Atheists are forever saying - and it’s true - that any accepted hypothesis is stronger for having been vigorously challenged.
It makes atheists practically giddy when contemplating how what’s true today might be found false tomorrow. Questioning is highly valued in atheist world - unless.
Don’t touch evolution. Don’t ask. Don’t question. Don’t poke and prod. Apparently asking questions about evolution is only allowed if you’re already a believer in the conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Ask all the questions you want. Most of them have already been answered.
It's annoying when you jump from abiogenesis to evolution to cosmology. It's like debating a schizoid.
Evolution is so well understood that the debate that goes on regarding evolution is the nuance of it, much like our understanding of the Earth's path around the sun was debated until Kepler's laws nailed most of it down. Darwin is like Copernicus, having observed the phenomenon, but having only a rudimentary understanding of it.
Don’t touch [gravitational theory]. Don’t ask. Don’t question. Don’t poke and prod. Apparently asking questions about [gravity] is only allowed if you’re already a believer in the conclusion.
I've never heard atheists voice annoyance regarding questions about gravitation.
Hi Mak. I came across this on the blogisphere today and I just thought you'd find it intereting.
"Actually, the biggest problem that the New Atheists face is their fundamental dishonesty. They frequently dissemble, exaggerate, and lie. They also practice the fundamental bait-and-switch of selling a specific secular philosophy under the guise of science. They are deeply and profoundly ignorant of history, economics, politics, and theology; worst of all, when they are called out and shown to be ignorant, they do not bother to take their errors into account or alter their conclusions in the slightest.
This is what makes them irreligious fundamentalists. Indeed, the average New Atheist is demonstrably more blindly fundamentalist than the average Christian or Islamic fundamentalist. There is literally no information that is capable of changing their position because it is based on raw emotion, not reason, logic, or science. Because they cannot admit error, every dialogue with a New Atheist will inevitably turn into an intellectual fox chase, with the New Atheist frantically attempting to redefine basic dictionary terms, claiming that he didn't mean what he previously wrote, moving the goal posts every time his previous position is shown to be incorrect, and attempting to change the subject whenever logical or factual errors in some aspect of his individual belief system are pointed out. The very concept of a New Atheist "intellectual" is a contradiction in terms, because New Atheists are uniformly close-minded ideologues. And by uniformly, I mean without exception. I have yet to encounter one; reasonable atheists don't subscribe to the Dawkinsian myths. We have seen this again and again on this blog, and no doubt we will continue to see it until they fade from the scene as all of their predecessors have before them."
Link to the full article.
Fundamentalist Atheism? They should square off against Christian Scientists.
If you want dishonesty, try fact-checking Mak's posts.
JD: I don't mean to insult the people posting here, but - well - I couldn't say that doesn't apply to every single atheist that's passed through. What do you think guys? Are you up for some honestt self-assesment
Ginx: I just read your comment about dishonesty on my blog.
I'm a lot of things Ginx. Many of them less than admirable.
I'm careless.
I have a very low good enough threshold.
I'm even stupid and insensitive as in the case with the guy from Japan. That was just flat out wrong.
But one thing I have never done is deliberately set out to deceive or present dishonest information - except in the rare satire that only I seem to think is funny.
Dishonest is simply the wrong word.
Dishonesty is merely a lack of honesty. I don't think you're deliberately deceptive (Dick Cheney), I think you're just willfully ignorant (George W).
An honest person also puts quotes around information copied directly from source material. Anything else is a paraphrase or rubbish. However, I think the best way is to just say it in your own words, which will inevitably paraphrase others. We won't call you out for expressing someone else's ideas, just for attributing ideas to someone who didn't say them. Besides, you cannot convince an atheist of something just because someone else said it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: religious people do that, not atheists. Atheists don't fall for star-studded advertising ploys.
Wow, Einstain said "God does not play dice?" Well, if the smartest guy ever believed in God, I must follow Jesus! Except Einstein was a Jewish mystic, and envisioned a pantheistic presence, a la Spinoza.
I don't know much about Dawkins, but I remember seeing him on some show (like Politically Incorrect or something) and he said he was going to keep a tape recorder (dated technology) running by his bedside when he was near death, just to make sure no one attributed a deathbed conversion to him - as people claim Darwin renounced evolution, which is ludicrous.
Ginx said -->"I think you're just willfully ignorant (George W)."
Yeah well said i kinda agree Ginx thats the biggest problem that makes it often harder when discussing matters with many folks of faith.Their attitude of often being quite ready to be willfully ignorant and even try and use trickery to manipulate and confuse matters as much as possible if need be.Its like god must really dont mind it if people want to play mind games,as long as its for a good cause its ok.
JD maybe your guru friend vox is really a prime example of a reasonably well educated fraudster
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/if_
you_hand_me_some_stupid_yes_in_fact_i.php#more
My opinion of Vox almost straight away picked up i thought yes he was quite smart,yes quite stategic etc,but obviously being more of showman rather than actually being so very honest or even so extra very knowlegable.
Yes JD ... Vox is so cunning maybe we could nearly pin a lil tail on him and call him a sweet lil fox..but that wont do much to help out when too much bulls**t has been used and it ends up choking up things, will it.
Yes being smart is one thing,but being both smart and totally honest is quite another thing altogether isnt it JD.And if you are really not so smart,its always best to atleast try to be honest.
I found reading Vox speach you posted here almost a little ironical .Much of what he`s saying he could maybe be more likely really be just all about discribing much of the attitude of himself.
Mak you know what i think many folks dont enjoy so much about questions about evolution.Its frustrating for some folks to realize many folk are still so ignorant of what much of evolution is actually all about..That they still expect shit like evolution is really ever been suggesting way out things like crocaducks should be expected likely.
That stuff comes from propaganda of people who dont even understand evolution properly.
I guess often when evolution is questioned and discussed it all to often just soon becomes so obvious some folks have not really been so interested in really honestly finding out so many more realistic truths of whats actually been said and seen etc.
Some of these subjects like evolution are already hard enough to even explain to somebody who really actually wishes to learn about them.But very much more harder to try to explain to somebody who mostly really already has a religious faith bias and doesnt like the idea of evolution,the bias ALWAYS seeming to only be to willing to do everthing it can do to try to put a negative spin on matters.
Its not easy to always "simply feel" its any positive discussion actually happening.
Its not easy to always "simply feel" its any positive discussion actually happening."
Good Grief! You're telling ME that!
Post a Comment