CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do atheists idolise evolution too much?
From what I have seen, the majority of atheists continually go on about evolution and see it as the ultimate solution to a religion-free world. Is this justified? Or do they idolise it too much?
I think they do. When i use to believe in the bible(in the past when i use to(i don't know what i believe now)), i didn't go around preching creationism or preaching about the bible. I just let people believe in whatever they want to. Just because your an atheist, i personally don't want to talk about evolution and the such all the time.
Oh wow, spectacular argument. Round of applause everybody!
Never before in my life have I seen such effort and time put into a single argument! You are going very far good sir, you are so knowledgeable that you could be the next Einstein!
There, now do I deserve to get up-voted seven times simply because I referenced Einstein seven times?
You know I was joking, right...?
No, of course not. A solid argument which successfully shows - or proves - a point deserves up-votes.
I think he successfully proved his point--that one should add a constructive argument instead of "uhh yeah." Why does the fact that he was condescending and sarcastic detract from his point?
He's allied with 'Oneaglewings' and 'Oneaglewings' is allied with 'Srom1883'...do you honestly expect any kind of intellectual argument from this guy? ;)
How do you think evolution being posed as a solution for anything? A 'religion-free world' doesn't strike me as something evolution would either cause or solve.
I guess you could say some atheists idolize evolution in that they love to learn about it and think it's really cool...but that's an odd word choice. You seem to use it to imply that maybe some people hold evolution in too high a regard and I don't agree with that, in fact I'm not even sure how that would be expressed. Claiming our knowledge of it is perfect? Thinking it holds the answers to everything?
Firstly, I don't know of anyone that declares the theory of evolution as a solution to a religion free world.
Secondly, a lot of atheists, in my experience, are people that have questioned their existence and found that it seems illogical to believe in something that has no proof whatsoever.
Enter evolution; it is empirically verified, observed and massively evidenced by work in every field of biological science. It is something to use and wield in defence of their position and deserves respect.
Thirdly, the vociferous atheists that you witness, proudly defending evolution, are usually doing so in debates that are about evolution and or religion, and this is where this theory should be spoken of.
So, no, I don't believe that atheists idolize evolution too much, probably just enough.
Enough to counter the idolizing of gods, an effective strategy considering that theists are mostly theists for their fervent belief. Less like fighting fire with fire, than fighting fire with sufficient water to put the fire out.
I don't think idolize is the right word. They understand it, agree with it, and use it as an argument.
But it's not like their whole idea on religion spawns from simply evolution. And they know that evolution alone won't change anyone else's mind on religion either.
Yes I agree, I believe that they just see evolution as something agreeable and use it as something against those who disagree with evolution which just happens to be members of many religions.
(Note that while I am a christian, I am not a creationist)
Evolution is of such great complexity that I highly doubt every atheist (or even a majority) understands it.
But it's not like their whole idea on religion spawns from simply evolution.
I'd say it does to a rather great extent. It was the advent of alternative theories to the development of mankind that brought nontheistic sentiments to the forefront.
And they know that evolution alone won't change anyone else's mind on religion either.
Every atheist with whom I have ever debated this subject wouldn't seem to agree with that statement.
And God is of such great complexity that I highly doubt every theist (or even a majority) understands him/her/it.
The tone of this argument seems to imply an argumentum ad hominem; however, more straightforwardly, I believe this argument to be a red herring, perhaps wrapped up in a straw man.
I never said that theists claim to understand God, by any of the names which they have given to their deity or deities.
Then come and debate against me.
I'd rather not. Debates on the validity of religion almost never fail to discount rational arguments on both sides, typically descending to the level of fallacious argumentation as you displayed above.
The tone of this argument seems to imply an argumentum ad hominem; however, more straightforwardly, I believe this argument to be a red herring, perhaps wrapped up in a straw man.
You know what? You need to learn to differentiate between the sarcastic and polemic. I was not even making an argument at all. So your entire criticism would be attacking a straw man.
