However, atheism is not a belief system. You may have the two confused. You can be atheist yet believe humans sprung out of flowers 60 million years ago. Atheism says nothing about what a person DOES believe. You're being atheist too when you reject thousands of gods. I bet you don't even think about it. Just because you don't believe in Ra or Dionysis, you know that would say nothing about what you DO believe. In short, atheism is a lack of belief, and that's it.I never said on this thread that atheism is a belief system [I never even used the word atheism], but instead that non-theistic belief systems also require lots of faith. I will say though that every person that I have encountered that claims a "a lack of belief" in a god has always also had some sort of nontheistic belief system. Anyway this thread is not intended to be directly about atheism, but instead about non-theistic belief systems. | |
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
59
NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)
by hooberus ini once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
-
-
hooberus
-
59
NON-THEISTIC belief systems REQUIRE LOTS of FAITH (e.g. people from FISH)
by hooberus ini once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
-
-
hooberus
I once saw Dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system". Indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:
- That life came from non-life.
- That people came from FISH (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
- That unintelligent natural processes are sufficient to explain of all the incredible complexity and design around us [this can thus be called the "unintelligent design" movement
* Even those who claim to have "a lack of faith in God" always also have some sort of a belief system and (to be logically consistent) they believe the above points.
-
22
Science v Creationism
by Mr Ben inscience v creationism.
i keep popping back here every now and then to see whats going on, and i have noticed that the same questions about science and creationism are continually posted and answered now, as they were when i first came here.
for example, the statement that the sun and not the earth is the centre of the solar system is a scientific statement (the heliocentric theory) that is considered valid because it explains a large body of evidence (facts from the real world).
-
-
hooberus
from: http://saintpaulscience.com/about.htm
The Biotic Message is a science book on the creation-evolution controversy. It quotes frequently, if not exhaustively, and only from the author's opponents — the evolutionists. It focuses keenly on all the literature of the anti-creationists, to address the issues they raise. The book engages evolutionists on their terms, on their issues, using their testimony, and their ground rules — including the central role of testability within Science.
The book focuses on the biological issues. It is not about age, geology, cosmology, floods, or catastrophes. It contains no theology or religious discussion. People on various sides of those issues can comfortably embrace this book.
The book is lengthy and densely packed. It is not lite reading, it is for the serious student of the origins controversy. Though perhaps best described as a freshman-level college text, it has been enjoyed by highschool students and is suitable for public schools. A strong background in science is not necessary, as the book is tutorial in its approach.
- Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:
- The carnival shell game maneuvering behind natural selection and the anthropic principle.
- The inability of evolutionary geneticists to make their models consistent with their claims and the data.
- The flexibility and untestability of evolutionary theory, it has no coherent structure. Many evolutionists are quoted to demonstrate the contradictions within evolutionary theory.
- The philosophical double-standards held by evolutionists, one standard for creation, and a lesser one for evolution.
- The misuse of terminology and classification methods to create evolutionary illusions.
- The fossil record systematically refutes the predictions of Darwinism. This is documented by quoting evolutionists themselves.
- Punctuationists (such as Stephen Gould) responded to their setbacks by constructing a theory that is compatible with a complete absence of evidence for evolution. Few students know that punctuated equilibria theory is specially constructed to destroy the appearance of lineages and identifiable ancestors.
- Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
- Life was designed to resist all other explanations.
The analysis of evolutionary theory receives praise from creationists and evolutionists alike.
The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument — the nested pattern of life. The full range of biological issues are discussed, from vestigial organs, to embryology, to biomolecules, to biogeography, and more.
The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:
In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life — with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.
more: http://saintpaulscience.com/about.htm
see also the other publications available from the Creation Research Society
-
22
Science v Creationism
by Mr Ben inscience v creationism.
i keep popping back here every now and then to see whats going on, and i have noticed that the same questions about science and creationism are continually posted and answered now, as they were when i first came here.
for example, the statement that the sun and not the earth is the centre of the solar system is a scientific statement (the heliocentric theory) that is considered valid because it explains a large body of evidence (facts from the real world).
-
-
hooberus
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
Preface
The preface gives background about the book and its author.
1. Evolution vs. the Biotic Message
- Introduces the issues and major themes of the book
- Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
- Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
- Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues.
- Introduces a new creationist theory — Message Theory — to replace evolution.
- Introduces the argument from imperfection — Stephen Gould's "Panda Principle" — and gives the first of several key reasons to overturn it. Unordinary designs (so called "imperfect" designs) are the expected result of a designer who is sending a message. They also form a unique style, which, like handwriting, allows us to identify that life had only one author.
2. Naturalism vs. Science
- Covers issues in the philosophy of science.
- Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
- Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not. This role reversal is noteworthy since it engages the debate on the evolutionists' terms using their own criterion of science. It is also a departure from previous creationist positions.
- Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
- Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
- Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
- Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
- Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science. The key is that science must remain self-consistent, it cannot be allowed to contradict itself, and this sometimes forces us to accept some element of the supernatural. Gödel's Theorem (from the logic of mathematics) is discussed as a precedent setting example. This is a contribution to the wider philosophy of science as well as the origins debate.
- Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion. It reveals an illusion involving a three-shell game ruse, much like is later revealed for natural selection.
more: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
(available from http://www.creationresearch.org)
- Introduces the issues and major themes of the book
-
125
?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms
by Guest with Questions inand please dont give me links to read.
i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.
many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?
-
-
hooberus
Here is one of the best sources that I have found for understanding evolution [not always simple though]:
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
Though not everything in the book is agreeable to biblical creationists (such as myself) there are numerous important items that are discussed. It can also be purchased from the Creation Research Society http://www.creationresearch.org
-
Video interview with creation scientist Dr. Robert Carter
by hooberus in.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5000/.
.
-
-
47
Intelligent Design Clobbered Again
by AlanF injehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.
several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.
the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.
-
-
hooberus
Atheist Dawkins attacks ID theorist Behe, but comes short (weekend feedback):
Antitheists argue against any challenge to their materialism, but use many fallacies to do so. Richard Dawkins is a prime example in his recent tirade against Michael Behe. More … -
47
Intelligent Design Clobbered Again
by AlanF injehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.
several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.
the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.
-
-
hooberus
Hooberus,
Many of us have asked this question of you on numerous occasions, without an answer as of this moment.
Why did God create a Universe where everything feeds on everything else to survive?
From the smallest microbe, to the largest of mammals everything traps and feeds its prey to survive. Think of a virus or parasite, as it struggles to survive in its chosen host, the fly. Think of a spider sucking the life from its paralysed prey, the fly. Think of the sparrow which picks at the spider and eats it alive. Think of the cat that stalks and captures the sparrow. I think you get my drift.
I guess I thought that if any one sincerely desired an answer (from a biblical creationist perspective) on matters such as these [e.g. death, suffering, parasites, viruses, cancer, germs, fangs, claws, etc.], then they could: 1). simply consult any one of several introductory creationist books: (such as listed here: http://www.trueorigin.org/books.asp or here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4884/113 ) or 2).use thesearch function on any major scientific creationist website.
Given the fact that many of the evolutionists here constantly lecture others about speaking about things before study one would think that they themselves would be a little more well versed on all the origins subjects that they speak of.
Why did God create this self-perpetuating and brutal horror? How does the 'creation' make the 'fool' conclude that God is Love?
Do you have a scripture says that the present 'creation' is to "make the 'fool' conclude that God is Love"?
Furthermore, how can atheists even claim that there is necessarily anything evil or wrong about such things, given that their own belief system doesn't provide an objective means of determining evil, or wrong [that is if such items even truely exists under such a system to begin with]:
It’s often useful to ask a questioner to justify the validity of his question under his own belief system. For an atheist to complain that the Christian God is ‘evil,’ he must provide a standard of good and evil by which to judge Him. But if we are simply evolved pond scum, as a consistent atheist must believe, where can we find an objective standard of right and wrong?
Our ideas of right and wrong, under this system, are merely outcomes of some chemical processes that occur in the brain, which happened to confer survival advantage on our alleged ape-like ancestors. But the notions in Hitler’s brain obeyed the same chemical laws as those in Mother Teresa’s, so on what grounds are the latter’s actions ‘better’ than the former’s? Also, why should the terrorist attack slaying thousands of people in New York be more terrible than a frog killing thousands of flies? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3774
-
47
Intelligent Design Clobbered Again
by AlanF injehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.
several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.
the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.
-
-
hooberus
Persons who advocate that their brains are ultimately the result of random mutations filtered inefficiently by a gross, non-intelligently guided, purposeless, short term reproductive success only process, [which can be reasonably termed "unintelligent design"] and which is likely incapable of even preserving existing genetic information [due to deleterious effects which can easily overwhelm any hypothetical gain] should perhaps be cautious about calling others "ID-ots" etc.
Furthermore, while it is true that not all intelligent design theorists are also young earth creationists [e.g. Behe], the fact remains that all creationists (obviously) are believers in intelligent design [hense the recommendation of many ID resources by young earth creation science groups such as ICR and the Creation Reseach Society http://www.creationresearch.org]. Therefore, the recommendation or use of some ID scientist resources or certain specific arguments by persons (such as myself) certainly does not mean that a recent creationist position is no longer also advocated.
-
27
"The Red Corvette" problem -- a disconnect in view points
by AlmostAtheist inin another thread, a poster brought up what he called "the red corvette" problem.
the problem, he said, is that if you are a true atheist, you must believe that a red corvette could simply form out of nothing.
if you believe life originated from nothing, then you must believe that a less-complicated machine such as a sports car could also have originated from nothing.
-
-
hooberus
Every chance change to the "children" of the replicator would confer greater or lesser survivability on those children. The ones that "survived" (again, we're not talking life, so these are conceptual terms) would have been able to replicate more, and so pass on those traits to their children.
But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes either confer no survivability change* or a lesser survivability? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the very,very rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and degeneration to extinction of this primitive life.Edited to: But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes confer either no informational level change* or else a reduction in the genomic information level ? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and ultimate degeneration of life.
for how even "beneficial" mutations can cause a reduction in information content see: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp *According to Cornell professor Sanford even most "neutral" changes even today are not really truely neutral but actually slightly informationally deleterious. "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" available from http://www.creationresearch.org
Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as: