Why are atheists so threatened by Intelligent Design?

Was Darwin still a Christian when he said those though, or had he become an agnostic by then?

 

One by one, we need to address the PRATTs. So I'll go after this one, since it's more dishonest than ignorant.

Not so, for two reasons. First, because Darwin's theory is strictly concerned with biological adaptation through differential reproductive success. It is not in any way a sociology theory. And second, because "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with evolution.

By the time Hitler came to power, Darwin's theory had been considered, tested, revised, modified, retested, etc. for about 80 years. Even then, Darwin was remembered as the originator of one part of an increasingly applicable set of biological explanations. Scientists respect those who originate major theories, EVEN IF those theories no longer much resemble what the originator thought. Contrast this with religions, which worship individuals rather than explanations. Your attempt to smear Darwin's memory by associating his name (NOT his ideas) with Hitler only reflects a religious mindset.

 

Even if what those characters said was true at the time they said it that doesn't mean that those things are still true. Their mistake was in assuming that things would always stay constant and continue as they were for all time. Things change and human societies are dynamic.

Sure, it was easy for an European white guy to travel to primitive areas of the world and conclude that the people there would always be at the bottom of the heap. But that's not happened in real life in a world that they couldn't foresee.

As we know from historical evidence, societies wax and wane. One century one group is on top and then, in an instant, its replaced by another group.

For instance, 756 years ago on February 13, 1258, the Mongols destroyed the Abbasid Caliphate which had ruled the Islamic Empire since 750. One day we too will fall into the dust bin of history and who knows who will then become the top dog?

Since nothing involving humans lasts forever it's not a good idea to tick people off just because you can. Besides, humans are becoming more homogeneous every day. So why put any stock into what 19th Century racists said?

 

And one more of these tasty misrepresentations:

The theory of evolution does not rest on the fossil record AT ALL. It can truthfully be said that if fossilization never occurred, the theory of evolution would be no different at all. I repeat, even with ZERO fossils, no such thing as a fossil record, the theory would be just the way it is now. All the fossil record does is provide a partial illustration of one possible evolutionary pathway, out of infinite possibilities.

Saying the theory of evolution is "almost a non-theory" on the basis of the fossil record is like saying that the theory that English literature exists is "almost a non-theory" because we don't know who Shakespeare was.

But in this case, I'm going to blame a combination of factors: Because the public schools generally do not teach the theory of evolution for fear of angering too many parents, and because this edcational void tends to be filled with the lies and idiocies promulgated by religious nitwits.

 

Worse - scientific understanding of the timescale involved and the statistical likelihood of fossilization would lead one to expect a huge number of gaps.

 

You have to remember that over 25% of modern day (2014 edition) Americans don't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And that 25% is made up of people you know and interact with every day.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/6e49b254-fc12-4176-8ab6-c6146611c372

 

This of course misses the point. Darwin could have been a woman-hating, racist axe-murderer, and his scientific ideas are STILL correct and well documented 150 years later. What is there about the religious mindset, that renders it incapable of distinguishing between personalities and scientific theories? WHY do religious people think that if they can smear historical figures, that this somehow undermines todays research findings?

- - - Updated - - -

It is probably also worth noting that occasional fossils DO form, and currently there are many millions of them, with hundreds more found every day, and not one fossil has been found in a location which is inconsistent with the theory.

 

why is Sunday school failing to teach their kids creation so badly that they need the government to teach it for them?

.

 

Well, to be fair and objective about it, the women in those fundamental sects must enjoy being treated like dirt because they can simply leave if they didn't like it. So as long as they participate in it who am I to complain about how they are treated? It has to fulfill their needs or else those sects would die out.

 

I wrote that even if what he said when he said it was true that it doesn't mean that those things are true today. Are you saying that you think certain groups of people are the same today as when Darwin and others made their observations?

 

I'm saying that differential reproductive success is one of the important engines for organisms adapting to their environment. Darwin made this argument, and he was right. Nothing else Darwin said or did or thought matters a bit.

 

Did Darwin also get a traffic ticket? Maybe he texted while driving?

 

I think you get way off topic with the Darwin bit, which is a tad misleading...

As far as why close their ears, psychology has very good answers for that. First, the false consensus effect works across communities to bias individuals into believing that more people agree with them than actually do. Right away, there is a chance your atheists believe very strongly that whatever you're going to tell them is wrong regardless of where you start or end. You could probably start the conversation with, "I'm a christian. Let me tell you why Atheism is wrong." And follow it by paraphrasing their own beliefs in a complex way. They'll be so stuck on making sure you're wrong, not listening as they should, they may not even catch the trick. That's a human fallacy, not an Atheist one.

Admittedly a lot of our research into irrational behavior has focused on markets. For one reason there is a lot of money in markets, and hence a lot of interest. Another is that the data is better recorded for analysis than human interaction and information movement though organic populations. The best example I can think of is everyone's belief that brokerages can offer superior returns over market indexes, or that individual investors can adapt strategies that return greater than the market average. The belief is so strong that, not only are millions of people willing to refuse the data that says an index/treasury portfolio is the safest and highest returning you're gonna get when broker fees are paid, they are willing to bet their families future that these gang of geniuses can do better than the market. Year on year most are proved wrong, but still they gamble. Princeton has done great work on this. Try: "Analyst Irrationality and the Impact of Implicit Beliefs on Consensus Earnings Forecasts" (Ross, L. et. al) to start if it interests you.