Debates on the validity of religion almost never fail to discount rational arguments on both sides, typically descending to the level of fallacious argumentation as you displayed above.
First, we're not debating on the validity of religion. It's the basis of religious belief that we're debating. Second, all debates include a discussion of whether or not an argument is fallacious.
Even assuming evolution is the sole reason one does not believe in a magical daddy, that evolution is a fairly complex theory would require one to think about it prior, add that religion is basically bludgeoned into every young mind from birth, even further consideration of the subject is essential to overcome the indoctrination, making "blind" adoration and devotion of any theory one would put forth in place of a god creating people from clay nearly impossible. And since atheist by definition do not believe in a god, they can hardly worship something as a god can they?
Evolution is of such great complexity that I highly doubt every atheist (or even a majority) understands it.
No one anywhere ever understood a single thing completely. That does not mean they do not understand the core concept and primary points.
I'd say it does to a rather great extent. It was the advent of alternative theories to the development of mankind that brought nontheistic sentiments to the forefront.
Than you do not understand atheism nor the many, many reasons one would reject the idea of a god even prior to the story about magic fruit and talking snakes and whatnot.
Every atheist with whom I have ever debated wouldn't seem to agree with that statement.
Nice to meet you. I'm an atheist. I'm well aware theists would never let something like scientific fact get in the way of believing a pretty story about creation.
I'll make you a deal: I shan't bother to correct your multitudinous grammatical, punctuational, and orthographical errors if you cease your attempts at teaching me the meanings of words.
Despite that, your own definition fits in well with my second point (id est that few atheists truly understand evolution; not that they need to understand it, mind you.)
Even assuming evolution is the sole reason one does not believe
Doubtless it is not the only reason for one's disbelief; still, one must admit that atheism gained in popularity about the time as evolution. If the good people at asktheatheists are to be trusted, such was responsible for Dawkins's conversion. Doubtless many others, as well.
in a magical daddy
The accepted term is god. Be adding an even higher level of ridicule to the object of your debate you are infantilizing your opponent and are attempting to appeal to mockery.
Sometimes I wonder if ye (not just you - hence the plural - but everybody on this site) understand so much as the basic traditions of debate.
that evolution is a fairly complex theory
Are you implying that it is not complex?
add that religion is basically bludgeoned
Your use of violent imagery is meant to evoke disdain; let's try and keep the psychological manipulation to a minimum.
into every young mind from birth
Generalization.
(Now, at the risk of being accused of making an argumentum ad baculum):
My pedantry is brutally annoying, isn't it?
even further consideration of the subject is essential to overcome the indoctrination
For some, one might assume.
making "blind" adoration and devotion of any theory one would put forth in place of a god creating people from clay nearly impossible.
Atheism has existed long before the Theory of Evolution. Obviously not impossible, though beneficial.
And since atheist by definition do not believe in a god, they can hardly worship something as a god can they?
This argument is taking your own second definition of "idolize" as being the only definition.
That does not mean they do not understand the core concept and primary points.
Just as surely many Christians don't understand the core concepts and primary points of the Bible, and surely many Muslims don't understand the core concepts and primary points of the Qur'an, and on and on, surely many atheists don't understand the core concepts and primary points of evolution.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be implying that atheism is almost exclusively made up of people who actually know a thing or two about the science behind evolution.
Than you do not understand atheism nor the many, many reasons one would reject the idea of a god even prior to the story about magic fruit and talking snakes and whatnot.
Rather than stating what I apparently do not understand, why do you not try to explain what it is about this that I do not understand? Or is your ad ridicuulum meant to do that?
Nice to meet you. I'm an atheist.
For this I thank you; I've made the necessary corrections to my argument to remove the vagueness that you have apparently misinterpreted. I had believed my argument to be clear enough when, apparently, it was not.
