In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

HugeKielbasa

Since: Jun 12

Poughquag, NY

#25671 Jul 13, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Figures you believe in UFO's.
Well yeah.
So does / did Kelly Johnson, Herman Oberth, Wernher Von Braun, Nikola Tesla, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, John Lear, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Cooper, Mick Jaggar, John Lennon, David Bowie.Dr. Walther Riedel,Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding,Dr J Allen Hynek, Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, Albert M. Chop, Richard Nixon, J.F.K & Ronald Reagan.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#25673 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "Next to no peer-reviewd research"?
Did you not see me burn Hiding on that one?
As of 2011, there are over 50. Here's one:
Michael J. Behe,“Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
...
But this paper says absolutely nothing in support of any aspect of ID.

(" http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.... ;)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#25674 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...
2. "Not a scientific theory"?
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
...
Predictive future results, independently verified?

Null hypothesis?

Still waiting.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#25675 Jul 13, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
<quoted text>
Well yeah.
So does / did Kelly Johnson, Herman Oberth, Wernher Von Braun, Nikola Tesla, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, John Lear, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Cooper, Mick Jaggar, John Lennon, David Bowie.Dr. Walther Riedel,Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding,Dr J Allen Hynek, Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, Albert M. Chop, Richard Nixon, J.F.K & Ronald Reagan.
Lots of people believe in things that have not one shred of evidence for their existence. Look at all the gods humans believe in...

HugeKielbasa

Since: Jun 12

Poughquag, NY

#25676 Jul 13, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Lots of people believe in things that have not one shred of evidence for their existence. Look at all the gods humans believe in...
There are similar accounts of Godly beings from the sky.

I think they likely mistook E.T's & U.F.O's as gods.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25677 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
As of 2011, there are over 50. Here's one:
Michael J. Behe,“Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’”
Fifty what? Papers? Total. That's the ID literature to support an entire scientific theory? Maybe fifty-five by now.

Did they ever get intelligence, design, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity defined scientifically?

And where's the theory?

That paper, BTW, sure doesn't sound like ot relates to any data for intelligent design. Where does that show that any design was intended or planned? It looks like an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory again.

What a pile of second rate dookie. Fifty papers indeed! That's not even two months worth for you, assuming 2-ply.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. "Not a scientific theory"?

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
Yeah, not a scientific theory.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that ..."

Once again, where is it? I'll tell YOU what it "holds" after I've seen it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25678 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
3. "It was the church"
The intelligent design "term" was coined by two atheists, Fred Hoyle and James Horiganz: "If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of *intelligent design*."
And your point? Why don't you make your points explicitly? You seem to be implying something about the church with an anecdote about the origins of a term.
Buck Crick wrote:
The Intelligent Design "movement" was started by three scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen: "We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?" Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, pg. 211 (Lewis & Stanley, 1984).
Fascinating. You would never have heard of intelligent design without Christian money. Cui bono?
Buck Crick wrote:
4. "Intelligent Design is creationism repackaged to get around the Edwards decision" (from you previously) Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen published their work in 1984. The Edwards decision was in 1987.
//////////
I bet you're starting to lose interest, huh?
Zzzzzzzz.

Are you implying that you think your rebuttal was effective? I don't remember an argument in it. Was that one there? Was it that the ID movement couldn't be a reaction to something that happened in 1987 because the term might have already existed 1984. Perhaps. Well, since you can't even bother to state your argument, here's the whole rebuttal:

FAIL.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#25679 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a fucking liar.
1. "Next to no peer-reviewd research"?
Did you not see me burn Hiding on that one?
As of 2011, there are over 50. Here's one:
Michael J. Behe,“Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
Not an ID paper. You can tell because of the total lack of ID in it. It's an anti-evolution argument, which is NOT the same as a POSITIVE case for ID. The paper is in turn countered by literally hundreds of thousands peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution.

So far there is only *one* peer-reviewed ID paper, which if I recall was a re-submission of the Meyer one, and the journal in turn received a bunch of flak from the scientific community for sloppy standards in allowing it to be published.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. "Not a scientific theory"?
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
And that premise does ZIP to answer my questions. We KNOW what the premise is. Now explain the theory.
Buck Crick wrote:
3. "It was the church"
The intelligent design "term" was coined by two atheists, Fred Hoyle and James Horiganz:
"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of *intelligent design*."
The Intelligent Design "movement" was started by three scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen:
"We have observational evidence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical pathways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?"
Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, pg. 211 (Lewis & Stanley, 1984).

4. "Intelligent Design is creationism repackaged to get around the Edwards decision" (from you previously)
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen published their work in 1984. The Edwards decision was in 1987.
//////////
I bet you're starting to lose interest, huh?
Yes, we agree that the term was coopted by creationists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_desi...

Because you forgot your boys left their own example of a transitional fossil behind...

What's the "scientific theory" of ID, Buck?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#25680 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the Bible.
Nothing you said is true, Duck.
Go play with yourself.
Ah, I see. Fair enough.

Except I didn't mention the Bible there, so your response is irrelevant.

What's the "scientific theory" of ID, Buck?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#25681 Jul 13, 2012
My mistake, I did in fact mention the Bible in that post. My apologies.

