The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars

Catholic Educators Resource Center ^ | 5/27/08 | PAUL JOHNSON

[Coyoteman]

OK, one more then its bedtime. Enjoy.

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[Revolting cat!]

I'll take the word of a Paul Johnson, even if he were to argue the earth is flat, over the gibberish from some anonymous poster on an obscure Internet forum, who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's", and claims his life's mission is to "defend science"!

[Bommer]

[thomaswest]

re 43: If nothing else, Atheism most certainly has preachers -- Those who proclaim (not just believe) there is no god and that religious is foolishness ... fit that category. To a certain extent, the Darwin fish, even if in response to the Christian fish is taking on many of the aspects of public display of piety, complete with religious symbol. As for the rest, well, it depends on the denomination {are you referring to sects, denominations or cults?} of atheism. Certainly communism fit many of the descriptions of an atheist faith and had many of the attributes you list.

Surely you are joking, Mr. Celtjew

Atheists may have advocates, but atheists have no churches from which to preach and they get no tithes. Atheists get no tax-exemption, get no parsonage, no priory exemption on their taxes.

You are just silly if you think atheists have equal treatment to all the preachers, priests, pastors. Please identify atheists who get $300,000,000 per year like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Gary Bower and Chris Dobson. Do you know any single atheist "advocate/preacher" with such a lavish lifestyle and private jets and command of TV and radio access?

I note your quick way to link a non-belief to communism. Sheesh, you missed out nazism.

There are no atheists promoting a disrespect for religion via meaningless public displays of piety.

Atheists have no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I don't know if I'd take Paul Johnson's word for it, but I'd certainly pay attention.

But I have to defend people who get "its" and "it's" confused, as its a mistake I often make and have the hardest time catching.

[microgood]

Atheists may have advocates, but atheists have no churches from which to preach and they get no tithes.

I think Oxford may qualify as such a place.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Do you know any single atheist "advocate/preacher" with such a lavish lifestyle and private jets and command of TV and radio access?

Ted Turner.

I have little liking for Robertson, Falwell, Bauer, or Dobson. But I don't begrudge them the money or access they have. It is the narrow fundamentalism I dislike.

I dislike it from any corner. At least the Christians have the honesty to admit to being Fundamentalists.

There are no atheists promoting a disrespect for religion via meaningless public displays of piety.

I've heard and read plenty who say they put the Darwin fish on their car specifically to annoy Christians.

Atheists have no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.

That's twice you've used this word-for-word in the this thread. Three times and you have a creed. 8>)

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Atheists may have advocates, but atheists have no churches from which to preach and they get no tithes.

I think Oxford may qualify as such a place.

Good point... Many universities -- or at least individual classes, in fact... The way things are going, public school may soon qualify as well with a government mandated school tithe, um, tax.

[thomaswest]

re 56: A very beautiful picture of amanita muscaria.

In New England woods, this amanita often appears in late summer in proximity to the "Indian Pipe", an unusual chloroplast-free angiosperm that has reverted.

Legend has it that eating amanitas will turn you toward creationism/IDism. You should be careful about this.

You may know the book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.

[tallhappy]

First, evolution is a slow process, but it is not a uniform process.

How do you know it is not uniform?

[DesScorp]

"Note the Creationists trying to denigrate people by calling them religious. Projection?"

Reality. Most Scientists are Atheists...but rather than truly live without a deity-belief system, they've substituted one god for another.

[thomaswest]

re 67: At least the Christians have the honesty to admit to being Fundamentalists.

Do they? What about "stealth candidates"? What about fake quotes? Surely you are joking, Mr. Celtjew.

re 67: I've heard and read plenty who say they put the Darwin fish on their car specifically to annoy Christians.

You seem very sensitive and easily annoyed. A few hundred Darwin fish on cars vs. 250,000,000 in the USA who proclaim they are Christians, and send in megabucks, and claim to know "the one true faith". The idea that Christians are a "persecuted minority" is simply absurd.

Atheists have no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses. "That's twice you've used this word-for-word in the [sic] this thread. Three times and you have a creed."

It was a valid post before, and you have not answered it. It remains valid. You attempt to dismiss it, but it remains unanswered by you.

