French Moment/Semi French Moment
French Moment- When one walks into a bathroom of the incorrect gender
Semi-French Moment-When one walks into a bathroom of the incorrect gender by accident.
posted by sevenvoices @ 4:46 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
I must admit I can see the relation between going in the wrong bathroom and a "french moment". But nevermind...
By the way, I was the french guy who asked you why you think that atheism is a religion (since it has no cult, no dogma, no spiritual leader). And you didn't answer and you deleted the article... So who's the surrender then ??
You posted:
Sorry, but I really don't understand how atheism can be a religion. It's a belief, if you want but not a religion. It has no cult, no dogma, no spiritual leader... The only idea is "there is no god".
So please can you explain why atheism is a religion ??
Oh, and BTW, I'm French... :-)
Atheism has all those things. It's just you don't look hard enough to recognise them.
Cult, Dogma, Spiritual Leader==Darwinism
There is no doubt evolution within a species, that can be seen and proven... But mutations that spawn an entire species, ones that are successful? You can see the two by themselves but never togethor.
But you are mixing different things !!!
Atheism is pretending there is no God, a personal belief. It's not based on any facts (at least, no honest atheist would pretend that).
Darwinism is a scientific theory, based on facts. And I am not saying that darwinism is proved, I am just saying that people who are trying to prove it tries to use facts to do it.
Saying that darwinism is the cult of atheism absurd. You would never see an atheist pray Darwin (you would never say an atheist pray at all). And the theory of Darwin have questioned since they were written, many scientists made corrections and changes. You would never see that with a religion (a sacred book doesn't change).
And you can be atheist and do not know a word about Darwin.
So I hope you understand that Darwinism is not a dogma of atheism, and that atheism is no religion.
So do you still pretend you can prove it is ? Or are you surrending ??
Darwinism is a scientific theory, based on facts.
Then what are they?
You would never see an atheist pray Darwin
Ah, but Darwin is just a figure. So is the Pope and you don't see Christians praying to the Pope do you?
You would never see that with a religion (a sacred book doesn't change).
They may not be changed, but parts have been removed and appended to make the bible what it is today, and there are many different versions of the Bible for different forms of Christianity.
And you can be atheist and do not know a word about Darwin.
I know several people who call themselves Christians and they know nothing about Jesus. That's just a matter of dedication.
So I hope you understand that Darwinism is not a dogma of atheism, and that atheism is no religion.
I understand how that statement is wrong.
So do you still pretend you can prove it is ? Or are you surrending??
I pretend nothing. How does one surrend?
You're still mixing things.
The Pope is the spiritual leader of Catholics, he represents God on Earth and in theory, what he says should be listened by all Catholics (fortunately, it's not the case).
The Darwin theory has been questioned since it has been written, because it's the way science can progress. And the facts they are based on are the similarity between species which live on different continent, on skeletons of animals similar to some animals who live now, etc.. I am not saying that Darwin's theory is proven or not. I just saying that it is based on observation, which is not the case of a religion which is based on sacred texts.
And, by the way, you can read the wikipedia page about atheism or about the history of atheism. These articles are pretty long. But Darwin is not even mentioned...
And you can see this page where there is a quotation of Darwin saying he's "never been an atheist".
I just saying that it is based on observation, which is not the case of a religion which is based on sacred texts.
These sacred texts were based on observation too. Those observations were then interpreted. The interpretations were done under different assumptions than what Darwin used.
I agree with that.
And these assumptions were that there were a God who allowed miracles, forbad to do something. These assumptions were that an surnatural entity exists.
But the Darwin theory is not that God doesn't exist. It's just that we don't Him to explain the world.
Laplace, who wrote a book about the birth of the solar system, was told by Napoleon : "Your work is good but what about God in your book ?" and Laplace answered "Sir, I didn't need this hypothesis."
Science doesn't negate the existence of God. It just tries to explain the world without using the hypothesis of a surnatural entity.
A common saying amongst atheists is that we are ALL infidels even Christians.
None of us here believe in Isis, Zues, Thor, Zorosater and many of the hundreds of Gods and Godesses that people through the ages have believed in just as much as Seven believes in his judeo-christian god.
The only difference between a modern-day Atheist and somebody like Sevenvoices is that we believe in one God fewer than him.
Why should I believe in the Christian's god any more than the Muslim's god or the Inca god Quetzalkoatl? Christianity makes no uniquely compelling nor verifiable claims, certainly none more than the other Gods - logically, why would we accept the Christian claims to have any more validity than the claims of the Aztecs?
It's very trite and simplistic to say that Darwinism == Atheism. The facts simply do not survive under scrutiny. Atheists have existed long before Darwin. Darwin was one of the first people who used the scientific method to explain the variety of species we see on Earth. Prior to that people had to resort to folk-mythology and revealed texts.
