Why people like Brian are really atheists

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Why people like Brian are really atheists

THE DEATH OF DARWIN'S DAUGHTER AND THE "PROBLEM" OF EVIL

People like Brian are atheists because of an emotional reaction. In Brian's case it was the sad death of his dad while he was only 13.

All atheists become absurd atheists becaus of some emotional reaction. Even Darwin had an emotional reaction. It was over the death of his daughter

The PBS television serier Evolution, episode 1, dramatized a turning point in the spiritual life of Charles Darwin. This was caused by the sickness and death of his beloved daughter Annie. Although the series did not spell it out, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, makes it clear that this tragedy destroyed the truth of Christianity in Darwin's mind. "How could there be a God if He allowed this to happen. Instead, Darwin decided that Annie was an unfortunate victim of the laws of nature, that is, she lost the struggle for existence.

Annie's death raised, for Darwin, serious questions about God's goodness. but the prevailing view of his day (that the earth was old and had long been filled with death and violence - Lyel), provided no adequate answers.

Alas, the prevailing church view was a "long age" (progressive creationism) of the earth, which placed fossils millions of years before Adam. This view entails that death and suffering were around for millions of years before Adam, and yet God called His acts of creation, very good. Such a view of God evidently didn't appeal to Darwin.

However, a consistent Biblical view, that death is an intruder, provides a coherent solution. But this is impossible unless the fossil record was formed after Adam's sin, which rules out billions of years.

So you see, the issue here is where we place the fossils via a presuppositional view point. Where we begin is where we end.

The 1988 World Book Encyclopedia says that "scientists date the rocks by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks. Things like this are common via the "scientific" contradiction of their admitted philosophical ignorance.

So the real reason why atheists are atheists, and believe absurd presuppositions, is because of emotional reactions. Whatever your reaction is, I ask that you look at it more closely in light of reason, in light of truth.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mod hat/Are you trying to

Mod hat/

Are you trying to get a troll tag?  If you want one, the personal attacks will get it for you.

/Mod hat

 

Assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption, assumption and assumption = God is real, atheists are angry at God, even the ones who've never heard of the concept.

Does that about sum it up?

I especially enjoy the part where you admit to basing your opinion on a television 'dramatization' and a biography.  Excellent source material for reinforcing....presuppositions. Sticking out tongue

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
You must really get off on

You must really get off on stalking people. Just like the fictional god you claim exists.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Wow, so much crap to refute,

Wow, so much crap to refute, so little time, I'm leaving work, I'll get back on later tonight to reply to your post Jean. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:So the

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So the real reason why atheists are atheists, and believe absurd presuppositions, is because of emotional reactions.

And the reasons why religions are misogynistic, is because they're run by emotionally insecure men, so STFU, and don't try and walk through any doorways with that plank in your eye...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean,Despite all the claims

Jean,

Despite all the claims of logic and knowledge that you have and haven't used - the real reason behind your theism is fear,  isn't it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The vast bulk of the

The vast bulk of the evidence, from personal testimony on both sides, is that personally distressing events are much more likely to be involved in people going from a position of indifference to religion to one of commitment to it, typically as friends and relatives draw them in to it to comfort them.

Leaving religion is more likely due to people genuinely trying to resolve inconsistencies within the belief system, for those not content to just ignore such things.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:WHY

Jean Chauvin wrote:

WHY PEOPLE LIKE BRIAN ARE REALLY ATHEISTS

You'll never understand, because you're too blind to simply listen.

You are consistent though, Jean Jean.

You'll never let the truth get in the way of a fantasy...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:Jean,Despite

jcgadfly wrote:

Jean,

Despite all the claims of logic and knowledge that you have and haven't used - the real reason behind your theism is fear,  isn't it?

I have fear too. Lets not say that we don't have fear because we know what they claim is absurd.

I do have fear, not of his fictional claims. I have fear that political nutcases can and do and have throughout human history, of all labels, manage to convince others of utopias that don't exist.

I DONT have fear of his claims. I do have fear of any group anywhere in the world that insists on political absolutes where dissent is never allowed.

