Conservative, Atheism and secularism are not the same thing. I would agree that in the secular left there are a good proportion of atheists however I would direct you towards the Atheist vs Secular page in which it does note that there is a difference. Ryancsh 16:33 8 June 2013
I don't see your point in relation to the accuracy of the material I added. Second, I have never seen a case where secularism is neutral. Pro-atheism/materialism philosophy/religious tenets like evolution, etc. are invariable are promoted via so called secularists in the public schools. Atheism is a religion and so is evolution.[1] Evolution is also a religious tenet of the religion of atheism. Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[2] Conservative 11:48, 8 June 2013 (EDT) Furthermore, secularists tend to suppress the free speech of Christians in the public square (Valedictorians being asked not to mention Jesus in their speeches, school prayer, etc. ).Really? because I'm an Atheist yet I do not promote the so called "religious tenet" of evolution. I'm a true Atheist in the original definition of the word: that I see the claim that God exists and I refuse to believe that until I am given credible proof. I do not say that there is no god (that would be an Anti-theist) but simple that I do not believe in one until one is proved. That is the same with evolution (as in the origin of species not the idea that animals change over time, the latter has been proved) because I refuse to accept evolution the origin of speicies until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.Ryancsh 16:53 8 June 2013
Ryancsh, did macroevolution occur? If so, are you willing to debate VivaYehshua in a debate offer which has repeatedly been given to evolutionists. Frankly, if you claim to believe in macroevolution, I doubt the sincerity of your belief in this religion. In January of 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings. A January 20, 2012 article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs." See: Evolution Conservative 11:59, 8 June 2013 (EDT) I refuse to debate for a side that I do not even stand for. If you want a debate on evolution then contact someone who promotes that. I do not get involved in evolution because I do not side to either side until one starts to gain irrefutable proof. I will debate over the idea that Atheism is a religion, considering the fact that Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition that there is a god. Anti-Theists are a religion, they are the people that say that there is no God. Atheism is simply this: You say there is a God, I say if you don't prove it I won't believe it.Ryancsh 17:07 8 June 2013Ryancsh, I am not going to wrangle with someone who is insincere. You purposefully engaged in equivocation.
"...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy."[3] See: Evolution Conservative 12:12, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but what part of my argument is insincere? I am telling you simply That Atheism and Evolution are not synonymous. What about Raelians? There are a type of atheism, in the sense that they don't believe in god) but completely reject the idea of evolution. I think that you need to stop attempting to generalize all Atheists into a single category. We are just as different as any other grouping on earth.Ryancsh 17:19 8 June 2013 I don't believe you are sorry. Not going to wrangle with someone who I believe is an insincere Darwinist poser.[4] Conservative 12:31, 8 June 2013 (EDT) I never said that I was a Darwinist. Like I said, stop with the generalization. That is what I really do not understand about your actions. As a conservative, your main focus should be to attack the left. Communism, Socialism and Liberalism should be the enemy, not me. Considering that you and I more than likely have similar views on social and economic policy I do not understand why you would be so quick to go for my throat. This article proves exactly what I am talking about. You turned something that provided criticism of the left into a full attack upon Atheism. If you want to attack leftist Atheists you will have my full support and I will even join you but deciding to ignore the left to attack someone who is just as conservative as you seems highly illogical to me.Ryancsh 17:41 8 June 2013 Ryancsh, did macroevolution occur or most likely occur? Conservative 13:53, 8 June 2013 (EDT) Ryancsh, for the record, I think that both the secular left and secular right will collapse and that Professor Eric Kaufmann's projections are correct. See: Decline of atheism. Second, the economic liberalism in the Western World is not sustainable and it will either collapse or be pared down. Given the arrogance and stubbornness of many in the post 1960s West which had prosperity for many years, economic collapse is the most likely scenario in my opinion. Will the West and/or the United States bounce back quickly economically? Time will tell. Conservative 14:42, 8 June 2013 (EDT)I sincerely tried to implement some degree of collaboration with atheists on the talk pages (as per my/our new policy), but the Christianity/atheism culture war appears to still largely be a zero sum game. It is hard to collaborate with those who lack candor and have very different wishes for the future direction of Western society/world. Atheism will largely lose this culture war though attrition and other factors.[5] Conservative 15:39, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
Ryancsh, a few other things. The University of Cambridge material was historically correct in its assertions. Second, if you were for public schools being sold off and vouchers given instead would could agree on this. And then much of the Christianity vs. atheism culture war would end. And if this happened, atheism would lose a lot of its ideological supply line - state sponsored Darwinist indoctrination. Lastly, there is a correlation between more socialism and/or communism and more atheism existing in a country.[6]. Conservative 00:05, 9 June 2013 (EDT)1. I am in no position to comment about Evolution. I am not a Darwinist, an Evolutionist or a biologist. Stop attempting to put me into an argument in which I have no place.
