Atheists reject all religion and faith, right? Oh, so wrong.
I've long contended that atheism (and its cousin evolution) are a religion because of the amount of faith required to believe these things with no proof. Now there is an admission from the atheists.
According to The Gazette, atheist Democrats in the Secular Coalition Group are pushing to get an atheist speaker on the speaker list for an interfaith service on August 24 at the Democrat National Convention in Denver.
They claim it's about unity. But how can someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a divine being be unified in faith with someone who does believe in the existence of a divine being?
They can be "unified" at other parts of the DNC convention, but what kind of moron thinks there should be unity between someone who does believe in the existence of something, and someone who doesn't believe in the existence of something.
Is it just the ugly head of envy rearing itself again? Envy is what fuels and drives the Democrat Party, so it's entirely possible. Liberals envy someone who has more money, more education, a bigger house, a nicer car, prettier clothes, a better job, or pretty much anything you could conceive. If liberals see that anyone has something they don't, then that gets them thinking that it's unfair that they don't have that or get to go there or get to do that--in other words, they get eaten alive by the ole' envy bug. Merit never enters the picture; he has it, I should have it, too.
Now if they're admitting that it takes faith to look at the tremendously complex universe around us, acknowledge that it takes faith to get beyond the fact that there is no reasonable way that the universe could have even begun to look the way it currently does much less actually reach this high state of order and development, that it takes a lot of faith to accept that is ludicrous to believe the massive amounts of DNA information in organic systems practically scream "Creator!"...if they're admitting that it takes faith to believe what they believe, then maybe they have a case for being included in this interfaith event.
Think they'd use their faith as a basis for inclusion in this event? Don't hold your breath.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Atheists Want to Share Their Faith at Interfaith Event
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"But how can someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a divine being be unified in faith with someone who does believe in the existence of a divine being?"
It's kind of sad that Bob Ellis doesn't understand that the word "faith" has meaning outside of belief in fairy tales and magical, invisible friends.
All Democrats share faith in their country, their party, and the ability of people to work together to make the world a better place. An interfaith gathering of Democrats of all faith backgrounds would be a good place to celebrate these ideas.
Maybe one day, Bob Ellis will understand this.
It's kind of sad that Pierre JC doesn't understand that such a gathering is religious in nature--something atheists claim they are not. Apparently Pierre JC is so eager to defend atheists that he'll say anything to shield them from recognition of their childish envy and illogic.
Maybe one day, Pierre JC will understand this.
No evidence for evolution!
Try studying a little palaeontology? Take a look at and try to understand some plate tectonics, molecular biology, natural history, animal breeding, species distribution and modern genetics? But that is not what people like you do. You take the easy way out and pick up a single text on medieval fairy tales known as the Bible.
You think you have found a god but instead you have found ignorance.
All the evidence from the fields of research you mentioned, TheEO, fit at least as well within a creation framework as they do in an evolutionary framework.
In fact, they fit better within a creation framework. You should sift through your biases sometimes and consider another possibility.
TheEO, you'd best be careful about assuming the ignorance of your opposition. There are a great number of very well-educated and informed skeptics of Darwinism, gradualism and materialism. An argument based upon an appeal to authority can easily be met with an appeal to a similarly qualified authority with an opposing view. (With degrees in zoology, microbiology and medicine I kind of think I'm reasonably well informed on the subject.)
Instead, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the stongest arguments of the opposition and then honestly try to answer them yourself without leaping to your favorite evolutionary gurus to see how they've responded.
For instance, when questioned about the origins of life evolutionists quickly retort that "that is not the concern of evolution! Darwin never addessed origins." Lets see, his seminal book was titled "On the Origin of the Species" as I recall. To claim otherwise is like claiming to write a book about the origins of the Civil War and begin the story at Gettysburg. You see, evolutionists have no satisfactory answer to the question, though they sure give it a try in most biology texts with stories about self-organizing molecules, primordial soups, reducing atmospheres and the like, none of which has any empirical evidence to support their conjecture. Open your mind, TheEO, it's really quite liberating.
RE: Dr. theo
Evolution deals with diversification of life over time,eventually leading to separate species.
This is what the title refers to.
If the book was called the origin of life you might have a point, but it's not and you don't.
(other than the indirect one that you can become a professor of anatomy and physiology, but somehow fail to understand that when someone says species they don't mean life as a whole)
Post a Comment