He scares me, not as an individual, he scares me because evolution can and does produce placebo thinkers who eventually lead to the harm of others. NO MATTER WHAT GOD OR LABEL THEY CLAIM.

He would claim that the reason behind my atheism is fear.

My fear will never be his childish school yard bully of a god claim. My fear will always be that people like him can and do OF ALL LABELS, can and do gain power and have their hands on weapons.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
I could of course say that

I could of course say that my atheism wasn't caused by an emotional matter, since I have never had any proper problems, and I have even been able to see God's hand at sad times (or so I thought). So instead...
I'll use the Scripture against you!

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:3-5)

All the aggression I see in your posts lead me to conclude you're just projecting your own bottled up emotions on us.
 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jean,

Despite all the claims of logic and knowledge that you have and haven't used - the real reason behind your theism is fear,  isn't it?

I have fear too. Lets not say that we don't have fear because we know what they claim is absurd.

I do have fear, not of his fictional claims. I have fear that political nutcases can and do and have throughout human history, of all labels, manage to convince others of utopias that don't exist.

I DONT have fear of his claims. I do have fear of any group anywhere in the world that insists on political absolutes where dissent is never allowed.

He scares me, not as an individual, he scares me because evolution can and does produce placebo thinkers who eventually lead to the harm of others. NO MATTER WHAT GOD OR LABEL THEY CLAIM.

He would claim that the reason behind my atheism is fear.

My fear will never be his childish school yard bully of a god claim. My fear will always be that people like him can and do OF ALL LABELS, can and do gain power and have their hands on weapons.

 

I should have expanded on that. I do not fear his hell. I do not fear death. The fears that likely drove him into the arms of his God hold no terrors for me.

Apologies.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jean,

Despite all the claims of logic and knowledge that you have and haven't used - the real reason behind your theism is fear,  isn't it?

I have fear too. Lets not say that we don't have fear because we know what they claim is absurd.

I do have fear, not of his fictional claims. I have fear that political nutcases can and do and have throughout human history, of all labels, manage to convince others of utopias that don't exist.

I DONT have fear of his claims. I do have fear of any group anywhere in the world that insists on political absolutes where dissent is never allowed.

He scares me, not as an individual, he scares me because evolution can and does produce placebo thinkers who eventually lead to the harm of others. NO MATTER WHAT GOD OR LABEL THEY CLAIM.

He would claim that the reason behind my atheism is fear.

My fear will never be his childish school yard bully of a god claim. My fear will always be that people like him can and do OF ALL LABELS, can and do gain power and have their hands on weapons.

 

I should have expanded on that. I do not fear his hell. I do not fear death. The fears that likely drove him into the arms of his God hold no terrors for me.

Apologies.

This is the thing he does not get. Humans are not a product of magic or the divine. I have, and am as capable of the same fear and emotion and action that Jean is capable of.

The difference is that I don't attribute nature to comic book super heros.

I DO fear him, not as an individual, and certainly not the god he claims to exist. I fear that there is always a possibility of nutcases of ANY RELIGION  getting to the point of affecting me on a personal level.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Somebody quoted Matthe 7. Matthew 7 is regarding hypocritical judgement, not the absense of judgement. John 7:24 tells us to make a righteous judgement, and II Corinthians 13:5 tells us to judge ourselves.

This is the homosexuals favorite verse. That, and he who casts the first stone.

The entire THEORY of evolution is based off an emotional reaction of Darwin's daughter. If he could only bring in a theory (which starts with an assumption, all arguments start with assumptions), to explain his daughter's death, other then Christianity. Darwin was a minister in early life, and is now woken up in hell.

Some emotional reactions are more severe then others. Brian's was severe. Some may simply be vanity. And still others may be because their uglier then Janet Reno (remember her).

Since emotions are antithetical to logic, then obviously the very basis for your atheism is irrational or non-rational. Non-rational by definion is absurd.

Darwin failed, just like Da Vinci at mathematics via a universal, Descartes, Hume and the rest. This is why we now describe things as NEO DARWINISM. In 50 years, perhaps it will be called something else with a twist when that fails. may it will be called ABSURDITY. Smiling

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Darwin's ideas were

 Darwin's ideas were triggered by his study of nature, including his experiences in the Galapagos. He could not reconcile the incredible and seemingly pointless variation across species, even 'sub-species' on adjacent Islands, with a conscious designer.

