5 bombshells some atheists are not aware of

[Esquilax]

Yet, time and time again we see them being trotted out by Christians as an argument against atheism, and even some atheist argue them as if they matter to an atheist viewpoint (just see above). The reality is, they don't.

MM

From a christian side I can almost see why they would think these things would matter to us; after all, their own holy book spends so much time not only instilling absurdly high levels of reverence in authority figures, but also stressing how everyone else is exactly the same as they are, how everyone really believes in the christian god, and how obviously any outward expression of disagreement is a sign of idolatry. The bible is basically a roadmap for this kind of fallacious thinking.

[Chas]

Following on from a recent post in another thread I decided to drop a few very interesting bombshells.

These can all be verified with a little effort (I'm not doing all the work for you).

1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.

Enjoy,

MM

Not one single bombshell. Is your thinking so shallow that you perceive any of those as more than mildly interesting?

---

Xtians don't seem to know that Darwin believed in a creator.


One of the few things he got totally wrong.. although I'm sure that now he would gladly admit it.

I think you make a really valuable point here, and it was kind of what I hoped would get picked up from my original post.

When religious people throw ideas around such as 'Darwin said man descended from apes', we should challenge those misrepresentations. These are valuable ideas and I feel we need to be better informed in their defence. Plus they are quite fun facts.

Other interesting 'bombshells' are very welcome.

MM

I guess you don't know that Darwin wrote more than one book, for instance The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

[ManMachine]

Following on from a recent post in another thread I decided to drop a few very interesting bombshells.

These can all be verified with a little effort (I'm not doing all the work for you).

1. Darwin never once uses either the word ‘ape’ or ‘apes’ in his work ‘On The Origin of Species’, so he could never have said Humans were descendants of or shared a common ancestor with apes.
2. Richard Dawkins has never called himself an atheist, he actually considers himself to be agnostic.
3. Early on in Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’, he points out that no one can have total certainty that God does or does not exist.
4. Darwin had little faith in fossil records ever proving his theory of Evolution, he considered them too incomplete.
5. Sir Isaac Newton had an interest in the occult, he studied alchemy and believed he would discover The Philosopher’s Stone, a material capable of turning base metal into gold. He also believed that metals ‘possessed a sort of life’.

Enjoy,

MM

Not one single bombshell. Is your thinking so shallow that you perceive any of those as more than mildly interesting?

---

I think you make a really valuable point here, and it was kind of what I hoped would get picked up from my original post.

When religious people throw ideas around such as 'Darwin said man descended from apes', we should challenge those misrepresentations. These are valuable ideas and I feel we need to be better informed in their defence. Plus they are quite fun facts.

Other interesting 'bombshells' are very welcome.

MM

I guess you don't know that Darwin wrote more than one book, for instance The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

Another one misses the point, I suggest you read through my replies.

However...

I do know The Descent of Man etc.', and I've read it.

To be fair, the Descent of Man is only an essay, the bigger part of the book is given over to Selection in Relation to Sex. To quote Darwin from The Descent of Man:

"The main conclusion arrived at in this work, and now held by many naturalists who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is descended from some less highly organized form."

Which is so general it might be used to infer Darwin said Humans and sea cucumbers share a common ancestor. I'm not suggesting that Darwin wasn't part of the bigger debate, he was, but the specific connection between apes and humans was primarily the work of Huxley and Owen. Darwin used animals (including dogs and apes) and what he termed 'savages' to draw analogies with 'civilized humans', this was his primary rhetorical strategy which has as much to say about his Victorian values as anything.

If you have a comment to make on the broader debate of Darwin's intent then we can start another thread, but I really can't be bothered with people who attempt to present an argument about a book they have no understanding of and probably haven't even read.

MM

[MJ the Skeptical]

You have no real point though. You were basically just incendiary.

[Chas]

---

Not one single bombshell. Is your thinking so shallow that you perceive any of those as more than mildly interesting?

---

I guess you don't know that Darwin wrote more than one book, for instance The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

Another one misses the point, I suggest you read through my replies.

However...

I do know The Descent of Man etc.', and I've read it.

To be fair, the Descent of Man is only an essay, the bigger part of the book is given over to Selection in Relation to Sex. To quote Darwin from The Descent of Man:

"The main conclusion arrived at in this work, and now held by many naturalists who are well competent to form a sound judgment, is that man is descended from some less highly organized form."

Which is so general it might be used to infer Darwin said Humans and sea cucumbers share a common ancestor. I'm not suggesting that Darwin wasn't part of the bigger debate, he was, but the specific connection between apes and humans was primarily the work of Huxley and Owen. Darwin used animals (including dogs and apes) and what he termed 'savages' to draw analogies with 'civilized humans', this was his primary rhetorical strategy which has as much to say about his Victorian values as anything.

---

If you have a comment to make on the broader debate of Darwin's intent then we can start another thread, but I really can't be bothered with people who attempt to present an argument about a book they have no understanding of and probably haven't even read.

MM

The point is that you listed no bombshells and are just trying to stir up shit.

Oh, I have read it, so fuck you and your bullshit.

[ManMachine]

The point is that you listed no bombshells and are just trying to stir up shit.

Oh, I have read it, so fuck you and your bullshit.

Accepting you have read it I defer to the comment I made immediately prior to that.

MM

[Anomalocaris]

Darwin may not have said men descended from apes in his "origins", but that becomes a trivial tpoint because it is an evident, and endorsed, deduction to be readily made from what he did say.

Clinging to the mane of make belief high horses about trivialities would not enhance the fruitfulness of any discussion, it only shows a disagreeable will to dominate the discussion using whatever excuse is at hand, even at the expense of fruitfulness of discussion.

[ManMachine]

Darwin may not have said men descended from apes in his "origins", but that becomes a trivial tpoint because it is an evident, and endorsed, deduction to be readily made from what he did say.

Climbing on an imaginary high horse about trivialities would not enhance the fruitfulness of any discussion, it only shows a disagreeable will to dominate the discussion using whatever excuse is at hand, even at the expense of fruitfulness of discussion.

Just out of interest, I would go so far as to say Darwin's Origin was a direct influence on Huxley and Owen who were the originators of that particular theory.

I think we need to be clear that Darwin gave the world a workable theory of evolution and in the Descent of Man acknowledges a 'less highly organised form'. He would certainly have been aware of Huxley and Owen's work before he wrote Descent but he pulled short of including in his conclusion. Darwin must have had his reasons for doing so. I don't think that's trivial, I think that's quite important.

MM

[Mr Greene]

OK so we've got a list of 5 quote-mined non-bombshells, used to promote an inaccurate viewpoint, which might be used by some theist in a discussion at some point. I've heard worse but the thread still seems rather pointless.

[ManMachine]

OK so we've got a list of 5 quote-mined non-bombshells, used to promote an inaccurate viewpoint, which might be used by some theist in a discussion at some point. I've heard worse but the thread still seems rather pointless.

That about sums it up.

MM