Why Do atheists Attack Christianity?

[808state]

I assure you, if I just stopped questioning and accepted everything conservative Christianity proclaims, I would be a mindless follower.

I agree. I don't follow everything conservative Christainity proclaims. A lot of it, but not all.

Ironically though, those who call themselves 'sceptics' seem to have no scepticism whatsoever about evolution. Even though there are tons of anomalies, lots of mysteries not yet understood and lots of scientists who are sceptical themselves.

The scientists that have signed onto Dissent from Darwin are merely sceptical about Darwinian theory yet they come under fire like crazy from the present day scientific elitists - as if they are some kind of all-knowing gods to say that you cannot be sceptical of darwian theory! How dare anyone be sceptical!

And a lot of atheists who call themselves 'free thinkers' blindly follow what Dawkins or Talk Origins says without question. They have some kind of blind faith and trust that Dawkins and this website have all the answers and hold the entire truth of the universe,

I don't think this is entirely true. Certainly there are many people who find websites that support their ideas, and then use them as their main source of information without doing further research on their own (not a good idea) on all side of political, religious, and scientific discussions. But I think the issue is that, much of the criticism Evolution draws is from people who don't seem to have a big grasp on what the theory of Evolution is to begin with. Even looking over the "Dissent from Darwin", a couple of the people quoted on the website seem to be confusing abiogenesis with the theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is not apart of the theory of Evolution, it is not it's "foundation." There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of science, even science is skeptical of science, but it is important to know what you're talking about before you criticize (though then again, I could probably do with following that advice from time to time as well).

Edited January 23, 2011 by 808state

[artsylady]

808State:

I don't think this is entirely true. Certainly there are many people who find websites that support their ideas, and then use them as their main source of information without doing further research on their own (not a good idea) on all side of political, religious, and scientific discussions.

So can you name a few things that you are sceptical of regarding evolution and talk origins?

But I think the issue is that, much of the criticism Evolution draws is from people who don't seem to have a big grasp on what the theory of Evolution is to begin with. Even looking over the "Dissent from Darwin", a couple of the people quoted on the website seem to be confusing abiogenesis with the theory of Evolution.

I looked there and didn't find a search engine. Do you have a link? Hard to beleive a scientist with a phd doesn't know the difference. I wonder if you misunderstood.

Abiogenesis is not apart of the theory of Evolution, it is not it's "foundation."

Abiogenesis is not science at all actually.

If it's not a foundation to evolution then what is? Are there now varying theories here or what?

[artsylady]

I myself would find marriage between multiple people to be at least awkward, and the brother sister thing to be somewhat disturbing at best.

If you were a lawmaker would you pass laws to allow multiple marriage and brother sister marriage?

Is it victimless?

[artsylady]

Well, scientists still don't know everything about the atom either, but atomic theory isn't something that you see scientists "dissent" from.

And I don't see any scientists wanting to dissent from it.

I suppose I'm in a somewhat unique position regarding evolution, as I've studied it in college, and have heard what many people who've done original research and read the scientific papers have to say about it. So Dawkins and TO aren't my only sources of information, and they happen to be sources I rarely use.

Dawkins is so angry he's can't see things straight.

What have you found at TO and heard Dawkins say that made you sceptical?

Skepticism is good, but when approximately 99.98% of life scientists agree that evolution is correct, I think it is more appropriate to be skeptical of your skepticism than going against nearly all of the scientific community on scientific matters.

So, whatever most people believe must be the truth?

Usually the reasons people come up with for why evolution isn't true is based on misunderstandings, unfortunately propaganda rather then a solid scientific foundation, and in some cases outright lies. Often all 3 are rolled into one package and shipped off to the masses.

Oh my. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

What is really sad is that not only do most creationists have a poor understanding of evolution, but many evolutionists have a poor understanding as well.

Are you a scientist? Do you feel you have a better understanding than most?

[Guest]

Attel -

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

20 Where is the wise man ? Where is the scribe ? Where is the debater of this age ? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world ?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom ;

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble ;

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD." (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

Yes, but this is also scripture, isn't it?

Thank You Dear One

May God Bless The Posting Of His Holy Word

And Adding A Thought, Scripture Clearly Shows If Your Desire Is To Live (And Die)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Within Some Man Conjectured House Of Fables Or Another

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

You Are Likely To Be Found Moving On

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. Jude 1:18

Down

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:21-22

____________

Believe

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:20-21

In Jesus

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:12-15

And Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[Guest motivational stories]

If I was an atheist, the last place I'd want to be is on a Christian discussion forum debating something I don't believe in. What's the point?

But you're right MG, it runs deeper than that......

for the most part, I'd say some atheists that have frequented Worthy have had their eyes opened for the better, whether they realise it or not...

I think there is a measure of truth in this statement. Things that I don't believe in don't pull an emotional response from me at all. The passion involved in someone's comments usually tell you where the person stands.

[Gerioke]

Well, scientists still don't know everything about the atom either, but atomic theory isn't something that you see scientists "dissent" from.

And I don't see any scientists wanting to dissent from it.

