Atheists unite

[Sliver]

That's not what I said, so you have simply created a strawman and added in an ad hominem to boot...


To be clear, everyone is entirely within their remit to speak publicly about their beliefs and philosophies... I have watched quite a few of L. Ron Nelsons videos and read some of his blogs and contributions to other debates and so on, and I have no real problem with his arguments and opinions against Creationism. (Rather than religion, which as a rule he doesn't do).

However, the question remains, what qualifies him over others who do the same work (and who are often more accessible, renowned and knowledgable within the theological and Scientific structures of the arguments therein who can and do fund themselves through their work) that we, as in the general public, should do as the OP requests? Particularly here in the UK where evolution is widely accepted within the vast majority of the religious community?

That doesn't preclude anyone else from donating nor judging anyone for doing so, or not as the case may be...it is asking, quite simply why?

Its a valid question, one which deserves more than simply a rationalwiki link.

Just because you are unable to debate with someone doesn't make them dishonest

Gilly

 

[Castiel]

Unbelievable. You denied the argument to authority fallacy, then repeated it again. Back to ignore you go. It's always a mistake to give in to curiosity when you have someone on ignore in this forum. I'll not make that mistake again.

If that is your attitude then do as you will, if you cannot answer the question then feel free to ignore me, however at no point did I say only qualified people should or could speak publicly or voice their opinion thereof, that was an assumption on your part.

In fact I clearly clarified the fact that was not my intent. As for you last addition, you are entitled to have that view, however fallacious it is.

 

[bitslice]

You seem to be mixing up agnosticism & atheism - forgetting that one concerns knowledge & the other belief (or lack of).

This is why Elmarko is so awesome, I just have to read the first line to know that I just don't care

Besides, I have too many twitch.tv girls to support

 

[kedge]

if man was created how do you explain human skull evolution? I cannot grasp how you can dismiss it.

Someone might not believe in evolution of the human skull . That picture of the skulls you posted is exactly that, it is an assumption based visual representation from evolutionists.

 

[THMRK]

NOPE

 

[Castiel]

You seem to be mixing up agnosticism & atheism - forgetting that one concerns knowledge & the other belief (or lack of).

I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe it's possible to know (ergo not presenting a counter argument) while rejecting the assertion that a deity exists on the grounds of a lack of evidence. The issue is that people forget that atheism is broader than a singular term.

It's better to avoid the phrase all together because people simply don't understand the complexity of the term (explicit/implicit/weak/strong) & end up debating against a point you don't even hold.

We have had this discussion many times as you know. It isn't necessarily because people do not understand the complexity, its not really that complicated..it is in fact that the definitions are contentious and therefore open to interpretation.

You are an agnostic atheist, if I am correct, you hold the view that there are no discernible proofs you can accept as to the existence of God...this makes you an Agnostic. You also, as a product of that view, extrapolate therefore that you hold no explicit belief in a Deity as a concept...this makes you an Atheist. This means that you have no knowledge, nor claim any knowledge as to the existence or non-existence of a Deity, but hold the belief in the absence of such knowledge that one does not exist until illustrated adequately otherwise....is this correct?

 

[anything I don't mind]

Castiel. I find his videos quite unique in that he does not beat around the bush and is not too timid to point out the problems of religion or creationism.

His knowledge of Phylogeny is extensive and I am yet to see any video presentations that cover that topic. He also tries to debate religious in public and in formal setting. Sure you could donate to sam harris or other atheists, there are many deserving of donations. They do not have a patreon account and have written books that allow them do work on that field full time, which aron ra has not done. He also focuses on the fight against creationism in schools specifically by going to school board meetings and doing presentations defending science in the class room. Something the likes of Sam Harris and so on have not done. You should watch his video series i posted earlier if you want to know if its worth supporting. I was not expecting religious people to donate, i was appealing to the atheists.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel. I find his videos quite unique in that he does not beat around the bush and is not too timid to point out the problems of religion or creationism.

His knowledge of Phylogeny is extensive and I am yet to see any video presentations that cover that topic. He also tries to debate religious in public and in formal setting. Sure you could donate to sam harris or other atheists, there are many deserving of donations. They do not have a patreon account and have written books that allow them do work on that field full time, which aron ra has not done. He also focuses on the fight against creationism in schools specifically by going to school board meetings and doing presentations defending science in the class room. Something the likes of Sam Harris and so on have not done. You should watch his video series i posted earlier if you want to know if its worth supporting. I was not expecting religious people to donate, i was appealing to the atheists.

I'm not religious. Also, there is no shortage of hard hitting, direct and opinionated videos pointing out problems, both real and imagined on Religions and Creationism. I don't see AronRa as being particularly unique in this area.

However, a better and more extensive reply that of Sliver and I thank you for that. The work he does in schools, I would assume that is based solely on the opposition of teaching Creationism outside of Religious Education and in lieu of Evolution, rather than simply proselytising Atheism? Does he have a certified program which he operates within the School System?

 

[Tefal]

If you are an atheists please consider donating to Aron Ra's patreon so that he can produce videos and atheist content as a full time job. I've donated £10 per month. He is currently up to $800 and even $3 per month will help.

why the hell would i want to fund another idiot to spout their ideology?

