Atheism as a religion?

[solidsquid]

pilgrim said:

The atheist will recognize the arguments of other athiests as authoritative.

Umm, no.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

The atheist will recognize the arguments of other athiests as authoritative. This other atheist is "an authority" . There were many atheists who recognized the authority of Stalin!

God also makes choices in accordance to His will. Submission to an authority is a matter of religion whether yourself or God.

Pilgrim the point you make of an atheist recognizeing the authority of stalin makes absolutly no sence as many christians regcognized his authority. This is a fact as he was considered a leader of a world power. If he was not considered an authority then he would not have any power over any one. Also where is it that you get the idea that Atheists dont belive in a higher power than themselves? Usualy what I find is that an Atheist belives in humanity as a whole. There is always some one greater. The greatest has to worry most about the people on the lowest rung. The Atheist looks at the things around themselves and notices what they are, an Atheist dosent look at the meer shadows of a thing. That is an Atheist looks at the world around him with his own eyes and dosent belive that he can only see and comprehend as the will of a God.

[Pilgrim]

solidsquid said:

pilgrim said:

The atheist will recognize the arguments of other athiests as authoritative.

Umm, no.

Rather, atheists recognize one another's arguments as supportive. (eg. atheist sites like this) To posit 'there is no god' as a true statement requires an authoritative source. Where do you get it from?

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim the point you make of an atheist recognizeing the authority of stalin makes absolutly no sence as many christians regcognized his authority. This is a fact as he was considered a leader of a world power. If he was not considered an authority then he would not have any power over any one. Also where is it that you get the idea that Atheists dont belive in a higher power than themselves? Usualy what I find is that an Atheist belives in humanity as a whole. There is always some one greater. The greatest has to worry most about the people on the lowest rung. The Atheist looks at the things around themselves and notices what they are, an Atheist dosent look at the meer shadows of a thing. That is an Atheist looks at the world around him with his own eyes and dosent belive that he can only see and comprehend as the will of a God.

[/quote]

Stalin is an example of one who recognized no authority higher than himself. In his mind there was no god that was going to hold him accountable for killing 6 million Ukrainians. Each atheist can function as his own god. For him accountability to someone other than himself is not an issue. He is accountable to himself alone.

[The Reservoir Dog]

pilgrim said:

Rather, atheists recognize one another's arguments as supportive. (eg. atheist sites like this) To posit 'there is no god' as a true statement requires an authoritative source. Where do you get it from?

We get our arguments from logic and reason not a storybook and an invisible man in the sky. Evolution and the big bang theory have been proven true using science which at this day in age is exact. Why have faith when you can have truth?

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

Rather, atheists recognize one another's arguments as supportive. (eg. atheist sites like this) To posit 'there is no god' as a true statement requires an authoritative source. Where do you get it from?

Ok even were I you to grant that your argument holds water. (which it dosent) I would like to know In what way dose any religious oginization have the authority to say that a God exists. Also to handel your current argument we have the authority on this site because the collected minds use reason rather than Faith to search. Also I would like to point out that any major religion and some not so major have a debate site like this one. The difference is that here we actualy discuss questions and their possible answers. In the other sites you get people who answer with nothing more than "God is perfect thats all. You cant know if he is there you have to belive or you will burn in HELL for all eternity". So it is a big difference here we at least listen to your argument and give you some kind of resonable answer. Hell we even listened to B33s questions.

[solidsquid]

pilgrim said:

solidsquid said:

Umm, no.

Rather, atheists recognize one another's arguments as supportive. (eg. atheist sites like this) To posit 'there is no god' as a true statement requires an authoritative source. Where do you get it from?

Forging a logic argument draws upon many sources...it is not exclusive. Your generalization holds no water. My agreement with someone's argument is not contingent upon their belief in god or lack thereof.

[Pilgrim]

kephas13 said:

[quote

We get our arguments from logic and reason not a storybook and an invisible man in the sky. Evolution and the big bang theory have been proven true using science which at this day in age is exact. Why have faith when you can have truth?

So then, you get your information from 'scientists' such as Leaky? Wasn't it him that fabricated Piltdown and/or Neandrathal? Did you believe Haeckel 'once upon a time'? Perhaps that's a story you still believe?

[Pilgrim]

"Ok even were I you to grant that your argument holds water. (which it dosent) I would like to know In what way dose any religious oginization have the authority to say that a God exists. Also to handel your current argument we have the authority on this site because the collected minds use reason rather than Faith to search. Also I would like to point out that any major religion and some not so major have a debate site like this one. The difference is that here we actualy discuss questions and their possible answers. In the other sites you get people who answer with nothing more than "God is perfect thats all. You cant know if he is there you have to belive or you will burn in HELL for all eternity". So it is a big difference here we at least listen to your argument and give you some kind of resonable answer. Hell we even listened to B33s questions.
[/quote]

In order to be reasonable, faith cannot be excluded. Conversely to have a right faith, it must be reasonable. You have had to trust that the data you've received from scientists is true - that's faith. You have not met the scientist, you don't know whether he is fudging to make a name for himself, yet he is trusted. And we all know of many instances where scientists have made collosal errors.
And where do you get the authority to say that God does not exist?

