I don’t even bother to cite WorldNutDaily anymore unless I am seeking an example of especially idiotic Christian extremism. Sadly, this has become widespread enough that I don’t even usually need to go to such lengths to find it.
I’m sorry to say I actually bought Kupelian’s book, “The Marketing of Evil”, just to see if he could really make a convincing case for his claims. I wasn’t surprised that he couldn’t, but I was surprised by just how bad his arguments were.
>Somehow, atheism – just like homosexuality, which used to be considered shameful and something to hide – is now becoming hip, sophisticated, even a badge of honor.
FINALLY I can say I was an atheist before “atheist” was really cool! I didn’t know it made me appear more hip and sophisticated–perhaps even “honorable”–but hey, that doesn’t hurt my feelings any.
>evolution is a religion, full of incredible and unproven beliefs about man’s origin,
Just to point this out, this is an old “argument” against evolution. Besides the reality that evolution is observable, let’s use a hypothetical that evolution really is not observable, and it is utterly unsupported. It’s a stretch, but try for a moment.
Now realize that the reason religious people _use_ this line of reasoning is to say “evolution is just the same as _my_ religious beliefs.”
Again, let’s say that’s true. Let’s say we’re both operating on utter, unsupported, blind faith.
Now, ask yourself: What do most fundamentalists who _use_ this line of reasoning think about believing evolution?
Why, they think only an idiot would believe “people came from monkeys.” Don’t they? They think you’d have to be near brain dead to accept that life just happened “by accident”–right?
Just to make sure we’re on the same page:
1. If evolution is unsupported claims, I’m an idiot to believe it.
2. Because evolution is nothing but unsupported claims–it’s just the same as religion.
3. Therefore, evolutionists are hypocritical for attacking people who believe in god–the crux of unsupported religion.
But what they don’t seem to grasp is this:
4. If I’m an idiot to believe unsupported claims (such as evolution), and evolution is the same as religion in its lack of support. WHAT does that say about people who believe religion?
Wouldn’t the points also flow thus:
1. Evolution is no different than relgion–they’re both unsupported.
2. You’re an idiot to believe in evolution because it’s not supported.
3. Believing an unsupported god/religion that is the same as evolution makes theists idiots.
What I’ve tried to explain is that the mechanism of evolution is observable. If it wasn’t we couldn’t have Great Danes. The mechanism “creation” (as regards living organisms) has never been observed.
The observed mechanism evolution is responsible, observably, for producing new species.
The unobserved mechanism creationism has never been observed to produce any species.
To say evolution can do X, but not X+1 needs support. It should be phrased as a question: Yes, evolution can create new species (X), but can it do…X+1?
In other words, if I see a three-foot stalagtite formed, and I measure that it appears to grow 1 cm per year via an observable mechanism of mineral deposits in dripping water, what makes more sense:
1. To assume the entire stalagtite formed via this same mechanism.
2. To assume that this mechanism can only create 1.5 feet of stalagtite material, and that anything larger must be the result of supernatural intervention.
Tracieh, that was an excellent comment. The more people like
Mr. Kupelian spout off about what others believe, the more they
proclaim thier own idiocy, I say more power to them, go shout it
from the mountain tops.
This pure idiocy has reminded me that Channel 4 in the UK is going to show a three-part pragramme by Richard Dawkins called”The Genius of Charles Darwin.”-starting Monday (The fourth)I’m really looking forward to it.I hope it shows up on US PSB,but you may be able to catch some of it off The Channel 4 website.
I have read most of the books Austin mentioned in this perspective. What we have to realize is that if xians are gullible enough to buy religion and the sky god, they may believe other things they read without question. Hence the danger of them reading any atheist material. As an educated, intelligent person, I can’t see how anyone can read any of these books and not have doubts about their ingrained dogma. Doubts are dangerous to religion. They don’t want christians thinking.
Tracieh – great comment! There is no way an intelligent person can read that and blow it off, pretending that seed of thought has not been planted in his brain. My oh my, what will he do about that?
I’ve been an atheist for over 20 years. Does that make me a trendsetter?
Required information
©2006 About, Inc. All rights reserved. User Agreement
I don’t even bother to cite WorldNutDaily anymore unless I am seeking an example of especially idiotic Christian extremism. Sadly, this has become widespread enough that I don’t even usually need to go to such lengths to find it.
Comment by vjack — July 27, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
I’m sorry to say I actually bought Kupelian’s book, “The Marketing of Evil”, just to see if he could really make a convincing case for his claims. I wasn’t surprised that he couldn’t, but I was surprised by just how bad his arguments were.
Comment by 411314 — July 27, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
>Somehow, atheism – just like homosexuality, which used to be considered shameful and something to hide – is now becoming hip, sophisticated, even a badge of honor.
FINALLY I can say I was an atheist before “atheist” was really cool! I didn’t know it made me appear more hip and sophisticated–perhaps even “honorable”–but hey, that doesn’t hurt my feelings any.
Comment by tracieh — July 28, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
>evolution is a religion, full of incredible and unproven beliefs about man’s origin,
Just to point this out, this is an old “argument” against evolution. Besides the reality that evolution is observable, let’s use a hypothetical that evolution really is not observable, and it is utterly unsupported. It’s a stretch, but try for a moment.
Now realize that the reason religious people _use_ this line of reasoning is to say “evolution is just the same as _my_ religious beliefs.”
Again, let’s say that’s true. Let’s say we’re both operating on utter, unsupported, blind faith.
Now, ask yourself: What do most fundamentalists who _use_ this line of reasoning think about believing evolution?
Why, they think only an idiot would believe “people came from monkeys.” Don’t they? They think you’d have to be near brain dead to accept that life just happened “by accident”–right?
Just to make sure we’re on the same page:
1. If evolution is unsupported claims, I’m an idiot to believe it.
2. Because evolution is nothing but unsupported claims–it’s just the same as religion.
3. Therefore, evolutionists are hypocritical for attacking people who believe in god–the crux of unsupported religion.
But what they don’t seem to grasp is this:
4. If I’m an idiot to believe unsupported claims (such as evolution), and evolution is the same as religion in its lack of support. WHAT does that say about people who believe religion?
Wouldn’t the points also flow thus:
1. Evolution is no different than relgion–they’re both unsupported.
2. You’re an idiot to believe in evolution because it’s not supported.
3. Believing an unsupported god/religion that is the same as evolution makes theists idiots.
What I’ve tried to explain is that the mechanism of evolution is observable. If it wasn’t we couldn’t have Great Danes. The mechanism “creation” (as regards living organisms) has never been observed.
The observed mechanism evolution is responsible, observably, for producing new species.
The unobserved mechanism creationism has never been observed to produce any species.
To say evolution can do X, but not X+1 needs support. It should be phrased as a question: Yes, evolution can create new species (X), but can it do…X+1?
In other words, if I see a three-foot stalagtite formed, and I measure that it appears to grow 1 cm per year via an observable mechanism of mineral deposits in dripping water, what makes more sense:
1. To assume the entire stalagtite formed via this same mechanism.
2. To assume that this mechanism can only create 1.5 feet of stalagtite material, and that anything larger must be the result of supernatural intervention.
?
I know which one makes sense to me.
Comment by tracieh — July 28, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Tracieh, that was an excellent comment. The more people like
Mr. Kupelian spout off about what others believe, the more they
proclaim thier own idiocy, I say more power to them, go shout it
from the mountain tops.
Comment by Lloyd — August 1, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
This pure idiocy has reminded me that Channel 4 in the UK is going to show a three-part pragramme by Richard Dawkins called”The Genius of Charles Darwin.”-starting Monday (The fourth)I’m really looking forward to it.I hope it shows up on US PSB,but you may be able to catch some of it off The Channel 4 website.
Comment by andy — August 2, 2008 @ 8:11 am
I have read most of the books Austin mentioned in this perspective. What we have to realize is that if xians are gullible enough to buy religion and the sky god, they may believe other things they read without question. Hence the danger of them reading any atheist material. As an educated, intelligent person, I can’t see how anyone can read any of these books and not have doubts about their ingrained dogma. Doubts are dangerous to religion. They don’t want christians thinking.
Tracieh – great comment! There is no way an intelligent person can read that and blow it off, pretending that seed of thought has not been planted in his brain. My oh my, what will he do about that?
I’ve been an atheist for over 20 years. Does that make me a trendsetter?
Comment by Joan — August 2, 2008 @ 8:47 am
when i said “pure idiocy”,I was referring to Koppelin’s rantings,not the postings of you good people.
Comment by andy — August 2, 2008 @ 10:21 am