, in reality, there's no such thing as a 'within-species explanation' - it's a bunch of cobbled together nonsense you've spewed out and then pretended, even when it's been robustly demolished, that it's somehow 'our' position, rather than being very clearly your effluent.

Of course, I am all up for acknowledging characteristics which are specific to humanity - you know, it being my field and all - but with someone whose head is up their own arsehole, I'd also insist on pointing out the exceptional characteristics of other animals; characteristics no human has ever possessed, then watching said anal gymnast attempt the messy extrication to explain why it was we were using the metric of our own specialness to judge our own specialness in the first place

Finally, 'random chance' is basically just a Creationist canard which indicates an abject paucity of comprehension.

So in summary, all you're really doing is showing that even after 10 years, you still don't know your arse from your elbow, and you're mistakenly believing that your confusion represents cunning insight rather than blind prejudice and refusal to engage in substance.

And it's this which makes you a true Creationist, JJ... not your belief in special creation. It's sheer chance that you're an Anglican as you'd clearly be much more suited, in terms of sophistication of belief, to a frothing fundamentalist evangelical sect.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Sep 12, 2019 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24808
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3899  Postby Macdoc » Sep 12, 2019 5:56 pm

have you not gnawed this poorly flavoured chew toy to extinction ? :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15830
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3900  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2019 5:57 pm

Macdoc wrote:have you not gnawed this poorly flavoured chew toy to extinction ? :coffee:


Does it look like it?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24808
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: Jayjay4547 and 3 guests