K. K. Back to the atheist. He's exhibiting irrational behavior based on environmentally dictated biasing over the course of his development. That's it. Nothing special really. You can catch people on all kinds of topics like this. Sex is fun to pull out if you want to shut someone up. Of course, sometimes you get too much information. I think the same is true of political conversations. I believe your statement implies all atheists will shut their ears to you and I think that's naive. Many will probably give you TMI. Might even change the way you think. Never know.

 

I think church is. A good place to teach Intelligent Design. I don't know why anyone would want to be associated with the "goo to you" crowd.

 

ID is relabeled creationism.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the ID agenda should be aware of this.

 

I am an atheist. I am not threatened by Intelligent design.

Your thesis is proven wrong by my single example.

 

A rhetorical question about a falsehood isnt that hard to demolish.

 

Kind of interesting that so many of them try to deny it is creationism.

I guess its tacit acknowledgement that crreationism is no better than astrology.

And

On the other hand, you'd think that they'd want to own it, if they think ID can prove creationism!

 

Garbage. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_women_property.htm Christianity hugely elevated the status of women in the ancient world.

Let me guess, 'irrelevant' is defined as a point against your world-view?

- - - Updated - - -

Count me as happy to disbelieve nothing X nobody = everything.

- - - Updated - - -

Bully for you, but why do so many atheists spend huge chunks of their waking hours complaining about what other people choose to believe? As if one's view of origins in the distant past has any importance today, speaking from their materialist view.

 

Elevated from worms to dogs. From trash to property. No points for switching from physical to emotional abuse. Forgive me for continuing to be critical of a misogynist religion, even if it is somewhat less so than its predecessors.

Again, back when I was younger and less sensitive, that is the kind of question that would lead me to ask if you have a cognitive disability. My 13-year-old sister in law, who has fetal alcohol syndrome, could tell you that abortion is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

I don't hold it against you for being critical, only for not reading links I posted and making up names about Christianity with no supporting evidence. From my link, here are some conclusions from the Bible on women that would have been rejected by the ancient Greek and Roman worlds:

"Being both together created in the very image of God, man and woman are superior to animals.
Male and female are given authority to rule over God’s physical creation. This affirms that women are co-rulers with men.
Woman originated from man, in order for her to be compatible with him and a comparable helper, indicating that they both have the same essence and value.
Male and female unite to become one flesh, demonstrating that the two need each other in order to complete each other.
Because of this interdependency and unity, the husband is told to treat his spouse as his own body.
As a result of this essential equality and unity, the woman has the same rights over her spouse’s body that her husband has over her’s."

Then I reject her opinion also. You would think that if you think an unborn child is a worm, a dog, trash or property. You have no moral basis to be lecturing anybody.

 

The Bible depicts women as property. No amount of evidence about how nicely they treated that property is going to somehow make it not misogynistic. You can try to draw those conclusions if you want, but the text of the Bible doesn't support the idea that man and woman are actually equal.

I certainly don't think that, yet you brought it up when addressing me. You don't have any idea what my stance on abortion is, or my opinion of the unborn. I'm sorry that your ability to have a conversation appears to be worse than that of a 13-year-old.

And still, abortion has nothing to do with misogyny in the Bible or the actual topic of the thread. So it's thrice irrelevant, yet you somehow disagree?

 

Show me where Christianity treats women as property, don't just say that. Mysogyny means hatred of women, I know you read that on atheist websites, but show me where Christ and the NT teach that? You must be thinking of Islam. Its the same sloppy name-calling here as when we who think homosexual activity is immoral are called 'homophobic', usually by the same crowd.

Are employees property too?

Your opinion is noted, mine is that it is hypocritical to complain about an OT arrangement in the aftermath of a difficult situation yet be fine with thousands of unborn innocent females (some killed specifically by sex selection) being killed every day. What is your position on abortion?

 

That is certainly the most common definition, but it can also mean dislike, contempt, or prejudice against women. For example, placing men above women, or denying certain things to women for no good reason, could be considered misogyny, and there are examples of that among many Christian denominations and passages in the bible that are easily interpreted as supporting such views, like Timothy 2:11.

 

You post:
""""Being both together created in the very image of God, man and woman are superior to animals.
Male and female are given authority to rule over God’s physical creation. This affirms that women are co-rulers with men.
Woman originated from man, in order for her to be compatible with him and a comparable helper, indicating that they both have the same essence and value.
Male and female unite to become one flesh, demonstrating that the two need each other in order to complete each other.
Because of this interdependency and unity, the husband is told to treat his spouse as his own body.
As a result of this essential equality and unity, the woman has the same rights over her spouse’s body that her husband has over her’s.""""

And yet in another post you claimed you were the head of the household....a total contradiction if you believe what you posted above...