I'm well aware theists would never let something like scientific fact get in the way of believing a pretty story about creation.
hHre's more of that infantilization going on. I've treated you respectfully throughout the whole of our discourses, and I have not once disreputed your belief in evolution, the simple fact being that I do not know whether or not evolution is a fact any more than I know that I am currently sitting on a couch in my living room typing this argument on a laptop. I would like, therefore, to request a similar level of behavior from you. You're thirty-three years old (if you are to be trusted), grow up already.
Lol, oh my god I'm so sorry before I start. I'm guessing it's late and you were tired or drunk... I hope.
I'll make you a deal: I shan't bother to correct your multitudinous grammatical, punctuational, and orthographical errors if you cease your attempts at teaching me the meanings of words.
I'll make you a better deal since I write for a living and if I thought about what I write for two minutes I promise it would be perfect, (this is a diversion for me. I have editors and I'm spoiled.) I'll continue to type drunk at 80-100 words per minute and not give a shit and not use their spellcheck or whatever and in exchange, for your generous offer of not being a dick about my half illiterate rantings and focusing instead on the point of my argument I'll... looking this silliness over real quick... return the favor. There, that makes us even. This is from my blackberry at 3:15 in the morning starting... NOW!
Hey. Let's move on to the point of your retarded argument.
Despite that, your own definition fits in well with my second point (id est that few atheists truly understand evolution; not that they need to understand it, mind you.)
Do you imagine the religious understand the bible better than atheists understand evolution? So, I'm not going to let that go. Before you can blame an atheist for not fully understanding evolution give me some stats on how many theists understand their own "holy" texts... really, how many?
It's a double standard. Why should you defend that double standard. Why should one trust someone who knows not a word of their own religion over one who understands at least the basics of a scientifically verified theory?
The accepted term is god. Be adding an even higher level of ridicule to the object of your debate you are infantilizing your opponent and are attempting to appeal to mockery.
Sometimes I wonder if ye (not just you - hence the plural - but everybody on this site) understand so much as the basic traditions of debate.
... so let me get this straight "Be adding an even higher level of ridicule to the object of your debater you are infantilizing your opponent and are attempting to appeal to mockery"-- okay. Actually I was mocking on top of my primary point but your reply after your sermon about my grammar made me laugh so hard that I forgot the underlying point. Forgive me. I'm sure you'll remind me and we'll come back to it... Did I mention this is my blackberry?
Actually I feel bad about that, sorry, you're not an idiot. You have a point most people don't really understand the point of debate, true.They don't understand actually the mechanics of debate I think is a good description. Don't think I don't though. I just write in a way to appeal to more people. Why I get so many replies despite how apparently stupid I happen to be... Either way I try to write complex thoughts simply and usually don't do a great job of it. I do try though.
Are you implying that it is not complex?
no
Your use of violent imagery is meant to evoke disdain; let's try and keep the psychological manipulation to a minimum.
Why? Is "bludgeon" scarier than an eternity of hellfire liber? Forgive me for being a tenth as violent in description as the religious.
Generalization.
(Now, at the risk of being accused of making an argumentum ad baculum):
My pedantry is brutally annoying, isn't it?
Kinda yeah. Are you bored? Tired? Drunk? I'm horribly drunk. It's okay. This is actually fun for me believe it or not.
Atheism has existed long before the Theory of Evolution. Obviously not impossible, though beneficial.
Here here.
This argument is taking your own second definition of "idolize" as being the only definition.
Meh, I knew I should have hit enter there. I actually was addressing both arguments separately. If you reread you will see the distinction. I was separating the two definitions and answering each. Most atheists do not "idolize" anything in fact. That's kinda part of the deal of being atheist...
Just as surely many Christians don't understand the core concepts and primary points of the Bible, and surely many Muslims don't understand the core concepts and primary points of the Qur'an, and on and on, surely many atheists don't understand the core concepts and primary points of evolution.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be implying that atheism is almost exclusively made up of people who actually know a thing or two about the science behind evolution.
