Who else thinks the AF is going to get burned on this one? - Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say "so help me God"

SgtMaj Orpin - I'll say it how I damn well please, as the Constitution allows.

SgtMaj Steve Orpin ..totally uncalled for. That is a completely insulting statement.

SgtMaj Steve Orpin would you have said the same if the oath said, "so help me, me" or "so help me, Odin" or, even some other deity?
It's easy enough to say someone else is whiny because they don't agree with you, but how do you handle it when you don't agree? What example are you setting by your words?
Have you noticed that two junior enlisted soldiers have called you out on the carpet before me?
This is JMHO, but if Christians are not willing to give voice to those that disagree with us, we can find ourselves without a voice when those that disagree are in power. And we did it to ourselves.

SPC David Wolcott you got to specify whom you're directing this comment at. I know I say a few jacked up comments once in a while, just want to know whose feelings are you after with this one ;-) You may use @ followed by person's name

Actually, Al-Jazeera is a very good source for news. It is a different perspective, not beholden to the media elites of the United States. It is owned by the ruling family of Qatar, not by extremists. This family has an interest in being friendly with the United States. Read the article though, it is very well written with no editorial added.

SPC (Join to see) Thanks for the info on Al-Jazeera. I had no idea it was like that. Maybe I need to start reading that to get another point of view. Thanks battle!!

Al-Jazeera is an excellent news source. It is, in my opinion, far better than CNN, Fox News, and other American news outlets.

I'm already familiar with the political and religious perspective of Al-Jazeera.

MAJ (Join to see) - Thank you. Yes, I was thinking of Carbon-14 dating. You're right (of course) the half-life doesn't change.

\\That's weird. Dictionaries, universities, and Richard Dawkins, say very, very differently.\\

First, Richard Dawkins says that he's not wholly committed to the idea that a supernatural entity is entirely impossible. All he's saying is that he can't prove a negative, and thus doesn't claim certainty. Since he still identifies as an atheist, that's not a refutation of anything I said.

Is that agnostic? On the weakest formulation of the term, yes, but the point is that such doesn't preclude one from being an atheist. You do not need to be 100% utterly convinced that a supernatural creator doesn't exist in order to dismiss it as lacking evidence. Once the probability gets to a certain point, you are an atheist. And dismissing for a lack of evidence does not require that one be unwilling or unable to reexamine at a later time.

Second, as to definitions. I will grant you're very good at selective picking of quotes and links, a skill at "Google-Fu" you've demonstrated repeatedly. Of course, your demonstrated pattern is also to find exactly what you need for your predetermined conclusion, shout "Aha!" (presumably metaphorically), then fail to look any deeper as to whether it holds up to scrutiny. (I'm going to pass over the arrogance of your presuming to define someone's beliefs for them, because I don't think you've shown the capacity to appreciate that.)

The thing is, both 1) word origin and 2) the level of specificity a resource uses are important. Starting with the raw word, the "a-" in atheism means without or lacking, not refusing or against. Few dictionaries draw a distinction between lacking belief in (passive) and belief against (active) a proposition, but it is a crucial distinction in this case. Luckily, some do. Of course, you need only type the word "atheist" into Google to get a more accurate definition: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Note the language there. Atheism can be active or passive.

By the way, we can also do the same thing with "atheism," which gives us: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." I *reject* the beliefs as lacking evidence. I am *absent* of or *lacking* belief because of that. I need not take any stricter position to be an atheist.

And, if you really wanted to play the dictionary game beyond just Google's response, that can be done too:

-- Urban Dictionary: "A person who lacks belief in a god or gods."

-- Dictionary.com: "A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

-- Oxford Dictionary: "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

-- Wikipedia: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

-- Wiktionary: "(narrowly) A person who believes that no deities exist; (broadly) A person who rejects belief that any deities exist; (loosely) A person who has no belief in any deities, such as a person who has no concept of deities."

-- American Atheists (Surely *they* would know, right?): "Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as 'a belief that there is no God.' Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as 'wickedness,' 'sinfulness,' and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as 'there is no God' betrays the (mono)theistic influence."

And if you still can't get your head around this concept and insist on using the narrow, imprecise definition that only is accurate for *some* atheists, then you will not properly be able to understand atheist positions.

