Re: Like Hume the atheists in the t.o forum still fear having the "A"

On Jun 11, 2:11 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
T Pagano wrote:

But if atheism is true and defensible why fear the courage of one's
conviction.

Regards,
T Pagano

Interesting Tony. I never saw this before side, but now I do. Thanks.

Additionally, Many times I have read @ TO that evolution is not atheism and
vs.versa.

Evolution is a theory for the origins of species that is in direct conflict
with and, is diametrically opposed to, the teachings of many popular
religions. (not to mention directly opposed to the teachings of the original
Christian, Jesus of Nazareth)

which is wrong on 2 counts

1. the world's largest christian denomination has no problem with
evolution
2. jesus never mentioned HOW the world was created so evolution is
irrelevant

in addition, the most ancient statement of belief in christianity
precedes the existence of the bible. and it does not require belief
'in the bible' to be a christian.


By being opposed to the teachings of religion
that makes the theory of evolution an atheistic concept even when using the
loosest definition of the word 'atheist'.

there are no 'teachings of religion'. there are teachings of
religionS....plural. and few of them exclude science.

But the atheist will not defend
that and will counter with the notion that one can be a theist and believe
in evolution at the same time. But that is believing in two opposite
definitions for the origins of species simultaneously.

you make a rather arrogant, fatuous argument...based solely on your
own assertions...about what christians believe

none of which is true.


Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims and states a
lack of empirical evidence for their reason. I read that here constantly.
"Where is your evidence" they hand wave.The creation story lacks empirical
evidence but an evolutionist will  /not/ accept other forms of evidence for
creation.

correct. because other ideas are not testable. they are subjective.
only empiricism has led science to be able to do what creationism can
not:

explain how the world works. adman himself has admitted science is
superior in this regard, and that creationism has failed. yet he
insists it should be used.


If they were truly a theist and an evolutionist then they would
accept the natural evidence for evolution _as well as_ accept the
supernatural evidence for creation in order to reconcile their belief in
both.

since SOME views of supernaturalism are wrong, how can a WRONG view be
reconciled to the correct view? adman himself has never told us how to
recognize a correct 'supernatural' event. are goblins real? why don't
we see angels today? the dead rising? these were once 'common' in the
'supernatural' view of things

carrolly erickson, a professor of medieval history, wrote a book
entitled 'the medieval vision' on how differently people 1000 years
ago saw things compared to the way we do today. yet adman believes we
can step right into the shoes of the ancients and see what they saw

a few days ago there was a robust discussion on whether or not hume
was an 'atheist'. it turns out this word, written in english, has
changed in meaning in a few centuries.

yet the moron 'adman' insists that books written thousands of years
ago in dead languages haven't changed at all...nor has our
understanding. which is plainly bull***.



As you can see, they are in quite a pickle. If they say "yes" to
supernatural evidences then they are saying "yes" that evolution is a
subjective belief because the theory has two different yet valid
explanations.  If they do not, then they are forced to claim that one can
believe in two opposing definitions for the origins of species at the same
time. Which is absurd but they expect thinking people to believe that
anyway.

there is, of course, a 3rd selection, which the creationist is loathe
to admit: a more sophisticated, and subtle view of the world in which
the human is grounded in god, and the physical is grounded in god's
laws of nature...including evolution

the creationist can't understand this because of his limited ability
to think.



The above seems to sum up the paradox of evolution in a nut shell. Even
though it conflicts with it's own internal beliefs as well as the beliefs of
religions, it is still expected to be accepted as valid theory for the
origins of species for theists.


there is a paradox only if you think as a 3rd century thinker. if you
have learned anything since you were 10 years old, you can't be a
creationist

.