Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
It doesn't mention species evolution being false?
Try again John, this desperate attempt to make this about intellect and ignore that it is about your denial of objective scientific facts in favour of superstition is getting old.
The problem isn't a lack of intellect, it's the arrogant assumption your intellect trumps not only everyone here, but every expert over 160 years in the field of biology.
Since you won't tell us whether you're a young earth creationist, or what other scientific facts you're denying we can only infer you must be hiding something.
I'm not hiding. I just don't follow your conversations down repetitive and irrelevant paths. That wouldn't be very intelligent now, would it?
It's not irrelevant obviously. It's only repetitive because you're hiding something by refusng to answer.
As I said, since you won't tell us whether you're a young earth creationist, or what other scientific facts you're denying we can only infer you must be hiding something. Obviously that you only deny scientific facts when they conflict with your religious beliefs. We have only one in species evolution to gauge this, you refuse to offer any counter examples, and perhaps more damning refuse to confirm more examples that reinforce your motives.
I mean why else wouldn't you just answer. Claimingtheyrecirrekevabt is a risibleattempt to deflect that no one is going to be fooled by.
First you used a straw man fallacy boasting about your grades as a STUDENT, which clearly has no relevance since no one commented on your grades, why would they?
Then when youre called on this dishonesty you go straight back to dishonest evasion. As I said we can only infer you're hiding something, and this is becoming more likely as you desperately evade straightforward questions that would clarify your position.
Come off it John we're not nearly as gullible as you take us to be.
Why else wouldn't I answer? Because they are irrelevant and repetitive, as I already mentioned. You ask the same questions again and again irrespective of what thread we are on. Secondly, I told you like five years ago that answering your questions is like trying to divide zero by two.
You've done nothing to fix your loaded questions, and don't even seem aware of their illogical nature.
So you keep saying, and again it's a laughably stupid claim. You deny the scientific fact of species evolution, and claim you're not motivated by your religious beliefs. Then even more laughably claim it is not salient that you only deny scientific facts that contradict or refute your religious beliefs. If there were other scientific facts that did not in any way refute or contradict your religious beliefs this would support your claim, but you refuse to answer the question, and again we can only therefore infer you know what the answer implies and would rather pretend the question is irrelevant. If it were really irrelevant you'd answer and pretend the answer were irrelevant.
Now paradoxically if you deny other scientific facts like the validity of carbon dating technique for instance, because you;re a young earth creationist, then that would reinforces how dubious your claim is that you are not motivated by your beliefs; and surprise surprise, you won't answer those questions either.
You boast you have expertise as a student of psychology when it suits you to make such a fallacious appeal to authority, but then when asked to list some prestigious associations of psychology that share your religious view that our consciousness is not a derivative of species evolution through natural selection, well surprise surprise again, no answer.
There is a reason you are known on here for being dishonest and evasive John, and if i had never found this site you know others would still hold that view about your posts.
The real irony is after pretending my questions are irrelevant, and refusing to answer them, is how much time and effort you dedicate to responding to my posts when I point out why they are relevant. No one's buying this John.
"There is a reason you are known on here for being dishonest and evasive John."
Certainly, but given how those reasons cannot possibly be objective, since determining honesty requires knowing information only available to me, such a reputation is not of much importance.
@Breezy "Certainly, but given how those reasons cannot possibly be objective, since determining honesty requires knowing information only available to me, such a reputation is not of much importance."
So, even your family, teachers and religious leaders don't have it, much curious indeed!
Honesty? *snorts*
The reason is the overwhelming evidence of your endless evasion, and what is an objective fact is that you always evade questions you don't like. Anyone can see how relentlessly you evade salient questions you don't like. If they were truly irrelevant you'd not be so afraid to give a candid answer. You can't go from denying evolution, and claiming your religious beliefs play no part in your motives, then refusing to say if there is a single scientific fact you deny that doesn't in any way refute or contradict any part of your religious beliefs, or even if you are young earth creationist who therefore denies other scientific facts that just happen to contradict or refute parts of your beliefs. It's laughable to make such a claim and then call such questions irrelevant.
Again we can ONLY infer the obvious reason you'd refuse to answer, and you claiming they're irrelevant isn't a reason at all.
There's a subtle difference between evading and ignoring. I ignore questions that it doesn't make sense to answer. Start asking questions that are logical internally and externally, and I'll answer them.
Not in this instance, it's the clumsiest evasion one can imagine. The amount of energy you're wasting defending not answering says it all, as you quite pointedly are NOT ignoring the questions, you're just not answering them. I see no logical consistency in claiming to be a scientists when you cherry pick which facts to accept only if they do not refute your superstitious religious beliefs, for which you can demonstrate not one shred of objective evidence. I find it immensely ironic someone tries to invoke logic on the side of irrational superstition, faith is a better bet for you, as nothing can dent faith. You can literally believe anything with faith, that's why your religion has invoked it as a trump card from day one.
See, even when I tell you why I don't answer, and what you can do to fix it, you still prefer your own narrative.
You think I should allow you to dictate what I ask, and how I word it? Now that's fucking hilarious fair play.
Are you a young earth creationist?
Do you deny any scientific facts that don't refute or disagree in any way any part of your religious beliefs. If yes then list them, if no then we can only infer your denial of species evolution is not motivated by those beliefs, and your denial of that is a lie. I'd have thought you'd welcome the chance to offer evidence in support of your claim.
Do you deny any other scientific facts like the age of the earth for instance, or carbon dating techniques? The relevance is obvious in the context of your claim that your denial of the scientific fact of species evolution is not motivated by your religious beliefs.
Evade all you want John, but I think I will decide what I ask, and how i word it. In fact the more it causes you to tap dance like this the more likely I am to persist.
Pseudonym?
rmfr
When case studies are conducted, its common to use a participants initials (K.B.) or a pseudonym for privacy. I used my brother as the participant, but I guess the teacher thought maybe I used his name as a pseudonym for myself given how detailed the study was.
Perhaps you would have known that if you paid attention in class.
I paid attention. I just NEVER used any name. I always used "the patient" or "the patients". Perhaps you did not pay attention.
rmfr
What you've done or haven't done is of no consequence to me.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
"I have a non-scientific atheist describing me one way; and then I have an actual research scientist, author, and graduate professor describing me another"
Was he commenting directly on your superstitious denials of scientifically validated facts like species evolution?
If not then it's irrelevant as he's not commenting on the same things we are.
Let's try an analogy. Sir Isaac Newton was a genius I think we can agree? Now were his beliefs in astrology and alchemy examples of that genius? Or is it fair to say his intellect didn't stop him believing things, and making claims that were absurdly erroneous?
Do take your time...
Boasting about your intellect to strangers on the internet is pretty funny though. Dont worry you'll grow out of such posturing, we all do.
That's a question I'd rather hear you answer. How do you reconcile the scientific and religious sides of Newton?
EZ - Newton didn't let religion stop him from exploring natural explanation. Even if he believed he was trying to understand God's workings, in the end he came up with the most ground-breaking scientific idea of all time. His genius was putting God aside and exploring the observable reality. And he would, undoubtedly, have done so much more, if he didn't let faith interfere in the very last moment. He basically committed to 'God of the Gaps' argument in the end, which is still a much better stance to take than you do.
Newton isn't called the father of natural sciences for no reason. Pretty much every modern theory is a direct descendant of this brilliant man's work. Evolution included. So, if you too respect Newton, I find it very difficult to understand, how you can so blatantly deny evolution, without even exploring it. And you call yourself honest, intellectual and logical, tsk tsk tsk.
If he was trying to understand God's workings, then his genius wasn't putting God aside.
Do think astrology is true, or alchemy? Funny how you want to piggy back only one of his superstitions on his scientifically validated work, but remain tight lipped on the others, and by funny I mean so obviously biased it;s absurd to think we won't notice. I look forward to you declaring his other superstitions irrelevant, that seems to be your default position when you have no candid answers.
I don't think astrology and alchemy are correct, and in many ways I don't view the scientific work of Newton to be correct either (though outdated or inaccurate are probably better terms).
You seem to view any wrong beliefs that Newton had, as lapses in logic or intelligence. I don't.
Newton's beliefs were at least somewhat justifiable for his Era. Dismissing evolution in modern days isn't.
Very true, but my point was that Newton's genius is based only on his work that the scientific process has validated. Of course his thinking was partly a product of the epoch he lived in, but not completely, but the fact remains his genius was no barrier to him holding erroneous superstitious beliefs. Breezy is trying to imply with his question that his genius lends some validity to his religious beliefs. Yet he does not extend this facile argument to his *Newton's) other superstitious beliefs in astrology and alchemy.
If Breezy is not a YEC then he certainly thinks like one, and argues like one. Dishonest, biased, intransigent and all the while pouring derision on those who accept facts based on objective empirical evidence while hilariously sneering that he is a scientists.
These quotes seem apropos...
Stephen Jay Gould
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome."
Francis Collins
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
I just did, read my post again.
How do you explain the bible believing Christian Francis Collins, head of the human genome project unequivocally accepting species evolution and shared ancestry or common decent? It's an easy one to reconcile for me, as it is with Newton,s non scientific beliefs.
Those two are not equivalent, so what are you saying?
I am asking how you reconcile the bible believing Christian Francis Collins, head of the human genome project unequivocally accepting species evolution and shared ancestry or common decent?
Do you believe Newton's beliefs in alchemy and astrology were valid? If not then why do you ask how I reconcile his genius with his religious beliefs, as obviously i do it the same way you reconcile his genius with his other superstitious beliefs? I accept his work in physics because it has been scientifically validated, same with Collins. I don't believe their superstitious beliefs are valid as there is no objective evidence for them.
I don't care what Francis Collins says or beliefs. I honestly don't care what anyone says or beliefs. The only person that seems to care about prestige, notoriety, consensus, and position is you.
The way I see it, intelligence is a magic trick. To someone like you in the audience the trick is fascinating and admirable. But as for me, I know how the magic works.
More evasion. I never asked if you cared what he thought.
I countered your question about Newton by asking how you reconciled Francis Collins, who is head of the human genome project, being able to draw a line between the scientific fact of species evolution, and his religious beliefs, despite stating clearly he "wished the DNA evidence didn't show unequivocally that species evolution is a scientifc fact"?
Of course you are ignoring the question and now again label it as irrelevant, when the comparison is obviously very relevant to your denials of scientific facts like evolution alongside your grandiose claims to be a scientist.
Clearly Francis Collins has enough integrity to candidly state his religious beliefs motivate him to wish evolution was false, but is a good enough scientist not to deny scientific facts as you have done.
You asked how I reconciled Newton' s scientific genius with his superstitious beliefs. I pointed out his science has been properly validated his superstitious beliefs have not.
The rest of your post is just another laughable ad hominem fallacy. You really are insufferably arrogant. Hopefully you'll mature enough at some point to see this.
Though clearly your accusation that I am obsesseed with intelligence and prestige is also a risible lie, as it was you not me who implied in your question that Newton's genius somehow lends credibility to his superstitious religious beliefs. The real irony is your obvious bias in apllying this nonsensical claim only to his religious beliefs and not The other superstitious beliefs he held. Again my pointed enquiries have been ignored as to how you reconciled his beifls in alchemy and astrology with his religious beliefs. Again I have answered you, but you dishonestly ignore me.
What's noteworthy is that you don't differentiate between Newton's scientific work and his religious beliefs which your question implied are equally valid.
That is what makes your pompous self aggrandizing claims to be a scientist both sad and laughable in equal measure. No real scientist cherry picks facts.
You still haven't told us if you're a YEC or not, or if There are any other scientifically validated fact you deny, quelle surprise.
Intelligence is no barrier to people holding erroneous subjective beliefs. I realise this, but you can't work it out yet apparently. Hence your claim is precisely opposite of the truth, where you think intellect is some sort of trick to being right, and of course you view your own opinion as more credible than established scientific facts. Hence the Dunning Kruger effect leaping out of your posts, where it is clear you think you are more able than the best scientific minds of the last 160 years. Whereas I have stated unequivocally and multiple times that the scientific process is what objectively validates facts, and that intellect alone is irrelevant as it is no barrier to being wrong and holding superstitious beliefs for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated. As of course both Newton and Collins do.
Notice again, that you're mounting an argument, against what you think I'm implying, rather than what I've actually said.
Pages