Fundamentalist Atheism?
March 14, 2007
A free plug for Austin Cline;
“Fundamentalist atheism cannot exist because there are no “fundamental” beliefs for atheists to hold. This myth demonstrates why this is true by attempting to create out of thin air a belief for atheists: the idea that they reject religion so firmly that they no longer care about further research on it and are therefore dogmatic in their views. The errors made in this myth are so simple, basic, and obvious that it’s difficult to credit anyone who repeats it with understanding atheism at all.“
(Austin Cline, 2007)
Discuss (fundamentalism; not Austin’s spelling of “their” instead of “they’re”) 
~Bruce
“Fundamentalist atheism cannot exist because there are no “fundamental” beliefs for atheists to hold.”
Isn’t the fundamental belief of atheism that there isn’t a God?
In the case of soft/weak atheism, it’s the absence of a belief clear and cut. Although in the case of hard atheism, I think you may be right (and Austin Cline wrong.)
“I have no belief in God” is logically and epistemologically different from “I believe in no God”. The former is skepticism or pure non-belief while the later is a positive belief. The former doesn’t lend itself to dogmatism, while the later may.
It is generally accepted that hard atheists in a minority however. From memory, Austin Cline is a soft/weak atheist, so it may be worth taking this into acount when he gives his perspective.
I should probably ask him to verify that though.
Well, I don’t know. Being a non-believer myself, I do find that certain atheists campaign with as much zeal as believers. Just have a look at http://www.blasphemychallenge.com.
You can of course argue that it is necessary to give rationalism at least as much public attention as irrational beliefs, in order not to let whackos like George W Bush or Tony Abbott run their countries on their own…
Well, I don’t know. Being a non-believer myself, I do find that certain atheists campaign with as much zeal as believers.
Agreed. Both Arthur at Five Public Opinions and myself have has some run-ins with hard atheists that have been very much skeptic versus zealot. One has even characterised themselves as a “fundamentalist atheist.” Not to say that all hard atheists are zealots of course.
The rational responce squad example you give is a pretty good example hard atheism. The phrase “I deny the Holy Spirit” doesn’t accurately portray the position of soft atheism.
Take for example some door to door salesperson of youth generating skin cream. They knock on the door a soft atheist and make all sorts of claims about to properties of the skin cream. Soft atheism is essentially epistemically agnostic/skeptical and positionally in a state on non-belief. The soft atheist (or soft askincreamist in this case) would say, I don’t know of the properties of the skin cream, you don’t give me evidence of the properties of the skin cream, hence I don’t believe that these properties exist. The sales person posits a claim, the skeptic rejects it.
Conversely, the hard atheist would (perhaps) argue; I don’t know the properties of the skin cream, you don’t show me any evidence therefore the skin cream does not work. This is the logical positivist hard atheist argument anyway. The sales person posits a claim, the denier posits a contrary claim.
The first example is a simple “you haven’t presented any evidence to convince me so I’ll stick with my default (corrigable) assumptions”, the later is an active denial. Denial being a motivated, positive action (in this example also being a logical fallacy; proof from a negative.)
In my experience, most atheists don’t deny God’s existence, they simply a) are not convinced that any of the evidence is actually evidence and b) they don’t find the idea of God necessary to explain the Universe (as per parsimony).
There are of course fanatics in evert camp. Oddly enough, a lot of zealous hard atheists, in my experience, are ex-fundie theists; the position has changed but not the epistemology.
What annoys me are atheists like Richard Dawkins who will tell outright lies in the name of “science” (evolution).
He makes many statements in a confidant, militant and arrogant way, yet doesn’t answer his critics. It is that sort of atheist that I dislike, not the unsure who have an open mind. (aren’t they called agnostic?)
A little humility from both sides is very much needed.
Also, reading the original blog. I have met many atheists and most of them have been dogmatic about their belief, not even stopping to consider any alternative evidence.
This is fundamental atheism.
I’m not saying all atheists are in this boat but the majority that I have met and/or read have been.
What annoys me are atheists like Richard Dawkins who will tell outright lies in the name of “science” (evolution).
That’s a pretty serious allegation. Would you care to substantiate it? Failing to substantiate, I will assume you just made it up and are in fact lying to the rest of us.
He makes many statements in a confidant, militant and arrogant way…
While I find Dawkins’ tone a little abrasive, nobody has the right to expect atheists (or anyone else for that matter) to no be confident. Just because someone doesn’t share the same faith as you doesn’t mean that they have to remain in some kind of intellectual fear. That’s called oppression. Neither Dawkins, myself and I suspect yourself, live in a totalitarian state.
It is that sort of atheist that I dislike, not the unsure who have an open mind. (aren’t they called agnostic?)
That’s called an agnostic. Borrowing from the above skin cream salesman analogy, the potential customer, if skin screen agnositc, may choose to hand over their cash and try the skin cream without any further reassurances about the product. Unfortunately, this is where I think the analogy breaks down. I disagree with Dawkins in his assertion that God is a testable scientific hypothesis, whereas the validity of skin care product claims can be tested.
Also, reading the original blog. I have met many atheists and most of them have been dogmatic about their belief, not even stopping to consider any alternative evidence.
Somehow I rather doubt the veracity of this claim.
podium, your first point; you only have to watch any of his videos to see what I mean.
I cant list all instances now but have a look, Dawkins provides no evidence for his own faith, but creates straw men out of certain traditions attached to different religions. He virtually never even mentions their religious texts, he mentions none of the arguments put forward by scientists who disagree with him and presents no real argument for his own position.
He works rather by ridicule, arrogance and vapid fundamentalism, surely you can see that.
Your second point; He pretends to be a scientist without “religious bias” yet he arrogantly pushes his views without substantiating them. To me that is lying on a large scale and it is unacceptable.
Your third point; I had a question mark, thank you for clarifying that for me.
On your fourth point; what I said is true, but I have probably met some atheists who are your ‘soft’ type who have not mentioned it because they don’t really care that much.
So maybe, just maybe I have met some but I don’t know it.
I cant list all instances..
Your accusation mandates that you list at least one. If I wanted to say call J. Sarfati a liar, I’d point out his “Love the Sinner, Hate the SIn; Homonazi/Sodomofascist” self-contradiction or one of his documented distortions of the content biology textbooks.
…Dawkins provides no evidence for his own faith.
That’s silly. A) Dawkins doesn’t have a faith to substantiate because he lacks a belief and B) If people had to provide evidence for faith, then it wouldn’t be faith!
but creates straw men out of certain traditions attached to different religions.
He’s ventured a few (in my opinion) wrong ideas about religion, and he’s made some honest mistakes. You simply haven’t demonstrated any more that this.
he mentions none of the arguments put forward by scientists who disagree with him.
Considering that he has actually mentioned on a couple of occasions how other “scientists” have created strawmen of his and other scientists views (e.g. the Einstein quotes) AND that a number of the criticisms aren’t actually scientific (e.g. ID), that consitutes a mention. Beyond that, he doesn’t have to answer to criticisms based on false and misleading premises. If someone were to make a scientific and honest criticism of his scientific work, rather than cynical attempts at political hegemony (I’ve read “the wedge document”) then sure.
As for other criticisms outside of science (Dawkin’s philosophical work); I think he has more to answer; to serious theologians and philosophers in general; that’s where the honest criticism has come from thus far and I am awaiting his responce.
He pretends to be a scientist without “religious bias” yet he arrogantly pushes his views without substantiating them. To me that is lying on a large scale and it is unacceptable.
This is simply buttressing an allegation with another allegation. There is no substantion here. What if I were to say “He pretends to engage in discussion in good faith, but he arrogantly pushes his allegations against Dawkins without substantiating them. To me that is lying on a large scale and it is unnacceptable.”
Your problem is that I can point to your posts above to demonstrate the absence of substantiation. You haven’t done the same with Dawkins. So the only substantiated allegation of lying one can make based on the above, is that you are lying about Dawkins.
You will understand that if your next post fails to substantate somehow or retract your accusations (even if only a pending recant), that I will delete any further of your comments. This blog is dedicated to honest and rational debate, not cynical smearing.
I don’t think denying the holy spirit is contrary to a weak atheist position. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Now, there are some god concepts that can be dismissed because they’re illogical. For instance, I think that the problem of evil effectively dismisses the possibility of a god that has the attributes omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence at the same time. That doesn’t mean I close the door for any gods, even though I find no reason to believe in them.
fredericthewise, you said:
Now please document it. A passage in one of his books or a link would be fine. So far it’s your bare assertion.
On your fourth point; what I said is true, but I have probably met some atheists who are your ’soft’ type who have not mentioned it because they don’t really care that much.
So maybe, just maybe I have met some but I don’t know it.
I’m glad you entertained that idea; because this is how it happens. Most atheists don’t make a song and dance out of being atheists except for when someone expects them to submit to religious doctrine (even then they often humor others).
Often when meeting people for the first time and the topic of religion gets discussed, they end up assuming I’m a Christian and this is not an uncommon occurence for other atheists either.
Now, there are some god concepts that can be dismissed because they’re illogical.
I agree. However, I think there is a (huge) difference between denying some (demonstrably) illogical god concepts and denying the (unfalsifiable) notion of God. The latter is a form of atheism where as the former; well theists do that as well. Illogical notions of God go out the window all the time in serious theology (as practiced by various religions.) Just look what St Augustine did with parts of Revelations (or for that matter what Greek Orthodox did.)
I don’t think that weak atheists can deny the unfalsifiable notion of God, but can be skeptical of and not-believe in God, and can deny a whole heap of illogical theology (and various demosntrably fallacious God concepts).
Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say a bit more.
I disagree with Dawkins in his assertion that God is a testable scientific hypothesis, whereas the validity of skin care product claims can be tested.
I read Dawkins’ argument regarding the god-hypothesis this way: science seeks to explain natural phenomena; the universe is such a natural phenomenon requiring an explanation; hence, those who posit god as an explanation for the universe are advancing a (potentially) scientific hypothesis (whether they realise this or not) that is, in principle, testable (even if we do not currently have the means to test it), or at least amenable to scientific scrutiny.
I think this is a sound argument–though whether it is aimed at all or only certain notions of god is another matter.
The statement “there is a god” is unfalsifiable. A specific kind of God might be falsifiable, if the believers were willing to make some predictions that might prove their god to be false, but of course nobody wants to subject their favorite deity to scientific scrutiny.
I think this is a sound argument–though whether it is aimed at all or only certain notions of god is another matter.
That’s the problem with the argument; it can’t by levelled against all potential (or existent) notions of God. It can’t be levelled against the flying spaghetti monster for example because the FSM resists falsification (just like many God hypothesis which Dawkins decided not to consider in the introduction), if I however said that God was a mobile phone sitting next to my computer, then sure, that’s testable.
Dawkins’ argument only works if you fram God within terms that suit the argument; terms which a number of the religious don’t actually use when referring to God.
The statement “there is a god” is unfalsifiable. A specific kind of God might be falsifiable, if the believers were willing to make some predictions that might prove their god to be false, but of course nobody wants to subject their favorite deity to scientific scrutiny.
True. More or less anyway, there are whole realms of philosophy that philosophers would like to see able to be scientifically scrutinised. Historically, atomic theory is a good example; making the leap from the metaphysical to the scientific. Given the ancient Greek philosophers’ respect for science, I imagine they would have been happy to know of this happening.
Incidentally, one is required to dismiss more than one God hypothesis to be an atheist. Theists also dismiss alternate specific God hypothesis all the time. Like the time I (toungue in cheek) posited the unfalsifiable “My Dog is God” hypothesis; demands were made that I not blaspheme (inferring pretty strongly that they rejected the hypothesis.)
THat’s the probably the core difference between atheists and theists; atheists make a general dismissal, whereas theists make selective dismissals (those claims that compete with their “God claim”). Of course, if you have an ambiguous claim like the Unitarians, then you don’t have to do much in the way of dismissal.
Good point Bruce. Never thought about it that way, but to go from theism to atheism is really just a small step: Just dismiss what you have been believing up to now – and keep on dismissing all other irrational creeds; voila, there’s another atheist.
God tends to be used as a residual hypothesis: If we can’t explain the source of the universe, let’s create an axiom, let’s just assume there is a god behind it all. But then: Where’s the explanation for the assumed phenomenon of god? There must be at least two gods, one to create the universe, and one to create god in the first place. And another one to create this one. And so on…
It would probably help to look for explanations without the simplistic assumption that “someone” just must have “made” it all.
I Corey M. Davis happens to believe in God the Father. I do not suger coat my God like other believers do. The sun in the day time sky did not have a funeral nor did God the Father who made this planet. It is commen since to know that God the Father is made out of sun material. The earth came from the sun because hot lava is under the earth. Also, space is 459.5 degrees below 0 farinhieght. Also evolution is not thinking about us humans. Like making oranges for us. Horses and camels before cars were invented. Pretty roses, tulips and other flowers. So you think evolution said look we made man so lets make other life forms that are for mans use? Now is that magic or one in a trillion odds. The list goes on chickens and turkeys, they can not fly so evolution said what about Thanks Giving? Sometimes it shocks me that people seem not to think any more. Remember most believers always talk about suger in their belief like love and kindness, but I don,t. No wonder so many believers get brain locked when they talk to atheist, but I don,t I go straight to the point with no time to waste.
P. S. I am not a God I made a human mistake and spelled the word sugar wrong,sorry.
No wonder so many believers get brain locked when they talk to atheist, but I don,t I go straight to the point with no time to waste.
Um . . . what is your point?
You’re brain locked AV.
You’re brain locked AV.
Evidently.
Even though I believe in God I can’t figure out why believers don’t think of making metal angle robots called cheribium to protect and feed the poor in this world? Some of them are very, very rich and they never thought of that. Maybe this world is heartless? Maybe some rich atheist will make these things and make believers look stupid. Imagine that, seven feet tall three hudred and fifty pounds. Then the atheist would be the hero. Then I would say good work atheist, then you would be the world’s hero.
So, let me guess, Corey . . . homeschooled?
(Bad AV!! slap! Bad atheist!!)
cheribium
Cheribium? That’s not an element I’ve ever heard of. Intelligent Chemistry?
Cheribium. Kills fundamentalist atheists dead.
AV,
Corey’s view appears to make more sense to me than yours (not that I agree with him)
Just because he has a interesting way of saying things doesn’t me he doesn’t have valid reasoning.
“(Bad AV!! slap! Bad atheist!!)”
How can an atheist be “bad”? What moral laws do you use to ascertain bad from good or right from wrong?
oh, and also just because someone is different doesn’t mean you should mock them.
Corey’s view appears to make more sense to me than yours
Indeed? Then please help us illiterates out and decipher it for us.
Just because he has an interesting way of saying things doesn’t me he doesn’t have valid reasoning.
Then show me (i) what his reasoning is, and (ii) how it is valid.
What moral laws do you use to ascertain bad from good or right from wrong.
I like to turn this around by asking the questioner: Would you really go around raping and murdering people if your holy book didn’t forbid such behaviour? Are God’s commands the only thing holding you back?.
If the answer is “Yes,” then you are nothing short of a psychopath who should be securely incarcerated for the protection of the rest of society.
If the answer is, as I suspect, “No,” then there have to be sounder reasons for not engaging in a raping-and-killing spree than “Because God said so.” And there’s the key to “atheist morality.” I use the scare quotes, because there is no “atheist morality” as such–but that doesn’t mean that atheists cannot act morally. Our capacity to act morality (and I suspect, though I am willing to stand corrected, yours) is derived from our capacity to reason.
“Because God said so” or “You’ll burn in Hell otherwise” are simply not sufficient bases for morality, as Austin Cline points out here. A person that bases his or her moral decisions on a set of millennia-old narrowly-interpreted strictures is not a moral agent: he or she is an automaton. (Or maybe even a “cheribium”?)
oh, and also just because someone is different doesn’t mean you should mock them.
Lighten up. (And maybe allow Corey to speak for himself.)
“Are God’s commands the only thing holding you back?”
Not the only thing, no. The society I live in. Personal tastes. Wanting to be accepted…. What if i didn’t care about these things? What if the tone of society changed, as it has in the past? Would I follow? What if running round shooting people was what I liked doing? (look at computer games nowadays and tell me that that is what many people feel like doing) What if the crowd that I wanted to be a part of were serial rapists? The problems we see nowadays with porn and such like is not indicative of a world operating without moral strictures.
What I am saying is that people are not basically good. No, in our present state we are basically bad and if the conditions were right and there are absolutes people will do what they feel like.
i gotta go or i’d say more. bye for now.
Not the only thing, no. The society I live in. Personal tastes. Wanting to be accepted . . .
Great! Me too!
But what about reason? What about critical thinking? Don’t these also have a role to play in your ethical decision-making?
What I am saying is that people are not basically good. No, in our present state we are basically bad and if the conditions were right and there are [no] absolutes people will do what they feel like.
Here’s the problem, though. How do I know that your absolutes are the right absolutes? How can you convince me that what you define as “bad” and “good” are the correct definitions of “bad” and “good?”
And I would still appreciate your insights into what Corey was blathering on about back there, precisely.
Sorry AV, but you we’ll have to wait on Corey for an explaination. Frederickthewise clearly doesn’t remember this, or at least didn’t read it;
You will understand that if your next post fails to substantate somehow or retract your accusations (even if only a pending recant), that I will delete any further of your comments. This blog is dedicated to honest and rational debate, not cynical smearing.
He’s dodged substantiating a serious allegation and while we are on the topic of unsubstatiated allegations on comments threads (ie defamation); the publisher (in thsi case moi) is liable for them. While I’m sure Dawkins isn’t going to sue me, I’m not going to waist time babysitting Frederick’s comments; he’s been warned.
In any case, he’s already mischaracterising our responces to Corey. While I can’t make heads or tails of his comments, he’s clearly not mallicious and I doubt that he can’t see that the “mockery” was light-hearted and also directed towards our own incapacity to interpret what he wrote (incidentally, he said “cherubium” was a robot, not an element).
Honest debate isn’t losing a participant today.
To God one day is like a thousand years, and one thousand years is like a day. So my faith in Jesus Christ is still strong. Remember that science deals with facts. Who knows what type of technology will be a reality tommorow? Imagine an electromagnic technology simular to an M.R.I. (magnetic resonance imaging) system, that scans a dead body or remains. Next, it would scan the D.N.A. to rereplicate it. Then determine what body parts decayed away. Then carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium and other elements that make up other chemicals, in the body would be added or sprayed to the remains. Remember that electromagnetic energy would be included to rereplicate biological cells with the D.N.A. information of the remains. The Electromagnetic device and recompossing chemical sprayer would be controled by a raid tera-bit computer or higher. In addition, it would rereplicate muscle cells, brain cells, bone cells, blood cells, lymph cells, skin cells, gland cells and ect,… Also, it would rebuild the skeletal system, circulitory system, nervous system, musculer system, and ect,… Then that body would need a breath of life and maybe it’s heart jump started. So, to me it does not matter if his body is still in the tomb or not. It is still possible that Jesus Christ could still do what he promissed to do. In reality, technology will push forward in time. I think that the angle of Gabrel’s horn could be an organic replicater or organic recomposser. Who knows when this can be developed. In conclusion, atheist have feelings too and Jesus Christ only wants for everyone to go to heaven, to enjoy life more abundently.
P.S. the raid tera-bit or higher computer system of course would have information on all chemical structures, in the body’s cells. Every body part’s strutural information would be stored, how to rebuild a body that decayed. Also, it would know the cytric acid cycle to give true life to each cell, in the body, on thier celluler metabilism.
I ment structural,sorry.
It is possible for a heavenly like place to be a reality, for people to see and enter. For example, a large platform can be built of a metal base structure. Also, this structure can house large helium cell tanks and jet engines to move the small town through the air. The small town could be the size of a small block. Plus, it would have white greek looking buildings bolted down to the foundation. Maybe the buildings will be made out of a light wieght blaster. Then more of these could be built, Then the super giant sized one could be built and it’s name would be called New Jerusilm. It of course, would have pearly gates, so no one will fall out of the city to a terrible death. It is good that God cares about peoples safety. In addition, the streets could be paved with gold or a gold colored metal. Yes, up to the clouds believers pray to thier God. Now atheist have faith that they came from monkeys and apes. When will atheist find a monkey or ape that can beat any believer in God at a debate. That is my challange to atheist. We believers in God can speak many languages, so find me an animal from the ape and monkey kingdom that can speak english, to debate against any believer in God.
Now atheist have faith that they came from monkeys and apes.
No: humans, monkeys and apes share a common ancestor. And faith has nothing to do with it–it’s what the evidence suggests.
When will atheist find a monkey or ape that can beat any believer in God at a debate. That is my challange to atheist.
I dunno–ever seen Kirk Cameron or Stephen Baldwin’s work?
I’m beginning to grow rather fond of Corey and his . . . erm . . . logic. “Sure, you smartypants atheists might be able to trounce me in debate, but let’s see a monkey do it!”
Sense this is a thinker’s podium, why is there a moon to light up a night sky, alot of times? Does nature have a mind? Atheist always say that God is not real, then they run to evulotion for a little security. Do you think that our solor system said, “Hey!, earth needs a moon so man can see on most nights? But atheist, say that there is no God, is this a thinkers podium or what? I know that there are other planets with a moon or more than one moon. I think this is a very good question to ask atheist, why would an atheist solar system care about us, to give us humans a moon? So I guess that our solar system cares alot about us, to atheist. Plus, atheist might think that this is very kind and thoughtful of our solar system.
P.S. : The solor system also said, “Lets go ahead and make earth a moon so human couples can have romantic nights on any beach”. And atheist to me agree to this.
Atheist always say that God is not real, then they run to evolution for a little security.
Atheist (well, weak atheist at least) always say that given the absence of evidence of god’s existence, there is no reason to believe in god. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
I think that this is a very good question to ask atheist, why would an atheist solar system care about us, to give us humans a moon.
Hmm . . . naturalistic fallacy? Or pathetic fallacy? Or argument from design?
First, there is no evidence to suggest that the solar system is sentient enough to “care about” anything, let alone human beings. Second, humans have evolved such that they have poor night vision and do their sleeping at night, so I don’t know if the moon is as vital as you make it out to be. Third, the Moon predates humans by a few billion years, so it can hardly be said that the Moon is there for us; it would still be there regardless of whether humans existed.
And atheist to me agree to this.
Hmm. . . do they?
But Corey, we’re both straying far away from the topic.
Just thought I’d mention that the PATHetic fallacy is one where one ascribes a PATHology to non-living objects, usually emPATHy. The solar system caring (about anything) is an example of this.
AV wasn’t getting tetchy
AV wasn’t getting tetchy
I have a smart-arse streak, so it may have seemed that way.
This is so mouch fun for me to debate against atheist. Because it is God that made the moon shine white when the sun shines on it. Now let me defeand Noah’s ark I love to challange atheist, I am not grandma Moses. Remeber I have no sugar in a debate. About 7,600 years ago or more there were giant water tables under the earth’s crust. The fountains of the deep were released and maybe thousands of water giesers shoot into the earth’s atmosphere 26 miles up. Then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. And you now that Noah’s ark is still there, it is so old that it is blue. Plus, half of it broke off and slid down away from it, in the snow. I do not defend lobby dobby, I am here to challange against atheisism head on. Remember the moon looks like a perfect sphere and it has hot lava underneath it, which is evidence that God is real. Because God pulled it out of the sun and it’s surface cooled off. Can you atheist hold information in your head? Remember that space is 459.5 degrees below 0 degrees fairinghieght.
I want to debate against the rationalist responce squad and against your best atheist debaters, and watch me paint all of the atheist into a lossers corner.
P.S. The continental plates are still drifting apart, from the time the super continent was divided. Like a puzzle, Brazil can fit it’s boarders to have it’s boarders fit to the Nigerian boarder area. If you don’t believe me go look at a globe or world map. I do not know when to back off, of attacking atheism.
The moon doesn’t have a molten core and hasn’t for eons. As for the continents matching up, that’s no proof of God. In fact, the geologists who first researched plate tectonics were under attack from the creationists of their time.
How about you start publishing something sensical Corey? You haven’t been malicious and you’ve given us a bit of fun, but you are flooding this comments thread to some degree.
All you’ve done is tell us some stories and get a number of your facts wrong. That’s not even debating.
Yeah–some substantiation of his claims would be a good start. (Hint to Corey: argument by assertion is not substantiation.)
I also have water melon statements that are also malicious, sensical and with some substantiation. Plus, I spelled these words right because I copied them from you. Why would evelution make big juicy water melons that taste very sweet? Oh, never mind atheist, just run back to your malicious, sensical thoughts and with some substantiation of apes and monkeys. Thank you for at least knowing that the moon had hot lava underneath it, because God the Father pulled it out of the sun. I totaly understand that atheist come from monkeys and apes, don’t worry everyone knows that, because atheist are famous for thier assertion of thier apes and monkeys. Who knows maybe believers in God have origian from the heavens, because we believers do have an origian from the heavens.
Corey, I’m beginning to suspect you aren’t a Christian, but a young atheist parodying a Christian.
To answer your question though; “tastyness” in watermelons didn’t evolve in watermelons because tastyness isn’t a biological trait of watermelons. This is evident in the fact that many people find watermelons repulsive. They did however evolve to offer nutrition, while animals evolved to find them more or less palitable (because of their nutritional content.)
Animals eating fruit is an extremely common means of seed dispersal.
Corey, I’m beginning to suspect you aren’t a Christian, but a young atheist parodying a Christian.
“He’s not a Christian, but he plays one on TV.”
Actually I’m beginning to suspect, judging by Corey’s most recent contribution, that my “homeschooler” call wasn’t far off.
Um isn’t the use of ‘their’ correct in that quote? As in their views belonging to them. Not the abbreviation of ‘they are’.
I Corey M. Davis happens to believe in God the Father. I do not suger coat my God like other believers do. The sun in the day time sky did not have a funeral nor did God the Father who made this planet. It is commen since to know that God the Father is made out of sun material. The earth came from the sun because hot lava is under the earth. Also, space is 459.5 degrees below 0 farinhieght. Also evolution is not thinking about us humans. Like making oranges for us. Horses and camels before cars were invented. Pretty roses, tulips and other flowers. So you think evolution said look we made man so lets make other life forms that are for mans use? Now is that magic or one in a trillion odds. The list goes on chickens and turkeys, they can not fly so evolution said what about Thanks Giving? Sometimes it shocks me that people seem not to think any more. Remember most believers always talk about suger in their belief like love and kindness, but I don,t. No wonder so many believers get brain locked when they talk to atheist, but I don,t I go straight to the point with no time to waste.
Are you sure he’s not taking the p_ss? All the xtians I know are sensible science affirmed types who regard stuff like this as really letting the team down.
Maybe a differnt their/they’re, or possible Austin has fixed the boo boo… or I could have originally been mistaken. It’s been a few days after all.
If you really believe that there is no God, then turn a monkey or ape into a human. This message is to all atheist. Even if you have to mate over seas with the ape or monkey. Also, you could put human blood in the monkey or ape. You could even splice genes, with them. So the world can see what you care about. Now believers in God, like me Corey M. Davis should try to make gold colored metal angle robots called cheribium. The cheribium should be 7 feet tall and 350 pounds in wieght. In addition, we believers in God should build small block sized towns, on helium filled platforms. These towns would have a greek heavenly look. Later believers can show the world a small example of a god on a super super 3D computer. The god would make a universe of stars, planets, moons, black holes and so on. Next, he would make an earth planet and the humans. Then he would give them free will and some will respect that god. On the other hand some would deny that universe’s holly spirit or should I say super super 3D computer program.
P.S. The atheist should allow there monkey or ape human to live with them. I myself would rather make lots of money with tourist attraction rides in greece or in the Holy Land and have cheribium gaurd me and the poor in africa. Now, that is better than some stinking ape or monkey, that would make nothing but ape droppings which is what atheism produces. Thank you for correcting my mistakes. I am not the most rightous christian of course, but I wise that all christians would give atheist a hard or harder time than I do.
Are you sure he’s not taking the p_ss? All the xtians I know are sensible science affirmed types who regard stuff like this as really letting the team down.
That’s probably because (I suspect) most of the Christians you know are Australians, and there’s not that big a market in Australian Christendom for fundamentalist woo. (At least, not yet.)
Maybe Corey’s from the US.
Corey, as I see it you’re making a few errors (well, much more than a few, but let’s start with these):
(i) You think evolution = atheism. That’s just stupid: many theists, even many Christians, accept evolution also.
(ii) You think evolution = turning monkeys and apes into humans with a wave of a magic wand (so to speak). This is a major strategic error on your part, if you see yourself as engaged in a polemical war with atheists and those who accept evolution (among which, remember, many of your fellow Christians are numbered), because it shows how ill-informed you are.
(iii) You think winning a debate = wearing the opposition down to exhaustion with your largely nonsensical free-associating. That’s not debating, Corey: it’s comment-spamming. And it suggests that you’re less interested in engaging with your opponents than you are in hearing yourself talk (or should it be “watching yourself type?”).
The reason why I did not debate about the spirit world were God is, because I thought that you atheist were stuck on an ape and a monkey, for almost one hundred years. I would be very happy to debate any of you at a school or some place. Years ago professors did not want for me to show up at the debate, in that school. So they sceduled a math test, for me during the same time. But the main thing that atheist don’t realize is that if believers, that think scientific were to discuss, how spirits work, to the public, advanced knowledge might alert certain offices. In other words, there are believers that have super advanced knowledge in science. For example believers understand the unseen concept. While atheist don’t. The U.S. has the stealth planes that are invisible to radar. Plus, I thought of ideas like cloth that reflects like a mirror, if it could be made. Even on star trek they talk of a cloaking device. So I guess that atheist do not understand alot of concepts, maybe you do not understand radio waves or anything unseen. I already know that you have no concept of electrons, protons, and neutrons speeding up or slowing down, in there movements,in atoms. But for me to be totaly honest, you know that the spirit world is real , because you are hiding what you really are. Or you are hiding what is in you. So quit trying to fight ones that are so much, much, much younger than you, and all of you should be ashamed of your selves. All of you are exposed now, because I saw your true leader and he might turn over a new leaf. I know that your next move is that you will state what am I getting at, and you are so much more predictable than me. Futher more, just because something happened to all of you very, very, very long ago does not mean, that you have to bring the whole world down. Maybe something can be worked out far after the debate, that is if you really want true peice everywhere. Also, that rationalist responce squad declaired a war, on all believers first. Only of word I also agree, which is civilized.
P.S. : Anyone uncivilized will of course be detained, by law enforcement and by examaning both sides we seem very civilized.
Further errors arising from Corey’s most recent post:
(iv) You fail to notice that Star Trek is science fiction. This suggests an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy on your part that makes it difficult to take you seriously.
(v) You claim to know what atheists are really thinking (“But for me to be totaly honest, you know that the spirit world is real , because you are hiding what you really are. Or you are hiding what is in you.”). This is a classic error of religious apologists; it is also manifestly dishonest.
(vi) There is a saying: “Herding atheists is like herding cats.” Atheists have no “leader”–though I am curious as to who you think he/she might be.
(v) Finally, you believe the Rationalist Response Squad represent all atheists. They don’t (see previous point).
Atheist hate Christmas, Easter and other holidays of this type. Also, I am not stating the money made here. When will atheist learn that they do not have 4 hands like an ape and monkey does? Also, I would love to see what a terrible holiday atheist would have only for themselves. I think it should be called ape-man day, named after an atheist dream come true. Happy ape- man day, you atheist, evelution should have given you atheist, 4 hands instead, of 2 hands and 2 feet. So, that way you can have your way and win your argument 100%.
What ever freak you find, for your holiday, I hope you enjoy that freak, for you ape-man dream holiday, you atheist.
I ment for your ape;man dream holiday.
Atheist hate Christmas, Easter and other holidays of this type.
Well, I’m an atheist, and I don’t hate holidays of this type. So your claim is falsified.
When will atheist learn that they do not have 4 hands like an ape and monkey does?
Apes and monkeys don’t have four hands either!
Happy ape- man day, you atheist, evelution should have given you atheist, 4 hands instead, of 2 hands and 2 feet.
If you really believe this, then you don’t understand evolution. As I stated in a previous post, it isn’t really a good strategy in a debate to reveal how little you know about a subject.
Okay Corey, you’ve managed to disrail conversation here, which was supposed to be about (ahem) “fundamentalist atheism”. If you aren’t able to keep on topic, and still want to talk, I’ve created a thread just for you.
You can find it here: http://thinkerspodium.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/coreys-thread-of-doom/
I can’t have discussion being derailed like this, so please take advantage of the thread I’ve given you. Otherwise I’m going to have to start deleting your off-topic posts, or perhaps even ban you if it gets too much.
I don’t relish banning or deleting.
(Bruce: that link links back to this thread)
Fixed. Bizzare considering that I only had one URL in my clipboard…
Believers in God all want to go to heaven. But atheist don’t understand that technology will increase so much until it might produce things, that explain God. In addition, I believe that science and technology will also produce ape-men, millions of them, that can rule over atheist, like on “Planet of the Apes”. It is clear that atheist deny heaven and God. So, if you really are atheist for real that means that your mind is only occupied by ape-men. Keep on refusing the dream of heaven, I don’t care. And you know that there is technology to make a heaven in this world. Also, I know alot more about very extremely high level science that you will never know or believe, because an ape-man is your maximium in scientific knowledge. Even if it’s bones must have been glued together. Atheist should never go to hell, they should go study real ape-men up close, maybe the ape-men would chain the human atheist animals, like they did in the movies. Scientist need to develope these ape-men badly. I will take a look at the thread, of atheism’s doom. And add more bad news to atheism, thank you.
That’s the last off-topic post I’ll allow on this thread Corey. You know where they belong now…
Science and Religion
Science is…. Scrreeeech-crash-tinkle!!!
Moderator’s note: What John said.
hkyson, you must really like that little disquisition – you’ve put it on your blog, in the truth is a woman blog and here.
It would be interesting if, you know, it had anything to do with Bruce’s post.
Seems to me you’re spamming to promote interlingua.
Bah.