However Biblical literalism aside, so far Buck's position has been indistinguishable from that of a creationist. So the only other relevant question in that regard that I'm curious about is whether he's a YEC or OEC.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#25682 Jul 13, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> I love it that you give an ID biologist credit for unbiased research against itself.
I also love that you give someone who teaches at a college whose average SAT scores are 1350. Yale, on the other hand, has average SAT scores of 2100-2370; University of California Berekley at 3000; Dartmouth at 2380, etc.
The value of the teacher is directly proportionate to the educational evaluation.
It is also noteworthy that Behe is a biologist, not a physicist. He has absolutely no expertise in physics.
ID lost in the court of a Christian judge. I don't think any more need be said.
Minor nitpick, Behe is a biochemist rather than a straight biologist. One thing that came out in Dover that most fundies aren't aware of is that while he is a fundie apologist of the highest order, he does basically agree with common descent. He just believes God was necessary for it to happen. The difference to most evolution-accepting theists being is that he makes claims his theological opinions are relevant to science.

Not in the scientific literature though, that he leaves for his books on apologetics instead. He also said "it would not be fruitful" to bother researching IC, and so far no strapping young IDer has taken up his mantle. He also thinks God is dead. Probably doesn't mention these bits much though while touring the church circuit.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#25683 Jul 13, 2012
straa wrote:
Gravity is not an attractive force like most think
In fact, gravity is actually downright off-putting at times - always acquiring and accumulation all the time.

Now anti-gravity - there's a force for you. I just finished a fascinating book about it. Couldn't put it down.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#25684 Jul 13, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
But this paper says absolutely nothing in support of any aspect of ID.
(" http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.... ;)
Yuppers. Of course that doesn't matter to fundies who are so taken with the logical fallacy that if evolution is wrong then that means Goddidit with magic wins by default.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#25685 Jul 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Fifty what? Papers? Total. That's the ID literature to support an entire scientific theory? Maybe fifty-five by now.
Of course the fundies do love to exaggerate. When one looks a little more closely, of the actual peer-reviewed scientific papers written by creationists they tend to be claimed as ID/Creationist papers retroactively, and usually tend to not mention ID whatsoever, rather instead focusing on anti-evolution arguments. Then many other publications are mentioned, which are "peer-reviewed" by their own people. Such as popular books on apologetics like Behe's Black Box for example.

One fundie poster, Nerd a posted one last month (wish I could remember which journal) which was genuine. As far as I'm aware that's the only one.

HugeKielbasa

Since: Jun 12

Poughquag, NY

#25686 Jul 13, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists then seek to find phenomena which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures and the complex and specified information content in DNA"
Francis Crick who discovered DNA structure made a good point in this quote

"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible"

HugeKielbasa

Since: Jun 12

Poughquag, NY

#25687 Jul 13, 2012
LOL @ Georgia Black man outrage over execution for being retarded.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/13/g...

More Blacks have a IQ below 75 than above 100. LOLOL

So what Blacks are more likely to be spared from Prison execution just because more of them score retarded IQ's due to being inferior?
straa

UK

#25689 Jul 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, gravity is actually downright off-putting at times - always acquiring and accumulation all the time.
Now anti-gravity - there's a force for you. I just finished a fascinating book about it. Couldn't put it down.
I've read up on anti gravity and it really would be awesome if we could find a way of utilizing it, but that's a long long way off, its just for sci fi now. Scientific and technological progress has been slowing down for a long time now, a century ago we were getting world changing new inventions every few years, but now its very rare, only the internet really has been a major invention, cloning and stem cell seem to be so far off, we aren't advancing like we used to any anything new is usually just an improvment on an allready existing invention. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought that by 2012 we would have moon and mars bases, be going around in flying cars and cured cancer, of course we aren't and with the continued slowing down of progress we won't be for a long long time. Even in a hundred years we still won't have mars bases

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#25690 Jul 13, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, gravity is actually downright off-putting at times - always acquiring and accumulation all the time.
Now anti-gravity - there's a force for you. I just finished a fascinating book about it. Couldn't put it down.
Very good.

Now watch for the posts discrediting anti-gravity.

HugeKielbasa

Since: Jun 12

Poughquag, NY

#25691 Jul 13, 2012
The Dude wrote:
My mistake, I did in fact mention the Bible in that post. My apologies.
However Biblical literalism aside,
Bible literalism is a joke. For starters there is a high rate of mistranslations due to the difficulty to perfectly match the translation.

There are a few creation stories.

1 where Adam Eve were created from dust

2 where Adam was created & Even was created out of Adam's rib

3 Then the one where Lilith was the first female but didn't submit to Adam so became a demon so God created Eve.

Many Bible writings were left out & were disregarded or pushed to the side.

Much of the Bibilical writings have Babylonian / Mesopotamian orgins.(Even though Ironically the Bible demonizes the Babylonians signfiicantly)

Including the garden of Eden & Noah's Ark

If you go back further the roots of Christaintiy goes back to Mesopotamia before Babylon to the Sumerians & their Annunaki which supports the possibility of E.T's as (g)ods creating races of man to mine gold.
straa

UK

#25692 Jul 13, 2012
HugeKielbasa wrote:
<quoted text>
Francis Crick who discovered DNA structure made a good point in this quote
"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible"
Francis crick and Watson, another great British scientists and discovery

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min One way or another 40,815
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min IB DaMann 256,107
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min It aint necessari... 16,361
A Universe from Nothing? 20 min IB DaMann 95
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 4 hr Eagle 12 28
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Eagle 12 20,622
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr thetruth 3,774
More from around the web