Yeah. I am confident that most of us atheists, about 10% of the world population know something about evolution. I'll bet I find a theist who says gays should be stoned to death before you find an atheist who doesn't know the basics of evolution... on your marks... get set... go... Srom. I win bitch. Quit defending the bullies and think for yourself metaphorical fag.
Rather than stating what I apparently do not understand, why do you not try to explain what it is about this that I do not understand? Or is your ad ridicuulum meant to do that?
Sure douche. Humanistic atheism, most of us, think that the nature of humans on their own has the potential to make humanity more than it is as a whole. We believe more or less every religion professes to do this, but in reality they use the power of fear of death to control. They excuse this we believe with the general philosophy that humans on our own would somehow fuck shit up and their rule, religion's rule, keeps us all from mass self-destruction. I and most true atheists believe that humanity left to its own devices will eventually, always, more so than with the threat of hellfire, progress to a better state of being...
If that sounded, er wishful, it is not. Just compare humans now to 100,000 years ago. It is our slow progression. Religion slows us down is my belief and why I fight it to my limited ability.
So... how's that not a good idea? Even if you don't have as much confidence in people, how's that harmful?
Where's religion progressed humanity and what's your defense of you defending it?
"Question of indoctrination edited"
There are around 6.5 billion people on earth. Over 80% claim to be religious. The religious on average have more kids. Fact therefore, vast majority of atheists were born religious. Why's that confusing? What planet do you live on?
For this I thank you; I've made the necessary corrections to my argument to remove the vagueness that you have apparently misinterpreted. I had believed my argument to be clear enough when, apparently, it was not.
You're welcome. Apparently you were talking to dumb atheists (I'm ignoring that you were trying to be clever with the reply. I actually like debating you. You're a douche, but you're smart) I actually didn't misinterpret anything you said to my knowledge, like I feel I understand everything you've said. Was there something you've said I've missed the point of? If so please make note of it and I'll try to catch up with you.
hHre's more of that infantilization going on. I've treated you respectfully throughout the whole of our discourses, and I have not once disreputed your belief in evolution, the simple fact being that I do not know whether or not evolution is a fact any more than I know that I am currently sitting on a couch in my living room typing this argument on a laptop. I would like, therefore, to request a similar level of behavior from you. You're thirty-three years old (if you are to be trusted), grow up already.
... now, if I were immature for a 33 year old (I am) I'd point out you were trying to talk smack about my grammar earlier. Either way, let me explain something, uh youngster? You know you are sitting on a couch because you observe it. In as so far as you can observe you can assume something to be true. Now, you could have a mental disorder and be completely wrong about what you observe, but it's a ruler so to speak. You measure reality with what you observe. Don't try to compare the unobservable, god, to the observable. It's a losing argument. Here's how you profess you're undying faith in a higher being, "I have faith in god." Great, good for you and honestly that's a pretty belief. But faith by definition means belief in something no observed. So despite how dumb I am and my horrid spelling and grammar and me gettin on in age and all, I will always win the god debate... maybe I'll go to hell for my efforts.
I'll make you a better deal since I write for a living
Mustn't be very good at it.
for your generous offer of not being a dick about my half illiterate rantings and focusing instead on the point of my argument
Your "half-illiterate rantings" are precisely the problem; they are indecipherable.
Do you imagine the religious understand the bible better than atheists understand evolution?
Do you know how to address an argument? I have made no claim that the religious are any better in any way; in fact, in my personal dealings with people, I tend to find Christians intolerable. They are idiotic and blind, closed-minded to everything that isn't explicitly approved in the Bible. Instead of reworking each of my arguments to fit a belief which you mistakenly appear to believe I hold, address my argument. Or are you incapable of such a task?
Why should one trust someone who knows not a word of their own religion
When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.
Perhaps you could've used a shop teacher back in high school. You do not know me, yet you appear to have assumed that because I would dare to dispute a pro-atheism debate that I am a nutty Christian.
Did I mention this is my blackberry?
Are you attempting to receive my pity?
