No. When was that?
No. When was that?
GigaBite wrote:
Fellow atheists,
I'm on the search for a [R]epublican atheist, and would like to know if there is such thing. Can an atheist be a [R]epublican in the USA in current times? If so, how do you justify their party leader stances:
-denial of climate change
-anti-abortion
-anti-homosexual rights
-anti-marijuana
-pro-religion
First, let's be clear what an atheist is: someone who doesn't believe in god(s). That's it. That's the definition, and it's the *only* thing that all atheists have in common!
Second, I've encountered quite a few atheists over the years, and they have been on every part of the political spectrum. (Most of them favor separation of church and state, but even in that question there are a few in favor of the two's being connected...generally because they want both to be brought down.) I have indeed met more than one atheist Republican, though most have been less proud of the association in recent years.
Third, they "justify" their party's stances (or most of them) by being AGW deniers (e.g. some of the deniers on this board are not god-believers) and/or pro-life and/or pro-straight (typically for family reasons). There's a lot more variety among atheists than is generally supposed.
Finally, see the first point again. The only required characteristic of atheists is not believing in god(s). Rationality is *not* required, and neither is an eductaion. I have met atheists who thought that astrology and homeopathy were efficacious; who declined to donate blood because they didn't want to get AIDS; who sang in church choirs; who thought vaccines were dangerous; who voted for Donald Trump, because they thought that *overall* he was preferable to the alternative(s).
GigaBite wrote:
Fellow atheists,
I'm on the search for a republican atheist, and would like to know if there is such thing. Can an atheist be a republican in the USA in current times? If so, how do you justify their party leader stances:
-denial of climate change
-anti-abortion
-anti-homosexual rights
-anti-marijuana
-pro-religion
??
Didn't you do this on another thread?
Well, anyway, simplest answer is that being a Republican does not mean that you support every stance of the Republican party. Same thing is true of ALL political parties (with the obvious exception of the "We All Believe Exactly THIS Party").
2.5) With the single exception of "pro-religion" none of your stated party stances has anything to do with whether or not there is a god. Even pro-religion would be fairly easy to justify if you thought that this would make for a better, more prosperous and more pro-human nation. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it could not be advantageous to have others believe in it.
The brojos love c o c k.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Bible and slavery wrote:It looks to me that you will readily accept any peer reviewed journal if it comes from an evolutionary biased organization. their mission is to achieve a viewpoint too.
This is the crux of it. Do you believe that nicotine is addictive and that tobacco use increases the chances of a person developing cancer or a number of other ailments? Would you agree that the medical journals that consistently published studies showing that nicotine was addictive and that tobacco use was damaging to a person's health did so through a mission of demonizing the tobacco industry?
An objective academic journal doesn't care what a paper suggests so long as it's scientifically sound. You have to understand that if there were legitimate evidence for pulling the rug out from underneath the Theory of Evolution and it were scientifically sound that it would win the Nobel Prize going away for fundamentally altering our understanding of life on earth.
The fact that the absolute vast majority of all scientists agree on evolution and the big bang theory is only because that's what all the reliable, testable evidence tells us.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Additional Peer Reviews:
The Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Todd Wood))
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.xAbout teaching methods and trying to turn creationists' own methods against them.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Stephen C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,†Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117:213-239, 2004.
On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,†Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 25(1):41-47, 2012.
It is shocking that this appeared in a journal and a medical journal, since it's an odd place to discuss the origins of life. It's ridiculous. He begins by stating that since John Hunter was a surgeon who observed the similarities in structures of various species of animal and proposed a shared origin for those animals that thus a surgeon is well qualified to expound upon the origins of life. That's a leap in logic, wouldn't you say? You might say that because Johannes Keppler was an astrologer that made significant contributions to our early understanding of the solar system that thusly astrologers are by inherently qualified to give commentary on the origins of the Universe.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Charles Stewart Roberts, “Comments on Darwinism,†Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 25(1):48, 2012.
This is what Charles Stewart Roberts wrote in "Comments on Darwinism", the article you listed:
The intellectual problem, in my opinion, is not that evolution has “fatal defects,†but rather that it remains a suspect theory for most Americans >150 years after the publication of The Origin of Species (1859).
...
With respect to the origin of DNA as a weakness of Darwinism, our knowledge of DNA, from my reading, has added to, not subtracted from, the evidence of evolution.
...
The notion of “irreducible complexity†in a cell, as an argument against evolution, is beyond my present understanding. Knowing that life has existed on planet earth for billions of years, however, I suspect that there has been time enough for evolution, no matter how complex, with reducibility.
...
With respect to transitional species, a brief glance through recent issues of National Geographic shows no paucity of data from paleontologists. Human lineage can be traced back >6 million years, with fossils discovered in East Africa from all three major phases of hominid evolution—Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo—with a divergence from living ape species (chimpanzee and bonobos) roughly 8 to 6 million years ago. Transitional species have been identified in numerous other groups. The whale, for example, accomplished an enormous transformation, with fossil evidence. Fifty million years ago it was semi-terrestrial; now it is fully aquatic.
Seven billion Homo sapiens now inhabit planet earth. World population in AD 1 (the time of Christ) was about 200 million. In the struggle for survival in the next century and beyond, the hand of natural selection will be at work, I believe, and evidence of evolution, to explain the origin, modification, and behavior of species, will continue to increase.
Wow. Great post. Truly.
Huh?? wrote:
;) wrote:
Sorry, some of the posts on this thread are so mind-boggling that sometimes I can't tell who's being sarcastic!
Isn't Poe's Law great?
I had to DuckDuckGo that one.
I think atheism is a more desirable philosophy for people who are privileged because it gives them the sense that that they are in control of their own destinies, not just lucky or randomly blessed. I think in general people who have privilege will adopt whatever beliefs enable them to take responsibility for and maintain their own privilege.
iamnothing wrote:
I think atheism is a more desirable philosophy for people who are privileged because it gives them the sense that that they are in control of their own destinies, not just lucky or randomly blessed. I think in general people who have privilege will adopt whatever beliefs enable them to take responsibility for and maintain their own privilege.
That is interesting, because Christianity was often called a "slave religion" in its early days, since it appealed to people who did NOT have privilege. Very interesting.
That seems odd to me. Without god existing, I would think a person would think they have less or really no control of their narrative.
All that would exist would be a person’s environment and their dna. A person would have no control over either. Thus they would not be really responsible for their privilege.
How do you see otherwise?
Taco meat wrote:
That seems odd to me. Without god existing, I would think a person would think they have less or really no control of their narrative.
All that would exist would be a person’s environment and their dna. A person would have no control over either. Thus they would not be really responsible for their privilege.
How do you see otherwise?
First, re-read iamnothing's post--s/he talked about atheism's giving privileged people "the sense that that they are in control of their own destinies." That is, they would feel that way--whether or not it was rational for them to do so.
The whole notion of free will is an interesting, but separate, discussion; but I will suggest that most, if not all, people adopt some kind of philosophy/religion that permits them to feel they have control of their lives or destinies.
Taco meat wrote:
That seems odd to me. Without god existing, I would think a person would think they have less or really no control of their narrative.
All that would exist would be a person’s environment and their dna. A person would have no control over either. Thus they would not be really responsible for their privilege.
How do you see otherwise?
The post made sense. He is saying that, as opposed to reformed theology's stance on a grace-based salvation and "favored" people, atheism could lend itself to more of a "free will" stance (after they are born, of course... whether or not there is a God, we certainly don't have much choice in our parents or any related privilege, although I am told I can identify as a millionaire these days.)
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts