Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The atheist double standard

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:11:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

You are adding bias right from the start by calling it "atheists evolution" that is my point. Same is true of "christian science". Science is science. It is agnostic.

It should be said that organizations like answers in genesis simply admit they are starting from a biased place.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:30:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

Darwin started as a Christian. He actually trained to be a clergyman.

When he went out on the Beagle his initial purpose was to look for centres of creation. The evidence sent him off in an entirely different direction ...
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 3:40:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:30:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

Darwin started as a Christian. He actually trained to be a clergyman.

When he went out on the Beagle his initial purpose was to look for centres of creation. The evidence sent him off in an entirely different direction ...

Darwin didn't attend Cambridge due to his religious beliefs. The clergy of that time and place was more of a social status thing and darwin was looking for a career path. Darwin was never a religious person.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 4:07:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.


I hope you are not referring to the other thread where you posted the link to the paper about "information". I read through the paper and gave a cogent critique, to which you never responded. In fact I spent the better part of an hour reading through that paper. That you didn't bother replying to my critique, but instead start this thread accusing atheists of dismissing sources out of hand, seems disingenuous.

Also, you continue to call evolution an atheist theory. It is not. Many religious people, including many Christians, accept that evolution happened. So please stop calling it an atheist theory.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Absolutely. All people are biased, including scientists. You should take anything anyone tells you with a grain of salt. Believe nothing without good evidence.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 6:15:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 3:40:11 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:30:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

Darwin started as a Christian. He actually trained to be a clergyman.

When he went out on the Beagle his initial purpose was to look for centres of creation. The evidence sent him off in an entirely different direction ...

Darwin didn't attend Cambridge due to his religious beliefs. The clergy of that time and place was more of a social status thing and darwin was looking for a career path. Darwin was never a religious person.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible. ..."

No true Scotsman fallacy?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 6:22:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

The former "buy into" their beliefs through a little thing called objective evidence. The latter buy into their beliefs on literally nothing at all, blind faith. Instead they are indoctrinated into their beliefs by authority figures in their non-critical thinking childhood. It's chalk and cheese.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 6:43:50 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 6:15:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:40:11 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:30:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

Darwin started as a Christian. He actually trained to be a clergyman.

When he went out on the Beagle his initial purpose was to look for centres of creation. The evidence sent him off in an entirely different direction ...

Darwin didn't attend Cambridge due to his religious beliefs. The clergy of that time and place was more of a social status thing and darwin was looking for a career path. Darwin was never a religious person.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible. ..."

No true Scotsman fallacy?

That doesn't necessarily make him a religious person and the clergy was indeed a social status, however I am not 100% correct in my statement. My apologies and appreciation for the correction.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:54:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 6:43:50 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 6:15:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:40:11 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:30:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

Darwin started as a Christian. He actually trained to be a clergyman.

When he went out on the Beagle his initial purpose was to look for centres of creation. The evidence sent him off in an entirely different direction ...

Darwin didn't attend Cambridge due to his religious beliefs. The clergy of that time and place was more of a social status thing and darwin was looking for a career path. Darwin was never a religious person.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

"from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care 'Pearson on the Creed' and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible. ..."

No true Scotsman fallacy?

That doesn't necessarily make him a religious person and the clergy was indeed a social status, however I am not 100% correct in my statement. My apologies and appreciation for the correction.

No problem. It's good to encounter a theist who can admit error. You're a rare breed unfortunately.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 3:08:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

I have never seen that happen, can you provide any examples?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists.

You are wrong.

So wouldn't they also be biased?

Biased for what?

Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt?

You are free to take the time to understand evolution if you want, no one is going to tell you anything you yourself can't validate.

Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

You need to have your head examined.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 3:10:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?

LOL. You can't even get your facts straight.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 7:43:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 6:22:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

The former "buy into" their beliefs through a little thing called objective evidence. The latter buy into their beliefs on literally nothing at all, blind faith. Instead they are indoctrinated into their beliefs by authority figures in their non-critical thinking childhood. It's chalk and cheese.

Indoctrinated? Seriously? What is it they teach in public schools? Evolution, I believe. Talk about indoctrination. Fortunately, some are able to pierce the veil, and see it for the lie that it is.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:23:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 7:43:41 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 6:22:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

The former "buy into" their beliefs through a little thing called objective evidence. The latter buy into their beliefs on literally nothing at all, blind faith. Instead they are indoctrinated into their beliefs by authority figures in their non-critical thinking childhood. It's chalk and cheese.


Indoctrinated? Seriously? What is it they teach in public schools? Evolution, I believe. Talk about indoctrination. Fortunately, some are able to pierce the veil, and see it for the lie that it is.

Good lord.

Most days I am willing to let it go, but teaching the overwhelmingly accepted science in science class is not indoctrination. Further, just by the actual definition, evolution can not be described as indoctrination. You are allowed to question evolution till your heart is content.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:29:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.