I just write in a way to appeal to more people.
Then there is something for which I can forgive you. I attempt to formulate my debate to my reader; if I haven't a specific reader, I attempt to write it in a manner which is sure to appeal to more people. However, if I am debating with somebody whom I believed had at least a modicum of intelligence, I attempt at a more sophisticated level of argument, mostly free from fallacies and common argumentative pitfalls. You'll observe that I tend to keep my debates with Christians as simplistic as possible.
Is "bludgeon" scarier than an eternity of hellfire liber?
I agree that it is a similar psychological tactic, and one which I am not fond of.
Most atheists do not "idolize" anything in fact.
Christians have usurped the word idolize. You need not just 'hold something as a god' to idolize something; if you show great, potentially unnecessary devotion to something, you are idolizing it.
You know you are sitting on a couch because you observe it.
I'm a Cartesian Solipsist, and as such I believe that my senses are never to be trusted. You can't really observe much if you don't hold in high suspicion everything you see or hear or smell or touch or taste, now can you?
I will always win the god debate.
I agree that this is a debate always won by the atheist precisely for the reasons you outlined. I've never said that religiosity was defensible in a debate, and that's why I don't join in on expressly religious debates; in a debate such as this, however, the topic does not require one to defend religion, but to simply make an observation about atheism, however offensive that observation may be to atheists.
"Than you do not understand atheism nor the many, many reasons one would reject the idea of a god even prior to the story about magic fruit and talking snakes and whatnot."
You don't seem to understand the point he was making, evolution provided an objectively verifiable explanation to mankinds creation. While they're were many non-beleivers prior to its discovery, they didn't have a viable explantion that superseded that of the creation myth, and thus it would have been just as rational to beleive in it.
If they previously were disbelievers, how is confirmation of one aspect of their disbelief a source for their pre-existing disbelief?
Maybe I was replying in that snipit as much to the rest of Liber's assumptions, but it sounded as if he believes most atheists were sitting in the pews praising the lord, until one day a pamphlet on evolution fell in their lap and they immediately upon reading it switched their entire world-view like a light.
I think I was trying to explain that going from indoctrination to atheism is usually a long and complex process requiring a lot of thought.
While they're were many non-beleivers prior to its discovery, they didn't have a viable explantion that superseded that of the creation myth
You are an appallingly great ignoramus. I recommend you spend some time reading David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion before starting to ramble on.
Really, I wasn't aware of that, may I bask in your fountain of absoute truth?
"I recommend you spend some time reading David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion before starting to ramble on."
I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to say. Evoution made all other theories explaing the origins of man inferior, and thus, superfluous.Perhaps you might respect the opinion of someone whose opinion carries a little bit more weight i.e.
"Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in "Natural Theology," that the creation of life was God's greatest work."
Evoution made all other theories explaing the origins of man inferior
No it doesn't. David Hume is the father of Modern Philosophy and had a heavy influence on Adam Smith, the father of Economics. So if it is any one who carries significant weight, much more than Prof. Dawkins, it has to be David Hume. In any case, you haven't read Dialogues yet I'm sure. No wonder you have no clue that I can disprove the existence of God without appealing to science at all.
Furthermore, while Dawkins might be a great scientist, he is an absurd philosopher. His book The God Delusion poses little challenge to the traditional arguments for theism. It's so feeble that anyone in their first year philosophy class would be able to (1) tear down all his arguments and (2) come up with better arguments than him.
If you want to see Dawkins as the epitome of atheism, go ahead. But far more atheists that I know, even including those who do not study philosophy, see people like David Hume, Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant as much more noteworthy atheists than Dawkins.
Ok, what athiestic theory prior to evolution comprehensively explains the mechanism that revealed to us our genetic past, aswell as how we came to be what we are, in way that was superior to any other.
"David Hume is the father of Modern Philosophy"
Actually this title is usually given to Descartes.