 

[Tefal]

Make what for his full time job?

well given atheist has nothing to do with anything other than the existence of god (ie it doesn't mean they all believe the same science etc, they might be astrologist crystal lovers but still not believe in god) i imagine the videos will simply be a

"there's no god, tune in next week to hear if there's still no god!"

 

[tbyeah]

but hold the belief in the absence of such knowledge that one does not exist until illustrated adequately otherwise....is this correct?

This is the unusual part; you reject a claim for anything else due to a lack of evidence being presented, and it's not a belief. However, if it's a question of a god/deity (and it is seemingly exclusive to this), and it's a belief system?

 

[tbyeah]

Someone might not believe in evolution of the human skull . That picture of the skulls you posted is exactly that, it is an assumption based visual representation from evolutionists.

NOPE

DOUBLE NOPE

 

[anything I don't mind]

I'm not religious. Also, there is no shortage of hard hitting, direct and opinionated videos pointing out problems, both real and imagined on Religions and Creationism. I don't see AronRa as being particularly unique in this area.

However, a better and more extensive reply that of Sliver and I thank you for that. The work he does in schools, I would assume that is based solely on the opposition of teaching Creationism outside of Religious Education and in lieu of Evolution, rather than simply proselytising Atheism? Does he have a certified program which he operates within the School System?

I think it is more a long the lines of keeping creationism out of science class completely. His wife is a science teacher, he wants to work with his wife and create school level specific information on Phylogeny and evolution in general. I think he wants to create a program that he will then with his wife help try and get in to the syllabus, well that is as far as i understand it.

 

[anything I don't mind]

why the hell would i want to fund another idiot to spout their ideology?

Which idiots are you currently funding?

 

[Tefal]

What idiots are you currently funding?

Politicians?

 

[Castiel]

This is the unusual part; you reject a claim for anything else due to a lack of evidence being presented, and it's not a belief. However, if it's a question of a god/deity (and it is seemingly exclusive to this), and it's a belief system?

There is an immense difference between a Belief System and a Belief.

 

[Castiel]

I think it is more a long the lines of keeping creationism out of science class completely. His wife is a science teacher, he wants to work with his wife and create school level specific information on Phylogeny and evolution in general. I think he wants to create a program that he will then with his wife help try and get in to the syllabus, well that is as far as i understand it.

If you can demonstrate he has a defined basis for a school program which teaches the efficacy of Evolution over Creationism and will objectively teach the difference between the Science of Evolution and the Theology of Creationism, then I may support such.

I cannot however see any good reason to support financially the opinions of one individual over another simply based on their opposing ideologies.

 

[elmarko]

We have had this discussion many times as you know. It isn't necessarily because people do not understand the complexity, its not really that complicated..it is in fact that the definitions are contentious and therefore open to interpretation.

You are an agnostic atheist, if I am correct, you hold the view that there are no discernible proofs you can accept as to the existence of God...this makes you an Agnostic. You also, as a product of that view, extrapolate therefore that you hold no explicit belief in a Deity as a concept...this makes you an Atheist. This means that you have no knowledge, nor claim any knowledge as to the existence or non-existence of a Deity, but hold the belief in the absence of such knowledge that one does not exist until illustrated adequately otherwise....is this correct?

Almost, I simply reject the assertion that a god exists on the grounds of no evidence.

I don't hold any beliefs either way regarding the existence of non-existence of a god/gods, as either would require evidence which doesn't exist. I only fit the definition of atheist by some definitions of the word - in that a lack of belief can fit the criteria.

As you mentioned earlier, the terminology is so widely debated the terms used doesn't really matter - I'm open to evidence & don't hold any beliefs either way, but I reject the assertion "A god exists" due to a lack of evidence, as I would any incredible & significant assertion which lacked evidence.

 

[Castiel]

Almost, I simply reject the assertion that a god exists on the grounds of no evidence.

I don't hold any beliefs either way regarding the existence of non-existence of a god/gods, as either would require evidence which doesn't exist. I only fit the definition of atheist by some definitions of the word - in that a lack of belief can fit the criteria.

As you mentioned earlier, the terminology is so widely debated the terms used doesn't really matter - I'm open to evidence & don't hold any beliefs either way, but I reject the assertion "A god exists" due to a lack of evidence, as I would any incredible & significant assertion which lacked evidence.

Would you equally reject the claim "God does not exist"?

 

[elmarko]

Would you equally reject the claim "God does not exist"?

Of course, as that would also require evidence which doesn't exist.

But it is worth noting that all negative existence claims (of this nature) are meaningless (as to know that you would need to know everything in the universe) - it's a impossibility. What should be taken with a pinch of salt is that this line of reasoning can be used for anything. My lack of belief in the modern Christian god is identical to that of any of the gods of old or in history, the fact one is more popular today doesn't give it any more feasibility (comparatively that is).

The only negative existence claims we can prove are ones of a physical nature within our ability to measure, as most god/gods are proposed to reside in a realm outside of our physical understanding the chance of proving otherwise is zero.