But thanks for playing.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Most Scientists are Atheists

Any evidence for this claim? Numbers on the table.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

You seem very sensitive and easily annoyed.You seem very sensitive and easily annoyed. A few hundred Darwin fish on cars vs. 250,000,000 in the USA who proclaim they are Christians, and send in megabucks, and claim to know "the one true faith". The idea that Christians are a "persecuted minority" is simply absurd.

By the Darwin fish? Hardly. For one thing, I'm not Christian. For another I believe evolution is at least a major contributor to the development of the species. For another, where did I ever claim that Christians are a "persecuted minority"? As for your creed, I've given a few brief examples... But here's another question. Are those attributes what makes a religion?

Certainly some of them are not true of every religion. Some are not unique to religion. Judaism does not have altar boys nor, certainly edifices with crosses. Sex scandals are not just in religious institutions.

In any case, Atheism does have at least one established creed, at least one thing that is held true: There is no god, goddesses, or other deities.

Like those of other beliefs, some atheists hold their belief quietly and with doubt; others prefer to be obnoxious about it and dismiss believers of any sort as fools or rogues. So you have Richard Dawkins saying, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." So you have Ted Turner referring to those who have crosses of ash on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday as "Jesus Freaks." So you have, etc., etc., etc.

Does that make atheism a religion? Perhaps not. But it does make it, at the least, a belief system about religion. And like any other belief system, it has its fundamentalist advocates. Who, frankly, I find just as insufferable as any other such fanatics.

[stormer]

"Ah, yes. The tree of knowledge..."

Amanita spp?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

How do you know it is not uniform?

Coyoteman can probably answer this better, but I'll give it a try.

The fossil record shows periods of time where more new species show up than other points in the record. One early point, I think, was the Cambrian Explosion, which brought about a plethora of multicellular life, where before there had been only single- and few-celled forms.

Probably as the climate of the Earth -- or possibly even the makeup of its atmosphere -- organisms that couldn't adapt died off and new organisms that were better suited swiftly evolved.

Mind you, if this is the case, and humankind is really "destroying the environment" the more likely result is another "explosion" of new species.... mind you, as the result would not be seen for millions of years, we likely wouldn't notice it.... But if there's an afterlife, it could be fun to pass part of eternity watching it.

[DesScorp]

"Any evidence for this claim? Numbers on the table."

Surveys vary. At best, 60 percent of scientists are atheists. At worst, 93 percent are. Depends on which stats you believe. But no one seriously doubts that a majority of scientists don't believe in God. In college, my old Chemistry prof confirmed that most of his colleages were atheists. While there are some prominent nobel-winning scientists that believe in God, professional science increasingly ridicules anyone who does.

[thomaswest]

re 71: they've substituted one god for another.

So, your faith is in "one god"? Do you have a particular one in mind? Or merely the one god that you choose to "believe in".

As you know, there are many, many claims to know "the one true god". Since there are so many equal claims from zillions of believers, all of them are equally silly. Gods and religions are man-made; humans make up gods as they imagine them, so "man in God's image" is clearly a false notion.

Shamans, priests, witch doctors, pastors, preachers have promoted this notion in claiming to represent the 'god', but they contributed little to understanding the world. They have benefited themselves a great deal getting alms and dollars in return for doing little productive.

Rain-gods, gods of traffic; gods of sex; gods of cholesterol; gods of blood-pressure; gods of family connectednesses--these gods seem much more important. Gods of abstinence seem rather weak and irrelevant.

Faith healers, exorcists, psychics, send-money-for-a-one-way-ticket-to-heaven is a familiar theme.

It is sad that so many are addicted to such beliefs.

[The Red Zone]

It is sad

I (and God) find it amusing that atheists presume to think in such infinitudes, when there is no "it" there to be, e.g., sad.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

At best, 60 percent of scientists are atheists.

I think this is what you are referring to.

Despite such affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man, according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.

That's a badly phrased question. It's possible to believe in a naturalistic position of the origins of man, while still believing in a hands-off God.

At worst, 93 percent are.

The survey was of members of the National Academy of Science. The members have to be nominated and elected, which would tend to create a bias.

I'm not surprised that scientists tend to believe in religion, less than the general population.... after all, if you don't believe in religion, you're going to tend to gravitate towards professions that don't involve it. However, give the bad phrasing in the first survey and the bias in the latter, I suspect that slight more than half of all scientists in the U.S. believe in some sort of deity.