His daughter's ordeal and death were the final straw for any lingering belief in God, a separate issue from his ideas on evolution.

Evolution did not disprove God, but it did remove one of the main planks of the arguments for God, namely the variety of natural species and how they appeared 'designed' to match their environment.

He showed how such appearance of design could arise quite plausibly by natural processes, and how it better explained why there was such a profusion of species, why we see clearly different creatures occupying quite similar ecological niches in different places, and why there are so many creatures whose only 'purpose' is to parasitize other species, including ourselves.

NEO DARWINISM is built upon Darwinism, refining and adding to the theory, as is typical in Science, just as Physics has built on the work of pioneers like Galileo and Newton. The basic algorithm of "variation+natural selection via differential rates of reproduction", is still there. The mechanics have been vastly elaborated, especially now with our understanding of genetics, which now provides even more support for evolution than the fossil record. Genetics can be traced back to the work of Gregor Mendel, whose work was not published until after Darwin, but it addressed one of the niggling problems Darwin's idea, ie how a single mutation could spread through a population without being diluted, 'averaged out', to insignificance.

So Neo-Darwinism actually refers to the fusion of Darwin's and Mendel's ideas.

Non- fundy/literalist Christians, such as Newton, Bayes, Godel, have added to the sum of our understanding and the tools of analysis which are required, along with the gathering of empirical data, to gain actual insight into the nature of "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (a famous expression from Douglas Adams, another famous atheist). Those people still believed, but realized that the words of the Bible did not, indeed could not, encompass ALL knowledge.

Hope this sorts out your understandable confusion, Jean.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Bob

Hi Bob,

What you said is kind of true and false at the same time. This is something you may not understand since you confuse things and make all sorts of categorical fallacies when it comes to epistemology.

When a person approaches a subject of study, whatever it is, they bring to the table of their study certain presuppositions (Let's call these Pres). These Pres affect how one interprets the evidence before them.

So at the Grand Canyon, a Creationist and an Evolutionist look at the same piece of evidence. Often times do the same kind of study. And yet they come up with totally different conclusions. This is due to Pres.

So yes, Darwin came to his theory via his studies, but his studies of nature were affected by his presuppositions of his daughter's death. Since he reacted against God, he viewed things outside of God which is what caused him to fail.

We all have presuppositions. We have to bring them in check when we do our studies so that we are not caught by them if they are in error. And we are to bring are presuppositions into correction.

Darwin didn't do this. That's why he wrote a fictional novel on Origin of the Species and the Descent of Man.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:All

Jean Chauvin wrote:

All atheists become absurd atheists becaus of some emotional reaction. Even Darwin had an emotional reaction. It was over the death of his daughter

 

Hi Jean,

 

Most humans have emotional reactions when a loved one dies. Those who don't are psychopaths. I don't see what Darwin's emotions have anything to do with his theories. And they certainly have nothing to do with the works of scientists who have studied evolution since. Although, when you have no argument against your opponent, attacking them personally can be a great diversionary tactic. Have you ever considered working in politics?

 

Respectfully, 

Beyond Saving

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:This is

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This is something you may not understand since you confuse things and make all sorts of categorical fallacies when it comes to epistemology.

When a person approaches a subject of study, whatever it is, they bring to the table of their study certain presuppositions  

Case in point.

 

I hope you don't run with scissors, Professor Jean Jean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean,I hope you re-read my

Jean,

I hope you re-read my post, I have added to it . You posted while I was updating it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Bob

Hi Bob,

Yes, I know how and where Darwin studied. Annie was from 1841-1851. Origin of Species was 1859 and descent of man was 1871. So obviously, Darwin's work had negative presuppositions regarding God.

To deny this is to admit that you don't understand all factors involved in the process of argument in relation to presuppositions in all of us.

His daughter died 8 years before his first book. To say Darwin's daughter had 0 impact on his writing against Scripture is academically dishonest.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course our beliefs are

Of course our beliefs are based on our assumptions, our experiences, etc.

