Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[James R]

Go away, I’m not on trial.

You can take that as a "no", Write4U. He hasn't read it.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It would appear that Jan's input allows folk to answer the question posed in the OP with " not a damn thing".

Rejecting the approach of Darwin or the Theory of Evolution however lends no authenticity to the creation myth which has internal inconsistencies that show the creation notion is not backed by reasonable observation and logic.

The creation approach fails horribly in its own right forcing proponents to defend nonsense, unless you accept a world where all the creatures that have lived were created in that six day creation building spree. How does the creationist work around that issue? Well for Ken Ham the way is to show humans riding dinasaurs...strangely that is the only way you could have creationism make sense given all creatures supposedly were created in those magical six days.


In any event it matters little if Jan wants to believe whatever it is he wishes to believe, whatever that may be, what matters is religion has a slipping grasp on making up history and cosmology...and hopefully in time problems theists have with rational thinking and the hopeless blind following of ancient unsupported myths will be no more.
Going back to worshipping the Sun would be a huge step forward.. we can see the Sun, it gives life and in effect it created us while trying to get organised.

The population now understands where the Sun goes at night, they know about germs and that science has delivered the goods.

I wonder what Jan thinks about germ theory, ...now here is a question that Jan could avoid answering... Why did this mythical god create germs...particularly the ones that kill humans...could we make a list of germs, apparently created by God, that have killed millions of humans...next how the creation myth makes any sense at all to explain the wide variety of creatures both living and extinct.
Why folk look to uneducated folk from thousands of years ago as having the answers is perhaps the most curious thing to consider.
Alex

 

[James R]

This idea (darwinism) is becoming predominantly more popular amongst the African American population. Whereas the AA’s were predominantly Christian. The younger generations are taking to this idea.
They are happy to accept that they are the original people, and all other races come from them. Thus they are superior to other races.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says species or individual animals that came later are superior to the ones that came earlier.

Do you think your mother is superior to you because she was born first and you "came from" her?

They believe the Caucasian race is dying out because their genetic stock is inferior.

There is no real "caucasian race". Biologically, the idea of "race" doesn't really make much sense. Human beings of all "races" are hopelessly intermixed. Certainly there is no such thing as biologically meaningful "black race" or "caucasian race".

You’re not aware of the various groups of AA’s who openly declare white peoples as genetically inferior, based on the idea that life began in Africa, and those Africans seeded the rest of the different ethnic groups, who are genetically watered down Africans?

Probably as a creationist you've absorbed this idea of "genetic watering down". The idea is that mutations always produce a "less perfect" or "damaged" genome. Creationists would claim that God created the "perfect" human genome and that any natural effects on that, due to breeding or whatever, can only make it "worse".

This is all wrong. The colour of a person's skin doesn't make them genetically inferior or superior. There is no "watering down" of anything when you compare the genes for white skin vs. the genes for dark skin. It's just a natural variation in melanin production. There's also a natural selection effect in play due to environmental differences between, say, Africa and Europe.

Not that you believe in natural selection or anything, so I don't know why I'm wasting my breath giving you this information that is the only really viable explanation for "race".

I don’t accept darwinism (for now) as scientifically factual. If it was a fact, it should be accepted by all scientists.

Are you saying you refuse to believe it until all scientists accept it?

Will you take it on authority if 100% of scientists come to believe it, then?

I mean, you're clearly not interested in the evidence, so is an authority-based argument what you're looking for?

Out of interest, is your position on climate change the same? Are you a climate change denier as well as an evolution denier? The figures for the percentage of scientists who accept the science in both cases is about the same.

While it is accepted that 97% of all scientists accept “evolution”, it does not state that they accept the theory of evolution.

I've already told you: you don't get to change the meanings of words to suit yourself.

Those 97% of scientists accept the theory of evolution, which includes "Darwinian" natural selection. The word "evolution" includes "Darwinism" if you're a scientist who knows anything about the topic (which I'd wager 97% of scientists do).

I accept evolution.

Nonsense. You accept the customised Jan version of evolution, evolution-lite. You accept only evolution within a "kind", which is to say that you accept Creationist dogma and not evolution.

Why tell lies by using the word "evolution" when you really mean that Creationist dogma? At least be honest with yourself. And don't wase everybody's time. Why should people chase you around to unpack the contradictory statements you make, like "Oh yes! I believe wholeheartedly in evolution, just not in natural selection. I accept everything about it! Except for speciation and all that stuff."