"and had a heavy influence on Adam Smith, the father of Economics"
I was already aware of that, however I fail to see its relevance, I mean, what does Adam Smith have to do with this?
"So if it is any one who carries significant weight, much more than Prof. Dawkins, it has to be David Hume."
You don't seem to be able to understand the point I've been making from the beginning. Prior to evolution all other scientific theories i.e. theories postulating the biological mechanisms that allowed us (and all other species) to come into being were essentially on a level playing field as none could be objectively verified using inductive logic, and empirical data and observation. That doesn't mean there weren't fancy philosophical theories disproving the existence of God, Nietzsche had already pronounced his nihilistic aphorism "God is dead."
"In any case, you haven't read Dialogues yet I'm sure."
No, not unless you count the first chapter, I am planning on reading it, along with many others.
"No wonder you have no clue that I can disprove the existence of God without appealing to science at all."
Of course, no wonder, do you have any idea how pompous you sound? I'm well aware of the capacity to disproven the existence if God using deductive reasoning, however, if all of science was based on deductive reasoning we'd still be back in ancient Greece asking ourselves "what is a chair?"
This is about the means by which life came into existence, prior to evolution supernatural theories explaining the origins of life were just as credible as natural ones as none could verfied empirically, and none had been sujectied to the process of induction.
You should know that nothing explaining the world outside our own minds can be verified without relying on sense experience. This is the fundamental principle of empiricism, I think it is you who needs to read up on the philosophy of science.
"Furthermore, while Dawkins might be a great scientist, he is an absurd philosopher."
I'm well aware of that, however this isn't a matter of philosophy, thats what you've failed to grasp.
"is book The God Delusion poses little challenge to the traditional arguments for theism."
I've never read it, and I don't plan to, I've read the Blind Watchmaker, the Selfish Gene, and Unweaving the Rainbow, all absolutely superb reads, especially the Bind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene. I have no interest in reading his attempts at challenging traditional philosophical arguments.
"It's so feeble that anyone in their first year philosophy class would be able to (1) tear down all his arguments and (2) come up with better arguments than him."
I find that hard to beleive, I think you should make Prof. Dawkins aware of how poor it is, Im sure it will be news to him.
"If you want to see Dawkins as the epitome of atheism, go ahead."
I don't see him as the epitome of anything.
"But far more atheists that I know, even including those who do not study philosophy, see people like David Hume, Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant as much more noteworthy atheists than Dawkins."
I don't view athiesm as a kind of club with founding fathers deserving of our reverence, to be honest I find that quite sad. Atheism is simply a word that describes the lack of belief in a deity or monothiestic god.
what athiestic theory prior to evolution comprehensively explains the mechanism that revealed to us our genetic past
You are attacking a straw man, dimwit. I didn't say that there are arguments for our genetic past prior to evolution. What I said was that there are arguments for atheism prior to evolution. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Actually this title is usually given to Descartes.
Yeah, until Hume gave an argument against Descartes' cogito ergo sum.
No, not unless you count the first chapter
You're right. I don't count the first chapter because Dialogues is a book, not a chapter.
however, if all of science was based on deductive reasoning we'd still be back in ancient Greece asking ourselves "what is a chair?"
Red herring.
You should know that nothing explaining the world outside our own minds can be verified without relying on sense experience. This is the fundamental principle of empiricism, I think it is you who needs to read up on the philosophy of science.
Yes I do know this since I am an empiricist myself. However, you still haven't proven why atheists idolise evolution too much. Key words here are "atheists", "idolise" and "too much". These are very extreme phrases which you need over-whleming justification for to prove your claim to be correct. I don't think you have.
I find that hard to beleive, I think you should make Prof. Dawkins aware of how poor it is, Im sure it will be news to him.
Professors William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga have done a good job of that already. I don't need to repeat their arguments.
I don't view athiesm as a kind of club with founding fathers deserving of our reverence, to be honest I find that quite sad.
You're attacking a straw man. I have never said that they're the founding fathers of atheism. I didn't even say that Hume, Russell and Kant deserve our "reverence", in the context you have used it. All I said was that they have formulated arguments for atheism that are worth respecting.
Now, after all of your attempts at attacking straw mans, tell me why you think that atheists idolise evolution too much.
No I wasn't, but I'm glad to see you're still as polite and courteous as ever.
"I didn't say that there are arguments for our genetic past prior to evolution."
I know you didn't, I meant that sardonically because we both know there were none prior to the discovery of evolution. Thats been my point from the beginning, prior to evolution any explanantion of our origins, be they supernatural or otherwise, had equal merit.
"What I said was that there are arguments for atheism prior to evolution."
I know, I am well aware of that.
"Stop putting words in my mouth."
Where exactly did I try to do that?
"Yeah, until Hume gave an argument against Descartes' cogito ergo sum"
I think you'll find the title is still given to Descartes.
"Red herring."
Jesus, everything isn't a straw man and a red herring, everything I type is not an attempt to put words in your mouth, you're the most paranoid person I've ever debated.
"However, you still haven't proven why atheists idolise evolution too much."
I never claimed they did, I really don't care if they do, I saw a point being misinterpreted and I decided to correct the person doing the interpreting, little did I know you'd be waiting in the wings to misinterpret my correction.
"Key words here are "atheists", "idolise" and "too much". "
Could you repeat that?
"You're attacking a straw man"
I am not accusing you of considering athiesm a club with founding fathers to who you give your adoration, I was characterising your views and the views of many others, in an intentionally ridiculous fashion. You choose to interpret it as a strawman, fair enough, I can see why, but it wasn't some attempt to trap you for something you never asserted, I mean really.
"I have never said that they're the founding fathers of atheism."
I know. I don't consider athiesm something that needs founding fathers.
"Now, after all of your attempts at attacking straw mans, tell me why you think that atheists idolise evolution too much."
I don't think atheists idolise evolution too much. I'm sorry if you think I was intentionally setting up strawmen, that really wasn't my intention.
Also, now that you've realised your error I'd like to infrom you that calling person a dimwit and an ignoramus because you've studied some philosophy the person your arguing with hasn't, is quite ignorant, especially considering you've studied philosophy in college.
Well, really it isn't. At its heart, it is just a competition for resources. Survival of the fittest. The beauty of evolution is arguably its sheer simplicity. The theory behind the processes that cart it out are so simple, so elegant, that Christians have a hard time accepting that something like it could challenge their belief that we all just magically appeared out nowhere and dinasours never existed.
The theory of evolution has been thoroughly proven, by rigorous scientific assay, to be correct. It may therefore be dubbed truth. When deniers claim that the theory of evolution is fallacious, they are denying the truth.
The central purpose of science is the acquisition of knowledge, viz., knowledge of the truth of some matter. It is entirely natural and logical, therefore, that when certain elements of society deny what is plainly, obviously and proven to be true; those who advocate science should defend it vociferously.
Let us just slightly adapt the argument for evolution to something not likely to incite any form of fervor or emotionality.
Gravity has been thoroughly proven to be correct by rigorous scientific assay. Ergo, it may be dubbedtruth. When deniers claim that gravity is false, they are denyingtruth.
Now picture an agèd vagabond clad in ragged attire preaching passionately on a street corner that gravity is true. Very few people would dispute him, but most passers-by would think he was mad. He is idolizing gravity unnecessarily.
I am currently surrounded on all sides by about fifty books on a great variety of topics. I have some two thousand more all about my house. I treat each book as a baby, and I cringe to see one harmed in any way. I idolize books - I will not deny it - and I am something of a lunatic for it. There comes a time when one treats something with too high a level of adoration (it pains me to say this, being so great a bibliophile), such as I do with books.
Now, before you feel the need to declare that I am blindly defending Christians (such arguments as that which I have given previously universally invoke such a response), be aware that I consider most Christians to be downright lunatic in their fanaticism and would readily ejurate them. This is not a debate on religiosity, but on fanaticism.
Now picture an agèd vagabond clad in ragged attire preaching passionately on a street corner that gravity is true.
This is not how gravity was first purported, nor is it how the theory of evolution is today disseminated. In order for your metaphor to work, it must accurately represent the circumstances, which to my mind it does not.
Very few people would dispute him, but most passers-by would think he was mad.
Actually, were he a vagabond, he should surely be arrested for's vagabondage and sent to Newgate or the gallows.
He is idolizing gravity unnecessarily.
In an age when most persons were illiterate, it would be
(a) Pointless to disseminate such information.
(b) Easier and more effective to preach than to print.
I am currently surrounded on all sides by about fifty books on a great variety of topics.
I prefer to keep my books in my library.
idolize books - I will not deny it
Yo could not, sir, worship any thing more worthy of reverence. For a good book is a treasure that never depreciates, nor wanes; heavier than gold, more lustrous than silver and with more power imbued than a thousand gilded sceptres.
nd I am something of a lunatic for it.
In order that a man might be brilliant, sir, he must surely first be somewhat mad.
Now, before you feel the need to declare that I am blindly defending Christians
Only a very mean intelligence could mistake caution for partiality.
This is not a debate on religiosity, but on fanaticism.
There is, to my mind, no fanaticism in defending knowledge from ignorance, certainty form doubt and truth from fallacy. It is only through understanding the world that Man has dragged himself from the mire, to which superstition and religion would surely see him returned.
They cannot be allowed to force us back into another dark age of thought. An age where men had eyes, ears, tongues and all expunged from their bodies for speaking contrary to the prevailing fallacy. Where men shed their blood in defence of lies, burned towns, sacked cities and raped nations for nothing.
The truth is the foundation of this modern edifice; the cornerstone, keystone, buttress and all. If it is allowed to fester and corrupt; to be gnawed upon, ground, chiselled into nothing, it shall all come tumbling down again. There is no height of passion barred to us in defence of that truth, for it is the mantle which divides us, as men of reason, faculty and civility, from the wild, the uncertain and the mad.
nor is it how the theory of evolution is today disseminated.
I see people such as iamdavidh as being the cyber-equivalent of such vagabonds.
Actually, were he a vagabond, he should surely be arrested for's vagabondage and sent to Newgate or the gallows.
That's taking things overboard. So long as being a vagabond is not causing anybody harm, then what harm is he causing?
I prefer to keep my books in my library.
I only keep out the books that I am currently reading, or use frequently (such as my Swedish, German, French and Latin dictionaries.)
Yo could not, sir, worship any thing more worthy of reverence.
I will agree that the book is the greatest achievement of mankind, but even I believe that my own obsession is too great: Hitler's killing of the Jews does not offend me, but the burning of the Jews' books does.
There is, to my mind, no fanaticism in defending knowledge from ignorance,
What is termed ignorance is subjective. If one has spent a lifetime studying and has become as well versed in medieval life and literature as is possible, but has never read so much as a paragraph on evolution, is he ignorant in not commenting on the validity of evolution, or is he confining his comments to a subject in which he is knowledgeable?
Whilst I make no such claim of excellence in the field of philology and literature, I would more readily comment on philology than evolution for evolution is not a subject which I have studied to any depth. Does that make me ignorant, or wise?
No. I use the theory/fact of evolution to disprove the beliefs of theists, normally where they claim they are correct. That's because it's the most obvious 'false' claim of religion. You can also use laws of gravity, as Hawking's did to verify the possibility of a big bang, historical evidence, even common sense and reasoning can show many religious texts to be unlikely, or incorrect. There are a wide range of options, evolution is simply the easiest, partially because theists are so against it, yet it's a scientifically proven fact. But I definitely think idolise is the wrong word here, it implies a blind following, rather than critical thinking and at least basic understanding.
It's also worth noting that many atheists don't accept evolution, the two beliefs are independent.