His studies caused him to doubt God, as did the death of his children. The early deaths of the two that died in infancy would have no doubt preyed on his mind as being not easily reconcilable with the idea of a benevolent and just God, are an entirely logical reaction, quite apart from the emotion involved.

It is even more plainly arguable that those early doubts freed his mind to actually contemplate an alternative explanation for the"Origin of Species'.

And what caused Alfred Russell Wallace to come up with almost exactly the same idea around the same time? What distressing problem drove him to 'deny God'?

Intellectually honest 'seekers of Truth' are continually prepared to revise, update, and occasionally completely overturn their basic assumptions.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:So

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So obviously, Darwin's work had negative presuppositions regarding God.

 

 

Fundamental Attribution Error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

 

Get your head examined.

Seriously.

Humans are like snowflakes. Very difficult to find 2 alike.

 

Open your eyes for once.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Yes, I know how and where Darwin studied. Annie was from 1841-1851. Origin of Species was 1859 and descent of man was 1871. So obviously, Darwin's work had negative presuppositions regarding God.

To deny this is to admit that you don't understand all factors involved in the process of argument in relation to presuppositions in all of us.

His daughter died 8 years before his first book. To say Darwin's daughter had 0 impact on his writing against Scripture is academically dishonest.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I think you're completely missing the point Jean.  We have no way of knowing to what degree Darwin was emotionally influenced, it could be anywhere from zero to one hundred percent.  It is also completely irrelevant.  It's like saying that E=MC2 is invalid because Einstein was a Jew and feared the SS.  The fact still stands that the theory of evolution best describes the empirical ( I know you love that word ) gained evidence.  It best describes the fossil record, the DNA similarity, the countless experiments done on bacteria, the way viruses develop resistance to drugs... 

How does Darwin's daughter death reflect on the theory of evolution in any way shape or form?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re :: Hooliganism belongs in Trollville

Quote:
Other then Christianity. .. He is the eternal God He knows all things and has dominion over death hell and the grave!

    Found your way to Trollville ? Not that you would ever care but  I have an eye out for hooliganism by others using this board.   If we were playing a Parker Brothers board game, your card would read: "Go directly to Jail do not pass Go".  You are to observe the board's rules  and you know it!   Some of  us find it tedious your  "Passive /Aggressive"  &  "Jeckel and Hyde "  bs.  We are all adults so  I dont need to spell it out .  Let's just say there's a whole lotta love for the number 50. There's little escaping it; word choices are as unique  as fingerprints. Apparently, Even a ingenious disguise is not enough!

 

 

p.s. --- "Hooliganism  belongs  in Trollville"


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Badly done, Emma.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

People like Brian are atheists because of an emotional reaction. In Brian's case it was the sad death of his dad while he was only 13.

 

Badly done.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Indecipherable cryptic to crystal clear if U don't behave

danatemporary wrote:
     If we were playing a Parker Brothers  board game,  your card  would read: "Go directly to Jail do not pass Go".  You are to observe the board's rules .. Some of  us find it tedious  your "Passive /Aggressive"  &  "Jeckel and Hyde " bs. We are all adults so  I dont need to spell it out .  Let's just say there's a whole lotta love for the number 50. There's little escaping it; word choices are as unique as fingerprints. Apparently, Even a ingenious disguise is not enough!

 

 

 

  I m telling  you  this'll go  from indecipherable/ cryptic  to 'crystal clear' if you don't start to behave !

 

 

 

 

 

*


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ooer

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
     If we were playing a Parker Brothers  board game,  your card  would read: "Go directly to Jail do not pass Go".  You are to observe the board's rules .. Some of  us find it tedious  your "Passive /Aggressive"  &  "Jeckel and Hyde " bs. We are all adults so  I dont need to spell it out .  Let's just say there's a whole lotta love for the number 50. There's little escaping it; word choices are as unique as fingerprints. Apparently, Even a ingenious disguise is not enough!

 

 I m telling  you  this'll go  from indecipherable/ cryptic  to 'crystal clear' if you don't start to behave !

 

 

Who is Jean? Do we know him already?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Somebody

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Somebody quoted Matthew 7.


That would be me.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Matthew 7 is regarding hypocritical judgement, not the absense of judgement.

It is about hypocritical judgement. I was quoting it because, like the last line of my previous post indicates, I think you're the one with emotional issues, because you ad hominem people. You have done it to Darwin, stating that Evolution is wrong because it's founder might have had emotional problems. You also say that Brian's lack of believe is because he is angry at god, and even generalise every single one of us, without knowing anything about our personal lives.
I also just watched a very striking video on YouTube about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY&feature=feedf

Jean Chauvin wrote:
John 7:24 tells us to make a righteous judgement, and II Corinthians 13:5 tells us to judge ourselves.

Have you ever considered judging yourself? You say that we have presuppositions, but you presuppose Sola Scriptura, so you can't judge us on that, can you now?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The entire THEORY of evolution is based off an emotional reaction of Darwin's daughter.

I'm going to assume you are just fooling around, here.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Since emotions are antithetical to logic, then obviously the very basis for your atheism is irrational or non-rational. Non-rational by definion is absurd.

In other words, assuming that emotions are the base for our lack of belief, our lack of belief is bullshit.
If the assumption is right, AND emotions are the ONLY factor in our lack of belief, that is true.
But since we ALSO have other factors (science, God being a paradox, etc.) that show us belief in God is irrational, your argument fails. Whether our doubts were started by emotions or not is of no importance.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
... and here is the reason

... and here is the reason why atheists die younger than theists...

 

Am I the only one who sees this as a purposeful attempt to incite reactions?.... There is a lot of time, and energy being spent by thoughtful, peaceful, rational people trying to reason with someone who has no interest in ratioanlity... rather his purpose is to be just coy, and outlandish enough so that we'll feel a need to respond... (to his credit,  he's really really good at it)

 

we are being Punk'd, folks.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Two can play at that game!

Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist wrote:
All atheists become absurd atheists becaus of some emotional reaction. Even Darwin had an emotional reaction. It was over the death of his daughter

And you had an emotional reaction, a fear of death, which led you to believe in the "Holy" Babble.

Oh, there were more reasons for your belief, or lack thereof, then that you say? Yeah, same goes for everyone. What a surprise!

You assume so much about the world, and why? Because some Bronze Age goat herders made up some stories and you can't seem to ditch them since they offer you the ability to self righteously hurl insults at anyone you don't like and not think about your inevitable death. Just because we all die and are finite beings doesn't mean we should waste the only time we have worrying about our minds eventually ceasing to exist. Remove that stick from up your ass (well, unless you enjoy it up there, different strokes and all) and come join the rest of the sane human species.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


IAmTheClaw
atheist
IAmTheClaw's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2011-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Rule 14 of the Internet:Do

Rule 14 of the Internet:

Do not argue with trolls - it means that they win


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think Jean (or at least

I think Jean (or at least the character being portrayed by this poster) has aversion of Tourette's Syndrome.

He can respond to argument's in a relatively normal way, but most of the time seems to just compulsively and pointlessly throws out these ridiculous ad hom's.

EDIT: BTW, Jean, are you ever going to show what you think is the logical connection between the claim in the Bible that man is made in the image and likeness of God and a proof that the Bible is the true and inspired word of this God?

It does, after all, appear to be the core of your 'argument', so if you really want us to take you seriously, which I doubt, you should oblige me.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: John

Jean Chauvin wrote:
John 7:24 tells us to make a righteous judgement, and II Corinthians 13:5 tells us to judge ourselves.

Your whole schtick is not about 'thinking logically', it is about regurgitating what others have told you to assume is logical, without them having proven the unprecedented basis' that have never demonstrated to be universally compatible with reality.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The entire THEORY of evolution is based off an emotional reaction of Darwin's daughter.

Occam's Razor.

The theory is about the "Evolution of Species".

If a 'theory' is incompatible with reality, it is rejected.

It has not been falsified, to date.
 

Period.

End of story.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Since emotions are antithetical to logic

Then you should be indifferent to gays.

Then you should treat women as peers.

Then humans should not have other humans as slaves, because it is illogical.

Then you should be indifferent to the complete liberty of individuals.

Then you should not have double standards.

 

You are not only confused and conflicted, but hypocrtical, and biased towards your emotions.

