Starscream,
The funny thing is you forgot to make your point.
Ok, let me spell it out for you:
You said you understood evolution, and then in the next sentence you said evolution teaches that life just popped out of the mud. If you really understood evolution you would not have made the second statement. The point is that you don't know what you are talking about. You are confusing the theory of evolution with abiogenesis. Also, it is interesting that the bible teaches life popped out of the mud, not science.
What bugs me about atheists is that they think their naturalistic beliefs are more rational than general beliefs in creation. I'm not going to argue about it right now.
Naturalistic beliefs are, by definition, rational. Beliefs that lack evidence are, by definition, irrational. Not everything has to be rational, though. My distaste for eggs isn't rational, but it's there. Your faith, though not rational, can be a very beautiful thing. It's just not for me.
You just made up a conspiracy theory. You are accusing me of perpetuating one when I did not and wasn't even thinking that. Given your paranoia on the subject... perhaps there is something there I should look into.
No, you insinuated some conspiracy of scientists holding back the supposed evidence for creation and hiding evidence against evolution, though you have not provided any evidence of this claim. It is common knowledge that there have been hoaxes in the past. Scientists were the ones that found them out and exposed them. You probably don't realize how controversial such hoaxes were before they were exposed. Science is self correcting. This is more than I can say for creationists who still publish the Paluxey Dinosaur Tracks as evidence of creation.
Like I said before, if you have something to back up your statement, then back it up. Unsubstantiated claims will not be glossed over.
When I was a student in public school I was never taught why evolution or abiogenesis were true.
Well, one of two things happened.
1) You went to a crappy school (or just had crappy science teachers) - no one should be teaching abiogenesis as 'true'. It is barely even a theory.
2) You weren't paying attention.
Taking into consideration the state of our public schools these days, option 1 is quite probable. One thing to remember is that science teachers are not scientists. Science you learn in Highschool is often quite different and oversimplified when compared to what scientists are really publishing.
It's kinda like epidemiological studies that research scientists do. They may find some interesting results or correlations that don't really mean much, but the press announces the findings as if they are fact: "Study shows baby carrots cause colon cancer!". It's a problem with how the information gets filtered down in our society.
Now evolution, on the other hand, is a fact (and a theory - the same as light and gravity). But like I said before, it seems you are confusing it with abiogenesis. Evolution is a completely different theory and is not inherently atheistic. Evolution works with or without a god. If you believe in god, why is it so hard to imagine god using evolution to guide his creation?
Yes there are problems with evolutionary theory, just as there are problems with every theory. We don't just throw out relativity because it doesn't work in every single instance. We modify it and use if for things it's good for because it's useful. The same is true with evolution. It's an extremely useful theory. It has aided in the curing of diseases and helps us understand the environment and conservation/breeding. It helps us understand genetics. Creation, as a theory, is not useful at all. It has not helped us learn anything useful about our universe. Useless theories are more likely to be incorrect.
If you want to be my friend quit acting like you are smarter, more logical or rational than I am. I respect humility and I only make friends with people I respect.
Fair enough. Most of the way I act on message boards is to get a reaction and to make things interesting. I do respect humility as well. That includes knowing our limitations. You probably are smarter or more intelligent than me... I'm just average. But intellect is not the same thing as being rational. It's a way of thinking... requiring evidence for belief. I can see your intellect, but you are not as rational as you think you are. That's all I'm trying to get you to realize.
You admit yourself though that there have been deceptions which perhaps effected peoples faith in evolution.
I admit that there have been hoaxes in the past, but these were always clouded in controversy anyway. I know of no modern specemins that would be considered hoaxes. The thing about science is that when something is found out to be a hoax, it is no longer used as evidence.
If your assertion is correct then Austin Cline's foggiest doesn't meet your requirements either. I thought you pulled the gnostic atheist term out of your butt. You should know that "gnostic atheist" is a more obscure term than "strong atheist." You are wrong to say that I was not an atheist on the basis that I was also a strong atheist.
You said: "I did not believe that any god existed and actively thought there was evidence that refuted the assertion that the universe or anything in it was created by a supernatural force."
Which goes beyond even strong atheism, according to Cline's definition. With Austin Cline's definition, every atheist (actually even every theist) is a strong atheist. This is why:
"...also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods."
I certainly deny the existence of the traditional Christian god, as well as Zeus (I'm sure Christians deny the existence of the Hindu gods). That doesn't mean that there isn't some other supernatural force called "god" out there. Hence, I'm an agnostic atheist. The definition above is inadequate.
A 'gnostic athiest' (yes I did pull this out of my butt, but it makes more sense than Cline's definition of 'strong atheist') is someone who is not an agnostic atheist. A gnostic atheist 'knows' that there is no god out there. A gnostic atheist denys the possibility of any god. This does not describe me or any atheist I know, though I know that some may exist. This is irrational atheism
You claim to be an atheist. All I did was agree with that and say I was like you, an atheist. You seemed to be saying that I was always irrational and never an atheist or a real rational atheist.
That is exactly what I am claiming. You described yourself as a gnostic atheist and that is an irrational position. Some good books on atheism and what it really is are:
What is Atheism? by Douglas E. Krueger
Atheism, the Case Against God by George H. Smith
Your sense of logic seems to exclude philosphy. A fully developed sense of logic includes philosophy.
I don't see how my sense of logic excludes philosophy. I believe there are many extremely logical philosophers. Hume comes to mind. Also Bertrand Russell.
Then by your own words you are irrational if you try to deny the Christian God because you would be demonstrating gnostic atheism.
I could have been more clear. Let's break it down:
Atheism and theism deal with beliefs about god(s)
Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge about god(s)
You can still be an agnostic atheist and deny the Christian god because it is a logically inconsistent being. Logically inconsistent beings cannot exist. I don't have to be agnostic about square circles. On the other hand I am agnostic about the concept of god in general. There could be one or many gods out there, who knows. But I know it can't be the Christian god - a god alleged to be omnicient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent is logically impossible.
I suppose if you want to get technical, you could say I'm a gnostic athiest when it comes to the Christian god, and an agnostic athiest when it comes to the concept of god in general, but why bother?
Mehr elitar Atheist Kuhmist. You compared the belief in Unicorns to belief in God. You have changed your analogy. You now say God is a Unicorn. This is a completely different assertion than someone saying a creator to the universe (God) exists. You are accepting the existence of God and saying that the creator is a unicorn. You are creating a religion around a certain creator instead of rationalizing (away?) the existence of a creator. You are comparing the logic of your religion to the logic of theism. They do not compare.
No, the Unicorn is not god. It just created the universe. God created the Unicorn.
I can be your friend if you stop trying to elevate yourself.
Ditto,
rem
