Ha! So funny!
When the “I prefer facts over fantasy” types are pressed for evidence ( and can’t come up with any ) instead of just acknowledging that they don’t really have anything beyond personal conviction ( like the religious folk they love to deride ) they erase their comments in order to hide the actual fact that their love of “facts” is conditional.
Lovely.
Reminds me of that 50s sitcom, “Leave It To Believer.” 
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Actually you are one of the rare atheists that could actually see through some brainwashing atheist bullshit. 99 percent of these folks are just as delusional if not more so than the religious they mock and believe they are superior to intellectually and morally.
Communistbitch
Level 6
Dec 17, 2023
1
I recall you’re passionate about this. I tend toward Gould’s religion as a spandrel in a group of people who became aware of personal mortality due to brains that became powerful enough for other reasons. Religion tagged along for the ride.
This was close to Becker’s immortality projects idea and the terror management theorists explored this much further. Dean Hamer’s god gene didn’t quite get off the ground did it? There could be a bit of the costly signaling thing in groups exceeding Dunbar’s threshold for when social networks became too unwieldy for personal memory to manage. But adaptionist storytelling itself gets a bit full of itself with the “it helps spew haploids into the next generation” rinse repeat cycle that so much of evolutionary psychology actually boils down to IMO.
Scott321
Level 7
Dec 15, 2023
1
It's a complex intersection of influences, no doubt, and the debate goes on regarding adaptation vs. exaptation. Spandrel seems to be losing favor. Pretty much consensus on natural selection though.
"Indoctrination is part of personal experience. The thing I find so fascinating about atheists is that they claim to prefer facts, reason and science to superstition, but when pressed for the “science “ behind their position, they’re “done”."
What would you suggest, as an atheist, that they provide in support of the atheist contention.
Polemicist
Level 7
Dec 15, 2023
1
Thanks for the question.
That comment was not about the person’s atheism, although I realize, when taken out of context, it looks like it is.
I can no longer see the full context of the conversation but my post was about how religion has been maintained by natural selection. And as I recall, he was arguing that it was maintained otherwise.
When I asked what science he based that on, he was very dismissive of the value of science. Which is the kind of response I find ironic coming from atheists, who are otherwise generally quick to claim science as the reason for their atheism.
So we weren’t discussing his disbelief in the existence of a god, but his disbelief in the role of natural selection in the maintenance of religion. That’s what my comment was in reference to.
What I would suggest is that they either use science for determining both of those, or acknowledge that they use science for neither.
It appears the second time was the charm... it didn't get made private this time. Well, so far anyways, wouldn't want to talk too soon, knowing how childish some folks are on this site.
SpikeTalon
Level 9
Dec 14, 2023
1
Too scared to name names?
ChestRockfield
Level 8
Dec 14, 2023
0
No need to. It’s all public record. Too many to remember or care about, but the most recent is here:
The Evolutionary Basis and Function of Religion
"Religion has been maintained by natural ...
where the fellow was as convinced as any religious person that his personal experience was more infallible than science. After he painted himself into that corner the most creative solution he could come up with to salvage his ego was to block me and then leave one more comment that was then unavailable for me to read. Classy!
I have no way of knowing who flagged this current post the first time I posted it, where I mention similar events, even though it doesn’t break, bend, or even bruise site regulations, but apparently some similarly disgruntled science denier.
No wonder we’re slated for extinction!
Beyond that, it’s counterproductive to make any of this personal. What people choose to place in the public record is their business, but to belittle them personally is not my aim. Their ideas, on the other hand, are fair game, when posted in a public forum.
@skado Sooooo, that's a yes. Considering you didn't say who it was...
You mean "Beaver Cleaver"?
Ever wonder how they got That by the censors?
annewimsey1
Level 7
Dec 14, 2023
4
A lot the the euphemisms are regional. I guess the folks in the area of NJ I grew up in were more interested in race, lots of terms for the "others" not so much for our private area. Which is why I loved The Vagina Monologues, very educational and fun!
WTF? Why don't you tell us what's really bothering you?
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Dec 14, 2023
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.