Life on earth is not a game of "Simon Says"

 

Deal with it, you petulant infantile...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

First off, we see redead trying to disprove me via wikipedia (LOL). WOW.

Anyway, we know about these things as I said via my OP via Darwin's biographer. It's not just assumption.

Also, the only relavancy of the imago dei is a refuation of Tabula Rasa (Romans 2:15). Thus the Imago Dei is the means of the Axiom of God's Being being self evident in all of us immediately. Obviously, levels of understanding will be minimal, but nevertheless, they will be there.

I make an argument over atheistic emotional argument, and they like a 2 years old you say, no I don't you have emotional reactions, na na na na na.

I am not a Chrisitan because of fear, but becaue God chose me before the foundations of the world (Ephe 1:3-4).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

First off ...

You people are insignificant.

You people are obnoxious.

You people are powerless against atheists and secular law.

 

We made the laws, and you abide by them.

You people have no choice.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, what about Alfred

Jean, what about Alfred Russell Wallace?? What is your argument against him?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Bob

Hi Bob,

Wallace was just Charles Lyell's little monkey. But Wallace I believed formed his thinking via demon possession possibly. He was hardcore into the occult via spiritualism and I think (I could be wrong) was part of the Society of Psychical Research a highly occultic organization. Mark Twain was part of that SPR occult group.

But nevertheless, this was all in league with the cult explosion in the 19th century. Cults exploded in that century, along with the attempt and success at the death of science.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Wallace was just Charles Lyell's little monkey. But Wallace I believed formed his thinking via demon possession possibly. He was hardcore into the occult via spiritualism and I think (I could be wrong) was part of the Society of Psychical Research a highly occultic organization. Mark Twain was part of that SPR occult group.

But nevertheless, this was all in league with the cult explosion in the 19th century. Cults exploded in that century, along with the attempt and success at the death of science.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So the death of his daughters drove Darwin to come up with Evolution by Natural Selection, but it was demon possesion which drove Wallace to come up with same idea? Curious.

Sure it wasn't that they both observed the profusion and diversity of life in tropical regions, and had somewhat similar background understanding of Nature? Doesn't that seem more plausible?

The death of science? Even more curious, this alternate Universe you inhabit.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The PBS

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The PBS television serier Evolution, episode 1, dramatized a turning point in the spiritual life of Charles Darwin.

And you're attempting to downplay it, right, Jean Jean?...

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Even more curious, this alternate Universe you inhabit.

 

Jean Jean's Happy Place :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Jean

BobSpence1 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Wallace was just Charles Lyell's little monkey. But Wallace I believed formed his thinking via demon possession possibly. He was hardcore into the occult via spiritualism and I think (I could be wrong) was part of the Society of Psychical Research a highly occultic organization. Mark Twain was part of that SPR occult group.

But nevertheless, this was all in league with the cult explosion in the 19th century. Cults exploded in that century, along with the attempt and success at the death of science.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So the death of his daughters drove Darwin to come up with Evolution by Natural Selection, but it was demon possesion which drove Wallace to come up with same idea? Curious.

Sure it wasn't that they both observed the profusion and diversity of life in tropical regions, and had somewhat similar background understanding of Nature? Doesn't that seem more plausible?

The death of science? Even more curious, this alternate Universe you inhabit.

 

No one has pointed out that the Beagle with Darwin aboard, set sail from Plymouth Sound on December 27, 1831.  He was beginning to work on his theory - as near as anyone can tell from reading his journal and the book about the journey - while he was on this voyage and soon after he got home five years later.  His theory was pretty much put together by 1838.  He worked on his book for 20 years and only published when he had a letter from Wallace which stated almost the exact same theory.

His daughter Anne was born on March 2, 1841.  So he had been working on his theory for 3 years before she was born.  Hard to see how he could have foretold that she would die ten years later.

There isn't a connection.  The dates just don't add up.

I saw a bio of Darwin on PBS some time ago.  It clearly stated that Darwin had come up with his theory while on the voyage of the Beagle - before he was married.  Furthermore, he had stopped going to church years before Anne died.

Let's get the time line straight.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Let's get the time

cj wrote:

Let's get the time line straight.