Science is also intent of disproving religion. Most scientific arguments begin or at some point attack religious views.

To answer your question as to why religion tries to disprove evolution is easy. A person who believes in the supernatural knows full well that they cannot provide the empirical evidence to prove their belief to a materialistic/naturalistic person. The only alternative to proving a theory is to disprove another.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 9:29:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.

Science is also intent of disproving religion. Most scientific arguments begin or at some point attack religious views.

This is simply unavoidable when religion fails to stay in its own magisterium. Science isn't intent on disproving religion. It's intent on understanding the natural world. When religions make claims about the natural world that are wrong, science is going to wind up stepping on their toes. This is what happens when people make guesses, treat them as absolute truth, and then someone comes along with some reliable evidence that doesn't comport with said "truth."

To answer your question as to why religion tries to disprove evolution is easy. A person who believes in the supernatural knows full well that they cannot provide the empirical evidence to prove their belief to a materialistic/naturalistic person. The only alternative to proving a theory is to disprove another.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 9:29:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.

Science is also intent of disproving religion. Most scientific arguments begin or at some point attack religious views.
:
To answer your question as to why religion tries to disprove evolution is easy. A person who believes in the supernatural knows full well that they cannot provide the empirical evidence to prove their belief to a materialistic/naturalistic person. The only alternative to proving a theory is to disprove another.

See... That part I have a problem with. As I have said, there is no intent in science. It is just the tool.

You can understand why the number of scientists are non-religious, you can look to that and draw intent to disprove God, but it is my guess many who say these things don't spend much time with scientists. They don't care to work to eliminate God, and science itself is agnostic.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 10:05:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 9:39:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:29:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.

Science is also intent of disproving religion. Most scientific arguments begin or at some point attack religious views.
:
To answer your question as to why religion tries to disprove evolution is easy. A person who believes in the supernatural knows full well that they cannot provide the empirical evidence to prove their belief to a materialistic/naturalistic person. The only alternative to proving a theory is to disprove another.

See... That part I have a problem with. As I have said, there is no intent in science. It is just the tool.

You can understand why the number of scientists are non-religious, you can look to that and draw intent to disprove God, but it is my guess many who say these things don't spend much time with scientists. They don't care to work to eliminate God, and science itself is agnostic.

The solutions I would draw are not based on scientists being non religious. I dont even know any scientists. Im just noting the negative bias toward religion in most evolution based papers ive read thus far. There is a pattern. Take the article you linked to me in the natural selection thread. Its a typical scientific statement proving a theory. It shows the scientific facts as science sees them. It makes inferences where observable evidence is not available. And it throws a few shots at creationists. This is what I have found to be normal when studying scientific theory.

But its expected IMO, science wants to rebut what creationists say about them.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 10:13:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 10:05:30 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:39:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:29:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.

Science is also intent of disproving religion. Most scientific arguments begin or at some point attack religious views.
:
To answer your question as to why religion tries to disprove evolution is easy. A person who believes in the supernatural knows full well that they cannot provide the empirical evidence to prove their belief to a materialistic/naturalistic person. The only alternative to proving a theory is to disprove another.

See... That part I have a problem with. As I have said, there is no intent in science. It is just the tool.

You can understand why the number of scientists are non-religious, you can look to that and draw intent to disprove God, but it is my guess many who say these things don't spend much time with scientists. They don't care to work to eliminate God, and science itself is agnostic.

The solutions I would draw are not based on scientists being non religious. I dont even know any scientists. Im just noting the negative bias toward religion in most evolution based papers ive read thus far. There is a pattern. Take the article you linked to me in the natural selection thread. Its a typical scientific statement proving a theory. It shows the scientific facts as science sees them. It makes inferences where observable evidence is not available. And it throws a few shots at creationists. This is what I have found to be normal when studying scientific theory.

But its expected IMO, science wants to rebut what creationists say about them.

For what its worth, the link was (good enough) but not an actual scientific paper. When you go to a lab, or read research, there is no mention of creationists. No need to politicize it. In the common world, yea, there is a lot of need to "defend".
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 10:18:39 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 10:13:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 10:05:30 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:39:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:29:26 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 9:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:41:50 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 2:47:37 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

I don't disagree with this, not entirely. The only difference is, science is an open book. There is literally nothing you can't check for yourself if you desire. You can disagree, prove wrong. The supernatural you simply can't do any of this with. By its very nature, it is... shielded from questions of accuracy.

There are many differences between the two to be sure. Im just saying there are two schools of thought and each will be bias to their own school.

Why do you think religion is so intent on disproving evolution? Honestly? Is it just a biblical accuracy issue? God of the gaps problem? If I were a believer, it would seem to me saying God did it this way would make more sense. Its like getting cranky with someone at your wedding who said the baker started from scratch, and you insisting that he started with a Bettey Crocker box damn-it.

Science is also intent of disproving religion. Most scientific arguments begin or at some point attack religious views.
:
To answer your question as to why religion tries to disprove evolution is easy. A person who believes in the supernatural knows full well that they cannot provide the empirical evidence to prove their belief to a materialistic/naturalistic person. The only alternative to proving a theory is to disprove another.

See... That part I have a problem with. As I have said, there is no intent in science. It is just the tool.

You can understand why the number of scientists are non-religious, you can look to that and draw intent to disprove God, but it is my guess many who say these things don't spend much time with scientists. They don't care to work to eliminate God, and science itself is agnostic.

The solutions I would draw are not based on scientists being non religious. I dont even know any scientists. Im just noting the negative bias toward religion in most evolution based papers ive read thus far. There is a pattern. Take the article you linked to me in the natural selection thread. Its a typical scientific statement proving a theory. It shows the scientific facts as science sees them. It makes inferences where observable evidence is not available. And it throws a few shots at creationists. This is what I have found to be normal when studying scientific theory.

But its expected IMO, science wants to rebut what creationists say about them.

For what its worth, the link was (good enough) but not an actual scientific paper. When you go to a lab, or read research, there is no mention of creationists. No need to politicize it. In the common world, yea, there is a lot of need to "defend".

Yeah i was more talking about papers as in articles and public books and lectures and what have you, not meaning scientific reports.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 10:24:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 7:43:41 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 6:22:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/15/2016 3:44:52 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information. Especially if it comes from a Christian. It doesn't matter what their credentials are. They simply dismiss the source, and refuse to debate you about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists. So wouldn't they also be biased? Why should we not take anything they tell us about evolution with a grain of salt? Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?

People will always have bias. I think some can control it better than others. You can tell who these people are the first time you meet them. Naturalistic minded people buy into naturalistic theory's just like supernatural minded people buy into the supernatural.

The former "buy into" their beliefs through a little thing called objective evidence. The latter buy into their beliefs on literally nothing at all, blind faith. Instead they are indoctrinated into their beliefs by authority figures in their non-critical thinking childhood. It's chalk and cheese.


Indoctrinated? Seriously? What is it they teach in public schools? Evolution, I believe.

Yes, it is also taught in private schools, colleges and universities. Many get degrees and go on to be research scientists who try to find cures for diseases. They depend on the understanding of evolution to do their jobs.

Others, who were indoctrinated into a religion will often not be bothered to learn anything about evolution, among many other subjects, but will stand and pretend they do waving their hands and claiming evolution is a lie, but haven't the understanding and capacity to falsify it.

Talk about indoctrination. Fortunately, some are able to pierce the veil, and see it for the lie that it is.

Yes, just like that.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 10:57:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Ever notice how atheists, when presented with evidence that shows the "theory" of evolution to be in error, immediately attack the source of the information.
It depends on the quality of information, LBoH.

Like all scientific product, evolution is constantly under real scientific contention, and frequently amended by new results. (For example, epigenetics.)

That's entirely legitimate, and anyone sufficiently science literate of any faith will acknowledge that. Moreover, evolution is generally accepted by Christian institutions all through the developed world, so there isn't really a mainstream Christianity vs evolution issue.

So the issue isn't legitimate scientific contention, nor mainstream Christianity vs evolution. The major issue is a pseudoscientific contention funded and coordinated by one particular fundamentalist communications group and its allies to promote their outdated and intellectually bankrupt views.

That is problematic in its methods, its ignorance (some willful, some not) and the dishonesty of its motives. It should be criticised, and unfortunately it's also attached to and motivated by a particular Christian creed, which means it hooks into existing long-term contentions between Christians and some groups of atheists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists.
At the time Darwin's conjectures were first published, it was not only true that most scientists were not atheists, it was also true that major scientific institutions were controlled by clergy. So it is not true that evolution has been exempt from theologically-biased scrutiny -- it has suffered more such scrutiny than any other thought in the history of science.

Anyone who claims that they are simply seeking knowledge, without any bias involved, need to have their heads examined IMHO. What do you think?
I think that science seeks to eliminate all sources of detectable error, including sources arising from biases, preconceptions and other subjectivity. It has instituted a complex set of protocols and accountabilities to achieve this, and anyone who upholds science is obliged to uphold those protocols.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 11:04:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists.

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?
Darwin was a Unitarian when he researched and penned The Origin of Species. He eventually became agnostic, but continued to participate in church activities while going for strolls during sermons and prayer.

You should read biographies before you quote other peoples' hearsay, LBoH. If you'd like some links, please poke.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 11:05:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 1:03:29 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:28:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 3/15/2016 12:18:37 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scientists are atheists.

Well, lets start with way you think it is the atheists theory?

Hmm...Let's see here. Could it have something to with the fact that Darwin, you know, the one who developed the theory, was an atheist?
Darwin was a Unitarian when he researched and penned The Origin of Species. He eventually became agnostic, but continued to participate in church and parish activities while going for strolls during sermons and prayer.

You should read biographies before you quote other peoples' hearsay, LBoH. If you'd like some links, please poke.