Surprisingly, those that reject radiometric dating are dissenting from the modern atomic theory, they just don't come out and say it like that.

Dawkins is so angry he's can't see things straight.

What have you found at TO and heard Dawkins say that made you sceptical?

When it comes to the actual science I can't think of any. Dawkins grasp of theology is a little sophomoric I think.

Skepticism is good, but when approximately 99.98% of life scientists agree that evolution is correct, I think it is more appropriate to be skeptical of your skepticism than going against nearly all of the scientific community on scientific matters.

So, whatever most people believe must be the truth?

When the vast majority of experts accept the same thing in their field, I think the rational response is to accept it. If you get 100 car mechanics to look at your can, and 99 to tell you the same thing and then 1 disagrees, it is much more likely that 1 car mechanic got something wrong than 99 car mechanics.

Science is interesting in that it is founded on healthy skepticism, debate and self correction based on observation and evidence; science is very, very brutal in the academic arena. So I think when over 99% of relevant scientists agree, that is what the evidence supports.

Usually the reasons people come up with for why evolution isn't true is based on misunderstandings, unfortunately propaganda rather then a solid scientific foundation, and in some cases outright lies. Often all 3 are rolled into one package and shipped off to the masses.

Oh my. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

Well, I'm not exactly sure I should do this, but this will be a blunt, unedited, unfiltered explanation of what I mean. This isn't a comment about all creationists and certainly not you, I don't even know you, it is just what I've gathered after being involved with this topic for a while.

The top creationists, whether through ignorance, greed, or religious convictions, come out with arguments against evolution. Often it is skewed understandings (sometimes lies) of science, what evolutionary theory (and other theories and laws) state and the evidence gathered. They then take their arguments to the public in the form of propaganda, which many creationists take it in hook, line and sinker. Most people don't have the educational background to understand basic science, let alone evolutionary theory. So they simply don't have the background knowledge to know the problems with what they are reading. Also, "conformation bias" makes it hard for creationists to spot the flaws, even if they have enough background knowledge to see the problems. Conformation bias also plays a part when it comes to evolutionists too, I would like to say that it is even on both sides, but it honestly is a lot worse in the creationist camp from what I've seen.

Are you a scientist? Do you feel you have a better understanding than most?

I'm a science major in college. And yes, I would say I have a better understanding than the average person.

Does that reasoning work with meteorologists as well?

[MorningGlory]

The top creationists, whether through ignorance, greed, or religious convictions, come out with arguments against evolution. Often it is skewed understandings (sometimes lies) of science, what evolutionary theory (and other theories and laws) state and the evidence gathered. They then take their arguments to the public in the form of propaganda, which many creationists take it in hook, line and sinker. Most people don't have the educational background to understand basic science, let alone evolutionary theory. So they simply don't have the background knowledge to know the problems with what they are reading.

I bolded the above out of incredulity.....are you serious???? What is hard to understand about evolutionary theory? Do you really think that 'most people' are that ignorant? My twelve year old nephew understands it so I'm fairly sure that everyone here can. As for propaganda, that is SO funny.....you are simply repeating the verbage I've seen on countless evolutionist (and atheist) sites. I'm sure you're familiar with those. Do you have any comments of your own?

[808state]

So can you name a few things that you are sceptical of regarding evolution and talk origins?

It's not so much skepticism as much as is just being cautious with the theory. I fully accept that tomorrow, the theory could be disproven. I accept that with anything. But as of right now, I'm not that skeptical.

I looked there and didn't find a search engine. Do you have a link? Hard to beleive a scientist with a phd doesn't know the difference. I wonder if you misunderstood.

"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."

"As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area."

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

Abiogenesis is still a big question mark, scientists accept this. That really doesn't have any effect on Evolution like these guys seem to think it does.

Abiogenesis is not science at all actually.

If it's not a foundation to evolution then what is? Are there now varying theories here or what?

We don't know much about the origin of life. People have different ideas. But the question of how life came to be doesn't really effect the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution only concerns how life grew once it was here.

[MorningGlory]

I bolded the above out of incredulity.....are you serious???? What is hard to understand about evolutionary theory? Do you really think that 'most people' are that ignorant? My twelve year old nephew understands it so I'm fairly sure that everyone here can. As for propaganda, that is SO funny.....you are simply repeating the verbage I've seen on countless evolutionist (and atheist) sites. I'm sure you're familiar with those. Do you have any comments of your own?

They're probably common because, oh my, they're true. Evolution is a deceptively simple theory. Mutation plus natural selection is very simple. So simple that when Darwin proposed it, Richard Owen sited that it was too simplistic to explain evolution. Since then we've learned a lot about its mechanisms through genetics and other observations that aren't so simple. Perhaps one of the most mistaken ideas is that evolution follows a straight line. This is a problem with both creationists and evolutionists. Another common misconception is harmfulness of all or most of mutations.

I'm not sure who you have discussions with but anyone who graduated high school knows this stuff.....and a few who aren't even IN high school yet. Yes, D-9, a person can fully understand an idea or theory and still reject it.