The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by jaywill
I not only know that there are theist biologists (duh!). There are theists evolutionists too.

I know this, I was raised in the liberal branch of the Presbyterian denomination.

You don't think I know that there are some Christians with Darwinism in their vest jacket? Come on !


My original post in this conversation was that Evolution was a nu ...[text shortened]... IS trying hard to make that connection.

twhitehead's halo of innocence not withstanding.

You don't think I know that there are some Christians with Darwinism in their vest jacket? Come on !

I take nothing for granted on this forum anymore. Especially when it concerns those from 'across the pond' so to speak.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even if you are correct that Dawkins uses evolution to argue for atheism, it in no way makes them equivalent. I have heard theists argue that the existence of the universe 'prooves' the existence of God. But it is stupid to claim that 'the universe' is equivalent to 'theism'.

Even if you are correct that Dawkins uses evolution to argue for atheism, it in no way makes them equivalent. I have heard theists argue that the existence of the universe 'prooves' the existence of God. But it is stupid to claim that 'the universe' is equivalent to 'theism'.

Where's the lie ?

There are atheists who make Evolution for all intents and purposes = to Atheism.

Dawkins, per the review of his book. Not MY review mind you.

Now, where is the lie ? That its a bad book or you don't like it is beside the point.
That he made some other good points in some other book is not the point either.

So instead of me saying I lied when I didn't you should admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth.

Then we can go on.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]You don't think I know that there are some Christians with Darwinism in their vest jacket? Come on !

I take nothing for granted on this forum anymore. Especially when it concerns those from 'across the pond' so to speak.[/b]

The "pond" is irrelevant. Say something relevant. We know you're proud of your country.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you honestly believe that everyone, or even most people promoting evolution is an atheist?

Do you honestly believe that all biologists studying evolution (and in so doing promoting it) are doing so in order to promote atheism?

If your answer is yes to the above as implied by your post:
[quote]" I consider [b]EVOLUTION to be an attempt by o some theist biologists. But I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are still lying.

Then you seriously need a wake up call and need to actually talk to some theist biologists. But I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are still lying.

[/b]

All I did was take your generalized blanket statement and show you it was just as easy to make the opposite generalization.

I consider ID to be an attempt by theists to try and discredit evolution


Now take that sentence you wrote and substitute these words and you get a realistic picture of the matter.

" I consider EVOLUTION to be an attempt by ATHEISTS to try and discredit THEISM ."

Enter best selling author Dr. Richard Dawkins.

And if you hedge on that one , then I'll call you the liar .

If you imply that the former is the case but the latter is not, then that is not true.

And the tone of some of the aggressive New Atheists is that the two are mutually exclusive. If you embrace the so-called proven scientific fact of Evolution you HAVE to be an Atheist.

Otherwise, you belong in the Dark Ages. New Atheism's push - A Modern Man Scientifically informed HAS to be an Atheist.

Don't waste your breath on me trying to say no one argues that way.


A good website on Atheism and Evolution - http://bevets.com/evolution.htm

" Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Originally posted by jaywill
For the record, When I put up the evaluation of [b]The Blind Watchmaker I proved that I was not lying in stating that some have made Evolution virtually equivalent to Atheism.[/b]

Actually, you proved that you were lying. You showed that you did not have an actual explanation for your claim so you started trying to find something that you could shoe horn in.

I think you conceded.
I conceded that I might have misunderstood your comment about ID being equivalent to Theism.

I might even have been willing to concede that your poor understanding of basic logic could have lead to your initial error, but the way you tried to wriggle out of it, suggests you knew you were in error but do not want to admit it.

Originally posted by jaywill
The "pond" is irrelevant. Say something relevant. We know you're proud of your country.

Who is 'we'? And how do you all know i'm proud of my country?! (Whatever that may mean)

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Who is 'we'? And how do you all know i'm proud of my country?! (Whatever that may mean)

We, Americans, I believe he is referring to. I don't know why anyone would
be proud of your country. You have a few citizens you could be proud of
like Winston Churchill and some to be ashamed of like Richard Dawkins.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We, Americans, I believe he is referring to. I don't know why anyone would
be proud of your country. You have a few citizens you could be proud of
like Winston Churchill and some to be ashamed of like Richard Dawkins.

