Which is harder to believe, that one set of God-made parents led to the human population, or a string of happy accidents made us (as the Athiests maintain)?
But, where Atheists get themselves really twisted up is when they maintain that one can be an evolutionist and yet believe in moral behavior and non-violence (as many of them claim to). When in fact, to be consistent with Darwinian theory one must do away with the genetically infirm, or at least not interfere with their elimination by natural means - for the "good" of the species and its progression (or so the theory says). Even Darwin himself recognized that his theory would lead to some form of eugenics, eventually.
Atheism is a very brutish religion
46 comments
This sort of thinking comes up a lot, and I suspect it's the same kind of thing as when fundamentalists refer to evolution as a religion that atheists worship. They do not appear able to comprehend a life without worship or dogma, and so cannot conceive that atheists don't worship evolution, nor follow its precepts dogmatically.
Just because evolution runs along a 'survival of the fittest' rule doesn't mean we have to. It's a biological process. Just because gravity runs along a 'stay on the ground' rule doesn't mean we aren't allowed to go to space.
Then Christianity is a very incestuous religion. It's better to believe that two people spawned all of humanity only if you're into that sort of thing.
The fact is that the majority of atheists understand evolution and are capable of making ethical choices and are not violent, so... What's up with that? Evolution has nothing to do with culling the "infirm," maybe? And, of course, atheism, evolution, survival of the fittest, and how life came into being are all separate subjects. Atheists are simply logical in accepting the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. Atheism is a very logical non-religion.
There is nothing in the theory or Atheism that even remotely states we can't or shouldn't intefere with the natural conditions.
We've been doing it for our own good and the productivity of our livestock longer than any of your myths have existed. Building a house and developing warmer clothing is violating the natural order as much as culling the sick or infirmed.
Given how complicated and messy life on earth is, I'd say the latter. It is one thing to describe something happening; it is another to try and help its course along in a particular direction that you have chosen. For example, by launching a war against "inferior" people because they don't believe in the same god that you do and then claiming it to be just and moral.
I'd say the idea that an all-powerful, benevolent, omniscient deity made us.
That would not ensure the survival of humans. What is good in one environment is not always so good in another. That's the problem with your crazy idea.
Oh, and atheism is not a religion.
@MK
"Like saying that if you believe in gravity, your moral code forbids you from stopping a fall. "
Or if you believe in Germ Theory, your moral code forbids you from stopping disease or demands you prevent the development and use of vaccines.
It's turtles stupidity all the way down.
(Note also the quoted asshat before this particular asshat claims that "the evil atheists are trying to prevent God from giving people aids ," no doubt God's plan to deal with the evil homos, so perhaps the two of them should get together and work out exactly which strawman they'd like to put forward.)
Which is harder to believe, that one set of God-made parents led to the human population, or a string of happy accidents made us (as the Athiests maintain)?
Given that there are sextillions of stars in the universe, a planet made entirely of gold is more likely than all of science being wrong and people being magically created 1000 years after the invention of beer.
Who created God? When you've explained that question using the scientific method, then I'll think about which is harder to believe.
Where fundies get themselves really twisted up is when they maintain that ToE is some kind of rule-book. It's just a description of a natural process, like the theory of gravity. Must one do away with all that stop things from falling down? Should one not interfer with the falling down of things?
Religions have already lead to some form of eugenics, many many times. You were saying...?
Atheism isn't a religion at all, it's a lack of belief in religions, and it's not connected with evolution, or gravity for that matter. Most religious people also accept the ToE as the science it is. Only wilfully ignorant and gullible fundies refuse to accept reality.
Atheism is not a religion, brutish or otherwise.
Atheism is not a religion, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Oh, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, all atheists and all evolutionists and yet, all of them have managed to get through life without murdering anyone. Isn't that odd.
Which is harder to believe? Evolution or some supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, capricious sky pixie that loves killing and loves to torture people forever in hell for not believing in him poofed the universe and everything in it into existence fully formed with the appearance of age in 7 24-hr days from nothing (as christians maintain)?
Christianity is a very brutish religion
I'll go with the "string of happy accidents" blended with a HUGE number of unhappy accidents and a HUGE number of neutral accidents followed by billions of years of natural selection.
Scheisskopf!
This is about your speed:
What a funny sort of bird the frog are!
Even that has more information than you get out of that dumb book of Genesis you keep quoting.
Anyone who knows anything at all about evolution and natural selection knows that there is not a hit squad going around killing things that are less fit.
We as a society have decided that the infirm for whatever reason can be supported and helped to live the best life they can have. This does not always happen as well as it maybe could but rarely are people simply allowed to die.
Moral behavior is set by each society to help it function smoothly.
"survival of the fittest" means that the best suited to a certain environment does better and eventually wins out. It does not mean one species genocides another.
Co-operation and altruism have survival benefits for a species
But why bother explaining?
to be consistent with Darwinian theory
One can work towards ensuring the survival of members of the group because that adds genetic variation which would make it more likely that the group as a whole would be able to adapt to changing conditions?
Oh fuck... that's something you didn't think of, isn't it?
Even Darwin himself recognized that his theory would lead to some form of eugenics
Just because the Nazis used the theory of gravity to bomb England with V-2 rockets doesn't mean Newton was wrong.
In any event, the theory of evolution doesn't require one to be an atheist. It just means Genesis isn't to be taken literally. Lots of believers don't take Genesis literally - Roman Catholics, for example. St. Augustine even wrote a piece called "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" back in the 5th century suggesting it not be taken as science.
You can read many creationist websites, you can purchase creationist books, and you can attend creationist seminars. But in all of those places, surprisingly enough, you will not find a single argument for creationism; instead, you will find countless arguments against evolution. This is the first thing you need to know about creationist arguments: they do not argue for creationism; they argue against evolution. And they do so by quite literally demanding that it explain everything in the universe.
In other words, you can summarize 100% of creationist arguments with the following template:
"The science of [evolution/geology/astrophysics/etc] doesn't make any sense. If it's true, then we should see [insert bullshit prediction here], and we don't. And how do scientists explain [insert random science question here]? It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him."
You might just be wrong about your first and second premises, thus any conclusion you reach will be wrong.
One set of parents birthing the entire civilization is incest, there Jumbo. And "accident" is your subjective interpretation. There was nothing accidental about it (that's just your primitive brain's perception). In another words, that is not a claim "All" atheists maintain ...neither is the stance on Evolution.
The only thing that atheists have in common, by definition, is they don't buy the bullshit you're selling (i.e. they don't believe in gods) so it's not their (our) fault you're upset because grown-ups don't buy the shit you're selling. That's your fucking problem.
Look, another moron saying how stupid evolution is, and because it is, their made-up sky-pixie tale must be the only other possibility, and must therefore be right.
Damn this gets annoying. Instead of arguing FOR creation, they argue AGAINST evolution, and then use a false dichotomy to claim not only is their crap the only other solution, it's the correct solution.
Standard creationist bullshit argument template:
"The science of [evolution/geology/astrophysics/etc] doesn't make any sense. If it's true, then we should see [insert made-up prediction here], and we don't. And how do scientists explain [insert random science question here]? It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him."
where Atheists get themselves really twisted up is when they maintain that one can be an evolutionist and yet believe in moral behavior and non-violence
Except evolution can explain why our species has a sense of morality. Humans are successful largely in part because we have inherited a tendency to be very social. Anyone who is anti-social is less likely to survive. The more likely you are to engage in anti-social behavior, the less likely other members of your group will cooperate with you. Your chances of passing on your genes goes down when that happens. Evolution doesn't care about your religion or lack thereof.
Atheism is a very brutish religion
So... which god did the atheists claim wanted them to bomb Planned Parenthood clinics again? Or what atheist group flew planes into the twin towers for religious reasons? Oh wait... these things never happened.
It is genetically impossible to create an entire mammalian species from only two members of that mammalian species.
And no, evolution makes no such claims at all. YOU make those claims,but would be wrong to do so. All the theory of evolution states is " a change in allele frequency in a group of organisms over time due to natural or artificial selection".Done,that's it.
Not believing in deities is not a religion.
Your argument is done no favours by the fact that you clearly have no idea what either atheism or evolution means.
Nor does it help you that nobody has ever yet been able to establish where God came from. So, you lose - badly.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