It doesn't matter if Darwin was a homosexual sadomasochistic Nazi who drowned puppies, sacrificed virgins and drank their blood while dining on their still beating hearts.

His theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified.

 

Period.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yep

redneF wrote:

His theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified.

 

Sign me up for this.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Since we're on the topic of

Since we're on the topic of devils, a very easy excuse and a variation on the no true scotsman fallacy: how do YOU, Jean, know you're not possessed?

You see, you might use Bible verses, but so did the Devil when he tried to tempt Jesus, so they don't count. There's no way to distinguish a possessed from a non-possessed person, so your argument is fallacious.


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I was born an Atheist. 

I was born an Atheist.  Then I was taught about "god" and "jesus" as a kid. 

 

So, I am an atheist, who was almost indoctrinated, and returned to my original state. 

That is why my profile name is what it is.

 

Thanks,

 

Mr. Original, born again atheist.

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
redneF wrote:cj wrote:Let's

redneF wrote:

cj wrote:

Let's get the time line straight.

It doesn't matter if Darwin was a homosexual sadomasochistic Nazi who drowned puppies, sacrificed virgins and drank their blood while dining on their still beating hearts.

His theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified.

 

Period.

What? What is DNA then? I am shocked to see this statement coming from an atheist.

This is like saying, "Since we were not around 4 billion years go, we can't determine how the earth formed".

What am I missing here?

Dog breeding that creates new breeds is an example of artificial evolution. Manipulating flowers to produce new breeds of flowers is another form of artificial evolution. The fact that we have to come up with new flu vaccines every year is evidence of NATURAL evolution without human manipulation.

Please explain to me what I am missing. I expect statements like thus quoted above, from theists, but?????????????????

Evolution is just a "theory" like gravity is just a "theory".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:redneF

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

cj wrote:

Let's get the time line straight.

It doesn't matter if Darwin was a homosexual sadomasochistic Nazi who drowned puppies, sacrificed virgins and drank their blood while dining on their still beating hearts.

His theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified.

 

Period.

What? What is DNA then? I am shocked to see this statement coming from an atheist.

This is like saying, "Since we were not around 4 billion years go, we can't determine how the earth formed".

What am I missing here?

Dog breeding that creates new breeds is an example of artificial evolution. Manipulating flowers to produce new breeds of flowers is another form of artificial evolution. The fact that we have to come up with new flu vaccines every year is evidence of NATURAL evolution without human manipulation.

Please explain to me what I am missing. I expect statements like thus quoted above, from theists, but?????????????????

Evolution is just a "theory" like gravity is just a "theory".

 

Gravity? You mean you don't believe in "intelligent falling"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Please explain

Brian37 wrote:

Please explain to me what I am missing. I expect statements like thus quoted above, from theists, but?????????????????

I said that it has not been falsified.

Maybe you read it wrong.

 

My point was that Darwin's 'life' is not relevant as to whether his theory is valid. It's either compatible with reality, or it's not.

And so far, it is. At this point, it would be all but impossible to speculate some other way that life evolved. It's really amazing how biological diversity occurred.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Hi Brian, CJ made a good point. Darwin was develping his theories as early as 1831. However, the point is, that his observations were driven obversely against God before his book.

His INTERPRETATIONS of his data was affected by the presuppositions that were develped negatively regarding God. I know you disagree, but you ought to get my point at this point. If you still need help, email ask slowly.

AGain, the issue of falsification came from the last philosopher, Karl Popper. His view is false. Smiling LOL. .Anyway, then if falsification is tue, then you must falsity the proposition from Popper of falsification. If you cannot do this, then the very thesis of this falsification fails.

BUT, via ad hominem, Darwin has been falsified, even by Darwinians. Thus neo-Darwinianism. (LOL).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Hi Brian, CJ made a good point. Darwin was develping his theories as early as 1831. However, the point is, that his observations were driven obversely against God before his book.

His INTERPRETATIONS of his data was affected by the presuppositions that were develped negatively regarding God. I know you disagree, but you ought to get my point at this point. If you still need help, email ask slowly.

AGain, the issue of falsification came from the last philosopher, Karl Popper. His view is false. Smiling LOL. .Anyway, then if falsification is tue, then you must falsity the proposition from Popper of falsification. If you cannot do this, then the very thesis of this falsification fails.