😞

Originally posted by RJHinds
We, Americans, I believe he is referring to. I don't know why anyone would
be proud of your country. You have a few citizens you could be proud of
like Winston Churchill and some to be ashamed of like Richard Dawkins.

Given the context it seems unlikely that he was referring to Americans when he said 'we'. And how much do you actually know about Britain to justify your disdain? Very, very little, I'd hazard.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the context it seems unlikely that he was referring to Americans when he said 'we'. And how much do you actually know about Britain to justify your disdain? Very, very little, I'd hazard.

He is getting three, count 'em, three pension checks, so that makes him an authority of all things, with his vast worldly experience.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the context it seems unlikely that he was referring to Americans when he said 'we'. And how much do you actually know about Britain to justify your disdain? Very, very little, I'd hazard.

I learned about those "Red Coats" of Britain in American History class.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I learned about those "Red Coats" of Britain in American History class.

And you think that constitutes a comprehensive knowledge of Britain? Again, you don't surprise me.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
And you think that constitutes a comprehensive knowledge of Britain? Again, you don't surprise me.

Dog gone it !!!

Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheism/Agnosticism is simply the lack of belief in ANY religion/deity.

Calling atheism the rejection of Christianity is like calling veganism
a rejection of eating pork.

If what you mean by evolution is atheism then you are wrong and you don't
understand what the terms mean.

Words have meanings that are established and can be looked up.
If y ...[text shortened]... ieve that.
And not all people who believe in evolution are atheists, or non Christian theists.

Even Dawkins the atheist and Evolution scientist par excellence says 'there is almost certainly no God'. He does not outrightly reject God.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Even Dawkins the atheist and Evolution scientist par excellence says 'there is almost certainly no God'. He does not outrightly reject God.

For those having trouble finding my original post that rvsakhadeo is quoting,
its on page one of this thread...


Dawkins says there is almost certainly no God as while there is no evidence for god
there is no current (and possibly no way period) way of ruling out the existence
of god.

It gets into proof of absence vs absence of proof territory.

While many atheists may be happy with the declarative statement "there is no god"
in the colloquial, in strict terms you get something like, "there is almost certainly no
god".

Which takes into account the fact it is almost impossible to prove the non-existence
of god.

However for atheists the point is usually that there is no reason to believe in and
worship a god that almost certainly doesn't exist, any more than there is a reason to
believe there is a china teapot orbiting Neptune, or that there is a jolly fat man who
has a flying sled pulled by reindeer who delivers presents to all the good little children
that believe in him one winter night every year.

We want evidence for the existence for something before believing it, which I don't
think is too much to ask.

What puzzles me is having reread my OP, I can't see anything that contradicts what
I just said, and would result in your post.

I am copying in the original text below, for easy reference. But I am curious as to what
your point was?

In the meantime I would make one correction to your post.
Dawkins does not claim to know god doesn't exist as he can't prove it.
This does not me he doesn't outright 'reject' god.
I wont try to put words in his mouth but I would be surprised if he wouldn't reject the god
you believe in. (or any other for that matter.)

"
Originally posted by jaywill

SNIP

Caveat: Of course ATHEISM is a total rejection of all of the Bible's revelation including the Gospel of Christ. If what one means by Evolution is Atheism, then yes, there is NO compatibility at all.


Atheism/Agnosticism is simply the lack of belief in ANY religion/deity.

Calling atheism the rejection of Christianity is like calling veganism
a rejection of eating pork.

If what you mean by evolution is atheism then you are wrong and you don't
understand what the terms mean.

Words have meanings that are established and can be looked up.
If you chose to arbitrarily change the meaning of those words they loose all
value.

A parable about building a house on shifting sands comes to mind.

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains the diversity
of life on earth. It says nothing about the existence or otherwise of god.

Atheism/agnosticism is a lack of religious belief. It is not a religion in of itself,
those who wear those labels have no prerequisite common ground other than
a lack of belief in god or gods. (and often the supernatural in general)

While atheists will typically believe that scientific enquiry and reason are the best
way of exploring and understanding the world and understand that evolution is
true, not all atheists will believe that.
And not all people who believe in evolution are atheists, or non Christian theists."[/i]