It is perfectly possible to reject Darwinism and still be an Atheist. It's also possible to reject Darwin's theories and still be a scientist, but you had better offer a more useful theory that other scientists can test otherwise you will be disregarded as a crack-pot.
There is no doubt evolution within a species, that can be seen and proven... But mutations that spawn an entire species, ones that are successful? You can see the two by themselves but never togethor.
This is a very common straw-man about what evolution and species are. Your understanding of the process is based on an definition thats about 100 years out of date. Remember that Darwin did not know anything about Genetics when he first proposed his theory. By the sound of things, neither do you!
Geneticists often describe evolution as a change in the distribution of genes in a population over time. Over very large periods of time genes that are helpful will be selected for, and genes that hinder life-forms will be selected against. Most geneticists do not distinguish between "macro" and "micro" evolution - it's merely a question of time-scales.
Before we go into this issue in greater depth, it's time for you to answer a question. Do you believe that the appearance, function and physiology of a life-form is dependant on it's genetics? Or do you believe that genetic information is somehow irrelivant to the way a creature looks, behaves and grows? I ask you this merely because I am trying to establish some common ground between us.
Darwinism is a scientific theory, based on facts.
Then what are they?
There is a great deal of evidence to support evolution. Most people will point you to talk.origins as a good primer.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
I hope you do not expect that this entire complex subject might be summed up in a blog-posting. I would love to see you enter into the debate on the talk.origins newsgroup. I am sure you have a valuable contrubution to add to this hot-button issue!
The Darwin theory has been questioned since it has been written, because it's the way science can progress. And the facts they are based on are the similarity between species which live on different continent, on skeletons of animals similar to some animals who live now, etc.. I am not saying that Darwin's theory is proven or not.
Darwin's theories have been questioned since they were first proposed because they presented a threat to the religious dogma of the day. Darwin squeezed "god" out of one more gap in our scientific knowledge. He demonstrated that the bizarre creatures of the earth might have come about through purely natural processes and that we do not need to invoke any mythical or supernatural entities to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
Darwin';s original genius was that he came to these conclusions from only examining the bodies and remains of animals. The basic principle of evolution has been validated by contemporary genetics and has withstood the rigors of the scientific process. It offers testable predictions which are the best we currently have.
I am often entertained at the kind of theories that ID proponents offer. So far ID's contribution has amounted to a lot of hot-air. If they had any scientific ability they would have been publishing papers and rigorously debunking the concepts of genetics. Instead, what we hear is a big publicity campaign run by a bunch of fundamentalist christians. It's not likely to make an impact on the scientific process.
I just saying that it is based on observation, which is not the case of a religion which is based on sacred texts.
This is the crux of the matter: The scientific process IS based on observation and also takes account of the fallibility of our powers of observation and reasoning. That is why things have to be observed over and over again before forming theories which are generally accepted.
There are no sacred texts in Science like there are in Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Hinduism and Buddhism. In science any "theory" is open to be replaced by a scientist who can offer a better theory. No scientist ever claims to have found the final truth, merely that we have a good and useful theory that is consistent with the observable phenomena.
Bad science happens when people start with "sacred texts" and then try to make the science fit what their gods or godesses "reveal" to them.
What's really quite sad is that Sevenvoices gets all worked up about Darwin's theories as if his own faith depends on disproving this theory.
He cannot conceive of a God who might have been able to create an evolutionary process and his faith in God is so weak that he is forced to construct straw-man arguments in order to defend his bronze-age world-view.
You keep saying there are documented observations of evolution happening but I have yet to actually SEE it. Did you see some cat somewhere that gave birth to a species of supercats with bigger lungs, faster nerves and the ability to synthesize proteins that their parent species relies of meat for? No! Had such a thing occurred you would immediately mention the supercats when somebody questioned evolution. All you say is that there is that some cats have longer hair than others and that proves evolution, but the fact is that those cats with longer hair are still cats.
You must know, sevenvoices, that the process of mutation and natural selection is a slow gradual process. Either you are being disingenuos or else it is sad that your knowledge of how evolution works is no more advanced than a child in junior highschool. It worries me that so many of my fellow americans lack the basic knowledge of genetics, DNA, and evolution.
Reading what you just posted is what I would call an American moment. :(
By that logic you could argue ANY as true, but gradual. Let me know when you have actual evidence or shut the hell up.
a.k.) French Moment- When one walks into a bathroom of the incorrect gender
a.k.)Semi-French Moment-When one walks into a bathroom of the incorrect gender by accident.
a.k.) Conservatives are bright, open-minded people willing to accept differences in opinion.
Have a jolly nice day.
Post a Comment
<< Home