Do you believe in evolution ?

dirtychinchilla · 27 Jul 2014 at 09:11

Castiel said:
Who knows...that's why I didn't really want to restate a discussion already going on in another thread. The evolution thread of this discussion is more interesting, at least it was anyway.

There was a very typical post of "I hate fundamentalist religious people and militant atheists" and I responded saying that all most militant atheists really want is freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

dirtychinchilla said:
What most "militant atheists" want is to live their lives without interference by religion. I want freedom of religion for all people, but I also want freedom from religion in my life. It should be a choice to interact with religion, not something forced upon us ie. in America, where creationists want their BS taught alongside evolution as "the controversy", or for gay people to be allowed to, firstly, just exist, and secondly, to get married, without a religious bigwig getting involved and telling them what they think they should or shouldn't be doing.

Castiel · 27 Jul 2014 at 09:16

dirtychinchilla said:
There was a very typical post of "I hate fundamentalist religious people and militant atheists" and I responded saying that all most militant atheists really want is freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

The confusion almost always derives from the misunderstanding of the use militant within the respective contexts. Militant can simply be defined as being vocally combative and aggressive...for example a militant politician or union representative or activist, it can also mean a militarised agitator, as in a terrorist or freedom fighter. People seem insistent on mixing the respective context of usage in order to express an argument that has essentially no meaning as the two examples are simply different definitions of the same word.

dirtychinchilla · 27 Jul 2014 at 09:22

Castiel said:
The confusion almost always derives from the misunderstanding of the use militant within the respective contexts. Militant can simply be defined as being vocally combative and aggressive...for example a militant politician or union representative or activist, it can also mean a militarised agitator, as in a terrorist or freedom fighter. People seem insistent on mixing the respective context of usage in order to express an argument that has essentially no meaning as the two examples are simply different definitions of the same word.

Well I must say, I'm in a group on Facebook called "**** Religion" and I guess the people on there would be considered militant atheists. Personally, I find a lot of what they say absolutely disgusting. If anyone religious posts in the group, they jump down their throat and say some absolutely appalling things to them. This is what I would consider a real militant atheist, without the violence. I expect very few atheists are actually militant. As you know, we just want to get on with our lives without interference from religion.

Castiel · 27 Jul 2014 at 09:27

dirtychinchilla said:
Well I must say, I'm in a group on Facebook called "**** Religion" and I guess the people on there would be considered militant atheists. Personally, I find a lot of what they say absolutely disgusting. If anyone religious posts in the group, they jump down their throat and say some absolutely appalling things to them. This is what I would consider a real militant atheist, without the violence. I expect very few atheists are actually militant. As you know, we just want to get on with our lives without interference from religion.

You're not militant Dirtychinchilla. You are a reasoned and moderate person who has their own views and just wishes to be allowed to hold them without interference. Like most of us do.

Not all atheists are militant, in fact most are not. Equally not all religious people are militant, again most are not. Vocal minorities and all that.

dirtychinchilla · 27 Jul 2014 at 09:29

Castiel said:
You're not militant Dirtychinchilla. You are a reasoned and moderate person who has their own views and just wishes to be allowed to hold them without interference. Like most of us do.

Not all atheists are militant, in fact most are not. Equally not all religious people are militant, again most are not. Vocal minorities and all that.

Yes but as a vocal atheist, I get labelled militant by those who don't truly understand my position (which may, of course, be my fault).

I agree with you completely; a lot of religious people are harmless, and most atheists do nothing more than moan

Uriel · 27 Jul 2014 at 10:07

Silver- It would take time I don't have to do a point by point rebuttal. The main problem is not so much it's content but it's lack of context. My main criticism is that you have an overly simplistic, unrealistic view of science that was thoroughly debunked by philosophers of science in the mid 20th century.

There are plenty of books that would give a good overview. I would suggest chapter 1 (Theory and Observation) in George Couvalis' book The Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity.

As for you disowning all those Atheists on the is no different to a Christian disowning Henry VIII or a Muslim disowning Osama Bin Laden. They exist within the history of 'the faith'. There is no single Atheism and some are more harmless than others. The same is true of Christianity and Islam.

LOAM · 27 Jul 2014 at 11:50

SlyReaper said:
Fair enough, I stand corrected.

How did the topic spiral towards militant atheists vs militant religious people? I still recall when this topic was about evolution.

I think it evolved, in truth though I think it may have been partly my fault, sorry!

estebanrey · 27 Jul 2014 at 13:15

Castiel said:
Not all atheists are militant, in fact most are not. Equally not all religious people are militant, again most are not. Vocal minorities and all that.

You forget the 'militant' yardstick for atheism is much smaller than it is for religion though.

Richard Dawkins is often called a 'militant' atheist but yet he has never preached war, hatred or wished death upon anyone. He has just written books denouncing the concept of religion. To be called a 'militant' Christian/Muslim you have to preach hate or commit a violent act.

dirtychinchilla · 27 Jul 2014 at 13:17

estebanrey, I completely agree. If you were to judge religious people by the same yardstick, they would all be labelled fundamentalists.

dowie · 27 Jul 2014 at 13:27

Xordium said:
What scientific qualifications have you got Sliver?

Edit: The reason I ask this is because you are repeatedly saying people who believe in religion are stupid. Hence I think it would be pertinent for you to establish your credentials.

Sounds like an appeal to authority... I'd guess he probably has an undergrad degree and perhaps you have a PhD? But I think it would be a rather poor argument to try and use this to make any real point. I don't think any of the arguments/claims put forward in this thread require any 'credentials'.

SlyReaper · 27 Jul 2014 at 13:30

I agree and I should know - I have a PHD in truthology from Christiantech, Alabama!

Castiel · 27 Jul 2014 at 14:09

estebanrey said:
You forget the 'militant' yardstick for atheism is much smaller than it is for religion though.

Richard Dawkins is often called a 'militant' atheist but yet he has never preached war, hatred or wished death upon anyone. He has just written books denouncing the concept of religion. To be called a 'militant' Christian/Muslim you have to preach hate or commit a violent act.

No, as explained it is simply a different definition of the use of the word Militant in two separate contexts.

Xordium · 27 Jul 2014 at 15:06

dowie said:
Sounds like an appeal to authority... I'd guess he probably has an undergrad degree and perhaps you have a PhD? But I think it would be a rather poor argument to try and use this to make any real point. I don't think any of the arguments/claims put forward in this thread require any 'credentials'.

No it's not an appeal to authority at all. It would be an appeal to intellect anyway wouldn't it if I did what I plainly didn't. Maybe you should actually read what I put there. I was questioning whether he had the ability to be making the appeals to intellect he is professing. What qualifications I hold is irrelevant to Sliver challenging religious people.

I don't need to make any appeals to intellect or expertise. I feel my points stand on their own legs:

Both religion and science make a priori assumptions. <--- This is the big one on these forums
These are untestable. <--- As is this
In my eyes religion does this more than science.
People present scientific theories as tantamount to fact or truth as we would socially describe them.
Evolution as we understand it now will be most likely great changed as our learning develops.
Most people who know religion or science well are happy to accept it as it is and are not so vocal in its defence in areas where it fails to answer questions.

dowie · 27 Jul 2014 at 15:46

Xordium said:
No it's not an appeal to authority at all. It would be an appeal to intellect anyway wouldn't it if I did what I plainly didn't. Maybe you should actually read what I put there. I was questioning whether he had the ability to be making the appeals to intellect he is professing. What qualifications I hold is irrelevant to Sliver challenging religious people.

I'm still not sure why you think his qualifications are relevant either... it really does seem like side tracking/deflection. Perhaps just stick with putting forth your points, arguing against his points etc...

Akagi · 27 Jul 2014 at 16:13

12 pages on a religion/evolution thread in GD?

Inb4 the lock.

Xordium · 27 Jul 2014 at 16:32

dowie said:
I'm still not sure why you think his qualifications are relevant either... it really does seem like side tracking/deflection. Perhaps just stick with putting forth your points, arguing against his points etc...

If your argument partly revolves around stating that the opposing viewpoint is born of ignorance then I think it is directly relevant when you are essentially making an appeal to intellect.

Arguing this with Sliver is like arguing with Kedge with the key point here being consistently ignore (that science too makes a priori assumptions) and its implications not understood.

Very later edit: Maybe you should take the time now to see Sliver's further comments in this thread. Maybe it is time he establish what his knowledge level really is when he is throwing "cretard" around and then completely ignoring whole pages of discussion and then re-asserting something well covered in that discussion. Maybe I should move this to later on or you won't see it.

spudbynight · 27 Jul 2014 at 16:42

Uriel · 27 Jul 2014 at 16:56

dowie said:
Sounds like an appeal to authority... I'd guess he probably has an undergrad degree and perhaps you have a PhD? But I think it would be a rather poor argument to try and use this to make any real point. I don't think any of the arguments/claims put forward in this thread require any 'credentials'.

People mentioning their degrees etc started with Silver accusing them of not understanding science. It's not so much an appeal to authority as a statement of one's own credentials.

tbyeah · 27 Jul 2014 at 17:24

Xordium said:
Arguing this with Sliver is like arguing with Kedge with the key point here being consistently ignore (that science too makes a priori assumptions) and its implications not understood.

The thing is, you make it sound as if each is based on equally likely or unlikely assumptions...

Xordium · 27 Jul 2014 at 18:56

tbyeah said:
The thing is, you make it sound as if each is based on equally likely or unlikely assumptions...

Well we really don't know that they are or aren't do we. Absolutely no way. But the point is, and stands irrespective, a significant number of one side castigates the other for doing so but then refuses to acknowledge that themselves. You can turn around to these people and ask well how do you know the universe exists - where is your proof - and time and time again we get duh of course it does stupid. Now that is a pretty hefty assumption (but one I personally do think we should make). This goes further than us just assuming there are natural causes to events and that evidence can be used to determine those causes. You first have to dig into philosophy to find a few answers or rather justifications for your assumptions to have that foundation you then lay the science upon. That the universe exists, to me, is a massive assumption almost boarding on the infinite so to then assume one exists and has a creator is also so equally out of my ability to comprehend that I can determine between either and it comes down to my personal choice - my belief that a god most likely does not exist but a belief I can not prove or care to prove.

edit: we seem to be collecting angels in these threads ...