Get real, Jan. The theory of evolution includes the Darwinism that you and your Creationist buddies reject. It is the theory that says that modern species share common ancestor species, and that speciation can occur in many ways.

I don’t have a concept of human evolution.

Because you don't accept evolution.

What you actually believe, while you tell lies about "accepting evolution", is that the human "kind" and all other "kinds" were created separately in special acts of Creation by your preferred God. Never mind that neither you, nor any of your Creationist buddies, can define what a "kind" even is, in any biologically meaningful way.

You reject the observed fact that Homo sapiens has earlier ancestor species, that human beings share an evolutionary lineage with the (other) great apes. You reject the whole theory. What you preserve - the parts that are compatible with your Creationism - form a nonsensical pseudo-theory that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious dogma.

Stop telling lies, Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Actually, the theory of evolution

But, you agree white people are inferior.

Why would you think that?

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says species or individual animals that came later are superior to the ones that came earlier.

Do you think your mother is superior to you because she was born first and you "came from" her?

Why are you directing this at me?

There is no real "caucasian race". Biologically, the idea of "race" doesn't really make much sense. Human beings of all "races" are hopelessly intermixed. Certainly there is no such thing as biologically meaningful "black race" or "caucasian race".

Again. Why are you directing this at me?
I think the body is a suit, vehicle,vessel, or whatever, to house the spirit-soul.
Furthermore, you are well aware of that.

This is all wrong. The colour of a person's skin doesn't make them genetically inferior or superior. There is no "watering down" of anything when you compare the genes for white skin vs. the genes for dark skin. It's just a natural variation in melanin production. There's also a natural selection effect in play due to environmental differences between, say, Africa and Europe.

Why are you acting as though I think the colour of someone’s skin makes them superior, or inferior?

Are you saying you refuse to believe it until all scientists accept it?

I shouldn’t have to believe it at all, if it is a science fact.
All scientists would would accept it, if it was a scientific fact.

Will you take it on authority if 100% of scientists come to believe it, then?

What do you say those, like Alex, doesn’t fully understand the theory as yet, but still believes it?

I mean, you're clearly not interested in the evidence, so is an authority-based argument what you're looking for?

From what I understand of the evidence, I don’t accept. There are also scientists who don’t accept. From what Alex understands of the evidence he does accept it. And there are scientists that do accept.
Why can’t you accept that?
Why must try and force the theory down people’s throats?

Out of interest, is your position on climate change the same? Are you a climate change denier as well as an evolution denier? The figures for the percentage of scientists who accept the science in both cases is about the same.

I must confess, I’ve not given it much thought.

Nonsense. You accept the customised Jan version of evolution, evolution-lite. You accept only evolution within a "kind", which is to say that you accept Creationist dogma and not evolution.

I accept what can be observed James.

Why tell lies by using the word "evolution" when you really mean that Creationist dogma? At least be honest with yourself. And don't wase everybody's time.

I’d be perfectly happy to not discuss this topic, as it brings out the irrational in Darwinists. You can’t even moderate fairly because of your bias.
Let it go. I much prefer to discuss God, religion, and spirituality. But you guys are relentless.

Get real, Jan. The theory of evolution includes the Darwinism that you and your Creationist buddies reject. It is the theory that says that modern species share common ancestor species, and that speciation can occur in many ways.

I accept that you accept it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Okay.

It's possible, but my own suspicion is that Jan is or was probably a member of some fringe religion such as the Hare Krishnas.

Here's an imaginary tale that I shall title "The life of Jan".

Jan grew up with religious parents, but was never really satisfied with his parents' religion. It is possible that the family had problems, but not necessarily the case. Jan was a bright boy who gained a decent education. But he was always searching for spiritual fulfilment. Then, one day as he was walking into the train station, Jan met a group of Hare Krishas. Jan's own background up to that point was primarily Christian, but he had developed an interest in "Eastern" religious beliefs, possibly as a result of travel or possibly because he was on a spiritual quest. So, Jan collected the literature and chatted with the Hare Krishnas. He was invited to come to a gathering or service or temple (or whatever they have). Jan was intrigued to find out more, so he read up and talked to his new friends. At some point, Jan decided to join the faith himself.

As a new convert, Jan was eager to pass out the literature of the faith and to try to convert others. Jan became a True Believer. The problem was, certain aspects of the lifestyle didn't sit right with Jan. Also, he kept reading and, as he did so, he began to question whether the Krishnas really had all the answers. It seemed to Jan that some elements of his old Christianity (including things from the bible) fit Jan's worldview better than some of the official positions of his new faith. Besides, life started getting in the way, and Jan didn't really want to dedicate his entire life to spreading one religion. Especially after the internet became a thing, Jan gradually found that it was just as satisfying for him to preach his own version of the faith online, and it was also far less time consuming than regularly attending gatherings of the faithful.

Things went on for a number of years while Jan remained in touch with his religious community. But he found that parts of his original faith no longer satisfied him. His own views seemed to be better supported by a variety of the "scriptures" he spent long nights pouring through. So, Jan gradually drifted away from official activity within the faith, although never feeling like he needed to entirely make a clean break with his old comrades. After all, there was still much in the Krishna faith that Jan admired and agreed with, and there was no need to alienate those people who had helped to change his inner religious life for the better.

On the internet, Jan discovered people who were willing to engage with Jan's own ideas. In Jan's view, a lot of those people just had no idea about what belief in God should really mean. He found that, due to his background, he could speak with an assumed authority born of experience. He could preach the word. He could unify all the faiths and show the people all gods are One. He could be the prophet of the God he had constructed for himself.

One day, Jan discovered a forum called sciforums. To his surprise, some prominent voices there were openly asserting that religion is nonsense and there isn't even a God! Jan's mission suddenly hit him. He would show these godless heathens what a real Man of Religion looks like. He would put the atheists in their place by telling them that they know nothing of God. He would explain how there are no real atheists, only deniers of the One God, Jan's God. But he wouldn't get bogged down in matters of fact or evidence. He would ignore those. He would be the Wall that will not budge. His faith would not waver, no matter what the atheists said. He would certainly not lower himself to learning about mere human science, as if that matters.

And yet, as the years went by, Jan's faith did waver, in spite of himself. Some nights, Jan lay in his bed thinking over conversations that he had had on sciforums. A niggling voice in his head would say things like "The atheists have a point here" and "That thing about the need for objective evidence - it almost sounds sensible." But then, the angel on Jan's other shoulder would tell him not to concern himself with these mere trifles. The voice in his head would say "Jan, my child, I am your God. I am YOUR God. Nothing else really matters." And for a while, Jan could forget.

Then, one day, something just clicked in Jan's head. He didn't know why. Maybe it was those niggling conversations that he was unable to forget, no matter how hard he wanted to. Maybe he'd found out too much about science, accidentally. Maybe he had just allowed himself to think too much, rather than just submitting to his God, which had always worked to quell his doubts before. Whatever the reason, something worried him: what if I've been wrong all this time?

From that day on, there was no turning back for Jan. Probably the scientists and the atheists were wrong, but if they were wrong then it should be possible to prove them wrong on their own ground. Jan decided to learn some science. He started by reading some introductory material on evolution. Looking at it with new eyes, Jan found that rather than it being dogmatic, it actually made logical sense. But where did that leave God? What if human beings really did have ape-like ancestors? Where would that leave God and his Special Creation?

The more Jan read the scientific and atheist literature, hoping to find errors of fact, the more he found himself thinking in an unfamiliar way. Then one day another revelation hit Jan: what if I don't know what I've assumed I've known all these years? It was unsettling: the idea that his own religious faith might not be objective knowledge. Jan wondered if he should check that beliefs he had held unquestioningly from his Hari Krishna days were actually evidence based.

Time went on and Jan found himself becoming honest, really for the first time, with himself about what he really knew and what he could not show. To cut a long story short, over the next year Jan de-converted. He even apologised to some of his former opponents on the internet for what he now recognised as his own prior deliberate dishonesty. With some regret, looking back, he realised that if he had only been honest with himself back then, he could have been living a reality-based existence long ago.

Jan became a happier man than he had ever been before. He lost a lot of the anger that went with the need to defend his own personal religion, and he made lots of new friends. Occasionally he struggled with guilty feelings about the religion he had lost, but he recognised that these were only partly his own fault and over time they diminished. Jan died a happy atheist, comfortable with his place in the real world.

Lol!!!
I meant give him a warning, not join in.

 

[James R]

I’d be perfectly happy to not discuss this topic, as it brings out the irrational in Darwinists.

Nothing I have written on the topic has been irrational.

Anyway, I'm happy to leave it, now that you understand that you can't honestly claim you "accept evolution". I guess we won't be seeing any more statements of that kind from you on this forum.

Lol!!!
I meant give him a warning, not join in.

So hit the "report" button and file a complaint. Somebody will look into it.

Did you like my story?

 

[iceaura]

That’s no indication I don’t understand it on some level

Yes, it is. It is direct proof. You posted a basic misunderstanding. There is no level at which someone who understands Darwinian theory would make your mistakes.

Unless it is an idea dressed up as a theory, and forced down people’s throats as one.

A theory is an idea, of course. Whatever you mean by "dressed up" of course indicates confusion on your part - scientific theories are identified as such by function and application, not appearance of some kind.
The obsession you and those like you have with forcing things down people's throats is ugly and revealing, of course, but it's your confusion about the basics - what theories are, what facts are, what Darwinian theory comprises, etc - that invalidates your posting.

And I know hardcore Darwinists think it’s a fact.

No one who understands Darwinian theory confuses it with the facts it is meant to explain and organize.

Of course I understand the basics of it.

You don't.

I recognise what is supposed to be the supporting evidence (in my level), ie fossil record. I just don’t agree with it.

You don't understand it. You disagree with an invention of your own.
Recognizing evidence conflicts with "not agreeing", btw - there's nothing to disagree with, in the recognition of evidence.

My daughter tells me the teach it like it’s a fact.

Teach what? Try to be specific.

But if has been made to learn it, then I feel sorry for him.

Anyone who hasn't learned Darwinian theory - at least in some basic form - is not well educated. It's one of the three or four central scientific theories of our time.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Congratulations. You just decided that reading, writing and arithmetic are not real knowledge.

I suppose you'll be telling us that numbers don't mean anything next. You're already saying the world is flat. You don't have far to go to get to the bottom of your self-made abyss.

You’re being irrational, and your unreasonable.
Just those traits alone, which is heavily set within explicit Darwinists is enough to create suspicion. Not only about the reason why the theory of evolution came about, but the mental stability of it’s fanatic followers, who appear to blindly accept ideas that cannot be evidenced, but believe there to be evidence. You force it down the throats of youngsters, who have no choice but to accept something they cannot explain, or naturally relate to. They are ridiculed, even by bias educators, and in some cases have their personal belief, challenged in the classroom. In short, you all come across as nutters.

Please show where I stated the world is flat.
You accuse me of not looking at the evidence for darwinism. But here I have said that I accept the earth is a globe, and you still see things how you want to see them.
But if I did believe the earth was flat, you still shouldn’t accuse me of anything.
Live, and let live, dude.
Peace out, and flower power to all those that believe it is only a matter of time before flowers rule the world.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Anyway, I'm happy to leave it, now that you understand that you can't honestly claim you "accept evolution". I guess we won't be seeing any more statements of that kind from you on this forum.

If you don’t bring it up, you won’t.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Did you like my story?

It was very good.
Not entirely accurate, but pretty intuitive.
Hare Krishnas Rock!

 

[Jan Ardena]

So hit the "report" button and file a complaint. Somebody will look into it.

Is that what Q did?
Obviously you don’t have to answer that, but you know.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Actually, the theory of evolution

Why would you think that?

If I admit I'm inferior will that bring me closer to God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Teach what? Try to be specific.

Darwinism, dude.
What do you think?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If I admit I'm inferior will that bring me closer to God?

If you/we are humble, it will bring you, me, anyone, closer to God.

Why do you think I’m racist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you making fun of me for being stupid now?

I’m not making fun of you, and I don’t think you’re stupid.
I think you act vague, and I think you do it deliberately.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If you are humble, it will bring you, me, anyone, closer to God.

If I'm white can I still go to Heaven?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think you act vague, and I think you do it deliberately.

No one takes me seriously anyway.

 

[Michael 345]

If I'm white can I still go to Heaven?

From the little I have read about heaven I think you would at least match the decor

 

[Sarkus]

Here's an imaginary tale that I shall title "The life of Jan".

*sigh*
Sorry, JamesR, but I find that post of yours to be rather unfair, unwarranted, and leaving a rather sour taste in my mouth. It’s bordering on, if not crossing the line of, bullying, akin to a child at school pulling the trousers down of another and then getting the whole school to point and laugh at them. Only you haven’t done it with facts in this case, but with an imaginary story specifically about another member. Rather ironic, really, given the title of the thread.
If you weren’t a moderator I would have reported the post. It should be beneath you. Disappointing to say the least. And whether Jan thinks it reasonably accurate or not is irrelevant. It is your motive for it that matters.
I get that you disagree with what he says, and with (what you think is) why he says it, but perhaps you should look at your own issues if you’d rather ridicule him than simply ignore him.