[vertigo]

In order to be reasonable, faith cannot be excluded.

There is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. Faith in a supernatural God is unreasonable. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

[solidsquid]

pilgrim said:

So then, you get your information from 'scientists' such as Leaky? Wasn't it him that fabricated Piltdown and/or Neandrathal?

No.

Did you believe Haeckel 'once upon a time'? Perhaps that's a story you still believe?

Here we go again. Haeckel and his gill slits, piltdown, et al. As if this somehow invalidates science as a whole. Please do not waste our time on this fallacious rhetoric.

[Dragon*of*Heaven]

Ok there is an even bigger reason for us to believe that faith is unreasonable and not deserving of its weight. Where as we all know and believe that scientists are fallible and we all know that science can be wrong. Religion instead creates for its self a God that cannot be questioned or wrong. This is a childish reasoning and must be put down before greater reasoning, and one day wisdom can be achieved.

[solidsquid]

Just to address Pilgrim's assertions a bit more.

Haeckel's Embryo Drawings:

The intent of drawings comparing embryos was to show similarities in developmental stages. These similarities called homogeneities point to a past common ancestry.

For example:

...all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)

Source - www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

Let us not forget also that Haeckel made his drawings in the late 19th century. Far before being able to take high resolution pictures of embryos for comparison in vivo:

Here's one of Haeckel's drawings:



Now despite the inaccuracies of the details of the drawings, the similarities of embryonic development are still shown. Texts were corrected for the inaccuracy and many books use photos instead of drawings to touch on the similarity.

For instance - which one is human?





This page goes over some of the major similarities in embryos:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny

Haeckel was also the proponent of the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which is incorrect. Yet this was a time when evolutionary theory was quite new and many still also held to Lamarckian ideas - of course, all of which have been shown to be incorrect and evolution by natural selection has been verified time and time again.

Now as to the gill slits, they're not gill slits - they may look like them but they aren't. They're called pharyngeal pouches. However, people harping on this miss the point that those pouches are similar in many a embryo and further support of common descent.

As to Piltdown man, it was exposed as a hoax by scientists. Also it was an easy sell to the scientific community either. Leakey didn't have anything to do with it. The blame lies upon Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward. All this also occured a short time after the turn of the century.

From an article on the issue:

Given the many possible risks to his reputation and career, Arthur Smith Woodward has been considered an implausible confederate to Charles Dawson in the Piltdown affair. Woodward's seeming lack of motive has distracted many. Yet it is clear that ASW did serve to benefit from the acclaim of the "discovery" and had undertaken many other questionable practices in order to advance his desire to be appointed to the Directorship of the Natural History Museum.

Woodward's innocence is seemingly promoted by letters from Dawson retained in the BMNH files. But we should not expect incriminating evidence to openly emerge from these documents. The correspondence in question was very public. The Keeper's correspondence was subject to regular review by the Director and was retained in Deparmental letterbooks as a permanent record.

Woodward maintained a thirty year association with Charles Dawson, which suggests a close and compelx relationship beyond that of any other "suspect". Without such ties the trust essential for the conspiracy to occur would have been inexplicable. Dawson had access to the Sussex localities but lacked appropriate specimens and expertise to succeed alone. Woodward's close association with sites that serve as plausible sources for materials used in the fraud provide important physical evidence pointing towrd his involvement. Woodward's participation in the fraud also explains many of the puzzling episodes and "oversights" that surround the discoveries. A Dawson-Woodward nexus appears to draw together all the necessary elements to provide a satisfying resolution of the Piltdown fraud.

Source - www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown/drawhorn.html

Charles Dawson was not an actual palaeontologist either, he was an amateur fossil hunter. However, this is not to say that he didn't make any contributions:

Amongst these fossils he found teeth from a previously unknown species of mammal, later named Plagiaulax dawsoni in his honour.

In 1885, he was elected a fellow of the Geological Society, an amazing achievement for a man who then was only 21.

His interest in archaeology developed and his uncanny knack of making spectacular discoveries continued. In 1893 he found a Roman statuette made, uniquely for the period, of cast iron.

Source - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3285163.stm

Arthur Smith Woodward was an archaeologist and was the Keeper of the Geology Department at the British Museum. Not too long ago, an old room was found with some tools that were possibly used to make the Piltdown skull.

Please learn about evolutionary theory and the evidence backing it before trapsing through the land of pointing fingers and saying, "oooo, they were wrong, therefore science is crap".

[Pilgrim]

Please learn about how the fraudulent Haeckel himself was using his charts! What you have failed to understand is that this stuff was widely accepted and believed.

www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm#Haeckel's%20Theory

A certain god by the name of 'dragon of heaven' admits that scientists are fallible but somehow he has the insight to proclaim that to believe in a supernatural God is childish. Wow!

Vertigo says "There is reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. Faith in a supernatural God is unreasonable. Take your strawmen elsewhere."

It appears that Vertigo (and the rest of you as well) trusts fallacious scientists - but that is reasonable?

[vertigo]

Pilgrim, what point are you trying to reach? It sounds like you are saying: don't trust the scientists, trust me and my God. It is a cult and you are here to spread it.