2. The closest thing that came to collaboration on your behalf was when you said that you would be willing to collaborate on an Atheism and Politics with me. I sincerely doubt that it is the fault of other Atheists because you have proven to me off this page that you have no interest in collaborating with Atheists no matter how right wing they may be. I still point out that you made an article that criticized the Left into a full assault on Atheism.
3. This talk of a culture war is not a war. It's an attack of Christians who, for some reason or another, seem to not be able to rest until every last Atheist is gone. Atheism, by its very nature, does not work like that. The status-quo argument of "all we want is to be left alone" is actually very applicable here. I might add that it is the will of the Government whether or not schools teach evolution. I also know for a Fact that the Catholic church follows a doctrine of Theist evolution, (as I was brought up in a Catholic/Methodist household) so the idea that without public schools there would be no evolution is farcical.
4. How many times do I have to tell you...Evolution and Atheism are not synonymous. Atheism is the rejection (or denial as you call it) of the belief in a god. That has nothing to do with Evolution. Ryancsh 17:12 9 June 2013
Ryancsh, you say you are an atheist and not an evolutionist. If life and the various kinds of animals/plants did not arise by evolution, how did it happen? What is your third alternative outside of creationism? Little green men? If so, where did the little green men come from? It's either naturalism or supernaturalism and you haven't given me a naturalistic explanation with sound evidence supporting it. Bible Christianity and biblical creationism have a wealth of evidence supporting them as can be seen HERE. Second, if you are not for vouchers which private schooling can access (including private religious schools and/or homeschooling) and/or the elimination of public schools, then I have serious doubts about you being right wing which you claim to be. Without this happening, state sponsored indoctrination into atheistic/deistic postulations of how life and animals/plants arose will continue. Liberal elitist judges will continue to eliminate/distort the process of choice of what is being taught. Third, in a free society with the exchange of ideas and an open public square, atheists will realistically never be hermetically sealed from receiving religious messages outside the religion of atheism. This is the price of freedom. The idea that atheists will "be left alone" is a fantasy and it wasn't even achieved in the Soviet Union which had state sponsored forced atheism.[7] Conservative 12:49, 9 June 2013 (EDT) Atheism does not claim to have an answer for how life originated. All Atheism is is the rejection of your proposition that there is a god. In terms of where life came from: I'm apathetic. Doesn't really affect me one way or another. I'm not here to debate that. Public Schools must be maintained for those who cannot afford private tuition or their parents cannot home-school them. When it comes to the school system in Britain, supporting grammar schools is considered right wing and I am of the category. For the record, I am in favor of Creation being taught alongside evolution should the parents in the school district support that. Elimination of Public schools in Britain is near-impossible so the farthest the ring wing can be is that parents have move say in their local schools in what gets taught and what does not. You are forgetting that there are two very different school systems between Britain and the USA. Oh I fully support the idea of free ideas in a public square...but there's a difference between a logical debate and a full on assault. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh] 18:02 9 June 2013 A government voucher would eliminate the objection that public schools cannot be eliminated due to poor people. In Belgium, families receive government vouchers which they can use at any school including private religious schools. There is no reason why government schools cannot be privatized and replaced with private schools and homeschooling. Plus, Bible believing Christians and Orthodox Jews have among the highest rates of literacy in the world. In the New England Colonies, their societies were based on the Bible and they had respectable literacy rates. It is not the fault of Christians that atheists have never created a book that is more widely read than the Bible! There will be more and more privatizing of education in the West and the agnostic Bill Gates says a crisis is coming as far as American funding of public schools.[8] Broke European economies will no doubt face the same future situation. Atheism is doomed and global atheism is shrinking! [9] Conservative 16:55, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
0 comments:
Post a Comment