BUT, via ad hominem, Darwin has been falsified, even by Darwinians. Thus neo-Darwinianism. (LOL).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Tweaked and refuted are two different things.

Newton's laws are still used but his alchemy has been discarded. The big picture of what Darwin said is not in dispute even if you want to argue over small details. DNA confirms Darwin's theory of evolution.

Idiots like you would poo poo the Write Brothers theory of flight if they crash once.

You can have good ideas that are not fully developed that later get improved and tweaked to be more accurate.

It is why current evolutionary biologists class humans elephants as MAMMALS dip shit. It is why domestic cats and wild lions are still called cats dip shit.

How does it feel to be property Fido?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:redneF

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

cj wrote:

Let's get the time line straight.

It doesn't matter if Darwin was a homosexual sadomasochistic Nazi who drowned puppies, sacrificed virgins and drank their blood while dining on their still beating hearts.

His theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified.

 

Period.

What? What is DNA then? I am shocked to see this statement coming from an atheist.

This is like saying, "Since we were not around 4 billion years go, we can't determine how the earth formed".

What am I missing here?

Dog breeding that creates new breeds is an example of artificial evolution. Manipulating flowers to produce new breeds of flowers is another form of artificial evolution. The fact that we have to come up with new flu vaccines every year is evidence of NATURAL evolution without human manipulation.

Please explain to me what I am missing. I expect statements like thus quoted above, from theists, but?????????????????

Evolution is just a "theory" like gravity is just a "theory".

 

My point, was that the death of his daughter had no impact on his theory - maybe on his beliefs, but not his theory.

Neither did he have any "atheistic presuppositions" since he was studying to be a pastor before he went on the Beagle voyage.

Swear to death, you stomp on one idiocy and ten others spring up in its place.  Bad as the ants nest under the kitchen sink.

 

edit: stupid keyboard - corrected spelling

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13837
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote:Brian37

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

cj wrote:

Let's get the time line straight.

It doesn't matter if Darwin was a homosexual sadomasochistic Nazi who drowned puppies, sacrificed virgins and drank their blood while dining on their still beating hearts.

His theory of evolution by natural selection has not been falsified.

 

Period.

What? What is DNA then? I am shocked to see this statement coming from an atheist.

This is like saying, "Since we were not around 4 billion years go, we can't determine how the earth formed".

What am I missing here?

Dog breeding that creates new breeds is an example of artificial evolution. Manipulating flowers to produce new breeds of flowers is another form of artificial evolution. The fact that we have to come up with new flu vaccines every year is evidence of NATURAL evolution without human manipulation.

Please explain to me what I am missing. I expect statements like thus quoted above, from theists, but?????????????????

Evolution is just a "theory" like gravity is just a "theory".

 

My point, was that the death of his daughter had no impact on his theory - maybe on his beliefs, but not his theory.

Neither did he have any "atheistic presuppositions" since he was studying to be a pastor before he went on the Beagle voyage.

Swear to death, you stomp on one idiocy and ten others spring up in its place.  Bad as the ants nest under the kitchen sink.

 

edit: stupid keyboard - corrected spelling

This is a common tactic in theism. They take someone famous and confuse the issue of their position on something scientific as always supporting their god. The reality is that beliefs are NOT static and do change over time.

Nothing about evolution that Darwin wrote has been refuted even if it has been revised.

This is nothing but quote mining and taking history out of context.

Our current knowledge of science and especially DNA has confirmed Darwin's theory.

Same thing has been falsely done with Einstein and and Hawkins. Nothing they said, even in using the word "god" supports the biblical childish tantrum throwing bully of the bible.

Darwin would not have supported the poof theory creationists or IDers try to sell.

Fido(Jean) is just desperate for something to cling to.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean, once again, this has

Jean, once again, this has already been explained to you.

Read carefully this time.

"Neo-darwinism" is the incorporation, the integration, of genetics, originating from Mendel's work, with Darwin's natural selection algorithm into a more complete Theory. Nothing has been overturned or falsified. Rather, a missing piece has been added.

Got it now, grasshopper?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology