The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe I misunderstood you. Would I assume that an ID proponent is a theist? Yes, of course. But I would not equate ID to theism. I consider ID to be an attempt by theists to try and discredit evolution for religious reasons, and yes I would assume all proponents of ID are theists. But I fail to see how that is equivalent to:

If what one means by Evolution is Atheism

I consider ID to be an attempt by theists to try and discredit evolution

Now take that sentence you wrote and substitute these words and you get a realistic picture of the matter.

" I consider EVOLUTION to be an attempt by ATHEISTS to try and discredit THEISM ."

Enter best selling author Dr. Richard Dawkins.

And if you hedge on that one , then I'll call you the liar .

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would be shocked if you had risen to the challenge. Instead, we realise you were lying.

From Wikipedia's Summary of Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker.


" After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place ..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation."

Twhitehead, open mouth, change feet.

Evolution virtually equivalent to Atheism per New Atheism's pop best selling author Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Originally posted by jaywill
Yes.


Roughly the same approximate number of people as who identify Intellegent Design immediately as Theism.

You want us to seriously believe people who spout ID really thinks it could be some kind of intelligent alien and not a god? What difference would it make anyway?

What evidence would there be for such a being?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The word you are looking for is hypothesis, but you are wrong.

Theory and fact are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Saying evolution is a theory is saying that evolution is an explanation for how
the diversity of life came about. And that it has been experimentally verified.

Calling it a verified Fact is saying that it has been proven true.
...[text shortened]... th the number of good sources of information on the topic, there is
no good excuse for either.

Excellent.

It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all). I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, is really a poor philosopher whose arguments against theism are not strong (can’t recall the details). Some of us have never read Dawkins, and so are not swayed by him one way or the other. But he seems to be a kind of punching bag for theists; I doubt that many atheists on here really feel the vicarious blows.

Originally posted by vistesd
It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all). I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, is really a poor philosopher whose arguments against theism are not strong (can’t recall the details). Some of us have never read Dawkins, ...[text shortened]... f punching bag for theists; I doubt that many atheists on here really feel the vicarious blows.

It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all).

What's funny ? Maybe they're embarressed by the book, realize its weaknesses, and choose not to bring it up.

I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, is really a poor philosopher whose arguments against theism are not strong (can’t recall the details).

So blame theist philosophers ?

Some of us have never read Dawkins, and so are not swayed by him one way or the other. But he seems to be a kind of punching bag for theists; I doubt that many atheists on here really feel the vicarious blows.

Selective sympathy.

Like Mike Behe is not a "punching bag" for atheists ? - "Yawn. Oh that book by Behe has been SO debunked !! Yawn. "

Originally posted by jaywill

It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all).

What's funny ? Maybe they're embarressed by the book, realize its weaknesses, and choose not to bring it up.


[quote]
I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologis ching bag" for atheists ? - "Yawn. Oh that book by Behe has been SO debunked !! Yawn. "

By "funny" I did not mean "humorous": likely a bad choice of words. Interesting would have been better. And yes, I suspect Behe is the perfect counter-example: not nearly (again, this is just my historical observation over the years here) brought up as often by theists--perhaps for the very reasons that you mention here, only from the other direction!

And where in the world did you get "blame the theist philosphers"?

Selective sympathy? How about a selective thin skin?

Originally posted by jaywill

It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all).

What's funny ? Maybe they're embarressed by the book, realize its weaknesses, and choose not to bring it up.


[quote]
I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologis ...[text shortened]... ching bag" for atheists ? - "Yawn. Oh that book by Behe has been SO debunked !! Yawn. "

You know, jaywill, over the years of argument, I don’t think I have ever treated you in the same jackass way that you have sometimes treated me when you just didn’t like what I said. Maybe that’s my fault. Maybe that’s what you deserve. I have disagreed with you, and sharply, but never unleashed the kind of disrespectful and uncivil sarcasm toward you that you have toward me, on more than one occasion. In fact, more often than not, I have complimented you on your exegetical prowess, whether I agreed with your interpretations or not. But maybe you are just a jackass—and I’m just tired of being nice to jackasses.

Originally posted by vistesd
It’s funny how Dawkins seems to get brought up more by theists than by atheists on here (just a my impression over the years, that’s all). I remember bbarr (atheist) outlining how Dawkins, while a brilliant biologist, is really a poor philosopher whose arguments against theism are not strong (can’t recall the details). Some of us have never read Dawkins, ...[text shortened]... f punching bag for theists; I doubt that many atheists on here really feel the vicarious blows.

I've read you more than him, believe it or not. I can create my own argument against being a theist in 3 minutes; choosing the other path is more interesting.

Originally posted by divegeester
I've read you more than him, believe it or not. I can create my own argument against being a theist in 3 minutes; choosing the other path is more interesting.

You and I have disagreed a time or two over the years. 🙂 But I don't recall a cross word.

[Stuff edited out.]

You be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
You and I have disagreed a time or two over the years. 🙂 But I don't recall a cross word.

[Stuff edited out.]

You be well.

Have we? Maybe a glancing blow, but nothing I remember and I don't see why. My post was not meant to emphasise your contributions which I either have or haven't read; more noting a previous post by yourself that 'Dawkinsism' is the new... 'black' in some circles and that I haven't read him at all. Much to my shame I guess.

Originally posted by divegeester
Have we? Maybe a glancing blow, but nothing I remember and I don't see why. My post was not meant to emphasise your contributions which I either have or haven't read; more noting a previous post by yourself that 'Dawkinsism' is the new... 'black' in some circles and that I haven't read him at all. Much to my shame I guess.

You're likely right: maybe a glancing blow at most, that's all. 🙂 And my ego is not so bad that I took you as emphasizing "my contributions".

EDIT: You know, I think I have The Blind Watchmaker around somewhere; and I've never read it (maybe started it, and set it aside for something else, I don't recall really). I probably ought to read it before assuming that Dawkins' critics, from either side, are right...

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is ...[text shortened]... e general population to accept evolution as ‘fact’, it will be the death of (real) Christianity.

We see, therefore, that evolution is foundational/necessary for their faith that there is no Creator and that everything made itself (i.e. evolution).

No we don't. We see that evolution is a motivation for some to reject belief in God. Many atheists reject Christianity on other grounds and many Christians continue to believe in God even when accepting evolution. Just because one person finds evolution to be a reason to reject Christianity does not mean that it is 'foundation/necessary'.

Also, it is just plain hubris to equate Christianity with belief in a creator. Not all theists subscribe to the salvation-saviour paradigm of Christianity. Zindler explicitly refers to Christianity, not theism.

Originally posted by lausey
If you want to split hairs, NOTHING is proven fact. However, based on observation, you can conclude what is most likely to be true.

Often evidence is so strong that you accept as fact, like if you jump from a tall building without any flight aids, you will fall and most likely die.

Evidence is very strong for evolution by natural selection. So much so, ...[text shortened]... rld would not even work if this wasn't the case, and scientists in these fields accept as fact.

I have told you guys over and over that natural selection is adaptation and
not evolution, even Darwin said so.

Originally posted by lausey
Not necessarily. Fruit flies have been demonstrated to be separated and evolved enough to diverge and no longer be attracted to each other. Given enough time, they effectively will become genetically different enough and a different species.

EDIT: Although I need to add that it is very difficult to define a species. It is quite subjective.

This is an absolute lie.