[I think it's worthwhile to point out that atheists themselves occasionally clash about what atheism entails. Basically all agree with the base meaning, about lack of belief, but there are those who do want to take it further. The most common manifestation of this today is the battle over what atheism *means* versus what it *implies*. There's a strong movement to include social justice and equality campaigns with secular and atheist thought, as a consideration of the consequences of non-belief as it relates to a social species. On the other side, there's a hard-line group insisting that including moral implications takes away from the precise definitions, but most of those drawing that position are doing so because they're actively opposed to social justice or equality measures. The former calls itself "movement atheism", "atheism plus", or similar terms, but is often derisively called "social justice warriors" by the latter. The latter calls itself "true atheism" or "pure atheism", but is also often derisively called "dictionary atheism" by the former. I find myself somewhere in the middle, and I hate it; I agree with the social justice and equality camp on the ethical merits, but I agree with the "dictionary" camp on the precision. Anyway, the important take-away from this digression is that even in a group that is still fighting to determine its far border, there is strong and broad agreement on the near border, and that line is lacking belief but not necessarily actively believing against.]

\\That's also [weird], because Nobel Prize Winning, World-class chemist James Tour says the exact opposite.\\

It's interesting that you keep going back (you mentioned him elsewhere) to one of the few scientists who is a creationist (not young earth, mind you, but creationist none the less) and has spoken against evolution while ignoring the huge array of scientists with relevant expertise who routinely publish work and make commentary specifically supporting evolution. While consensus of opinion *alone* does not automatically carry weight, consensus of the *experts on the subject* does, and consensus of the *scientific literature published* does even more so. And the experts *and* the literature back evolution to such a staggering degree that one can be strongly confident in it.

In fact, have you ever heard of Project Steve? One of the things about the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwin" list (of which James Tour is a signer) is that they will accept pretty much anyone with an advanced degree. DfD has a little over 800 signatories, about 1/4 coming from fields of relevant expertise, with those ~200 representing less than 1/100th of 1% of overall scientists in those relevant fields. Project Steve was a counter to that, accepting *only* people in the relevant fields of expertise, and then only if their name was a variant of Steve (in honor of Stephen Jay Gould), and it has well over 1300 names. In a similar form, in 2005 a similar effort was done with a "Scientific Support for Darwinism" list, which also limited itself to people in relevant fields (though did not limit by name) garnered over 7700 signers in only four days.

But let's take James Tour's own words, and see what they tell us (from his own website, today): "Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation."

\\You can reject him on the illogical a priori assumption that you don't believe in Christianity, or you can do with[sic] Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell did...\\

I know you don't believe me, but I don't reject anything on such simplistic grounds. I do take time to investigate for myself. At a certain point, however, further investigation of spurious claims such as those used to doubt evolution is lending them a credence they do not deserve. Throwing around terms like "a priori" may impress the highly credulous (I'm beginning to understand why you're so fond of debate -- you simply try to crowd out the discussion and toss in terms the average person doesn't hear often) but it won't impress anyone else. I'll give you credit: at least in this case you're using the term correctly, as that hasn't always been the case in a great number of your comments here to me and others.

As for Strobel and Mcowell, I've read several books from both of them. I even still have at least one that I know of (McDowell's "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict"). Also, please remember, they are apologists and pastors, not scholars.

One of the things I've always been impressed with is how *flimsy* their arguments were. I really mean that; reading them myself, they always felt at best a stretch and at worst a joke, and that was how they seemed when I was still a Christian, not just after I left. The arguments really were designed to bolster the existing believer, not convince the non-believer. Their arguments tend to have a ton of unstated assumptions, or state flatly contradictory things (This is especially true of McDowell).

Anyway, I truly hope you're done with your repeated attempt at argument from authority. You have attempted mightily to bolster them up, so at least outwardly it doesn't appear to be a fallacy (despite the fact that by the sheer cherry-picking you have to do, it actually is fallacious none the less). You must realize, though, that there is *only* one thing that can change the equation: not a debate, not a quote from one of the few scientists who are flat-out creationists, but strong scientific literature that demonstrates evolution to be wrong.

Going back up to the top of where you address me, however:
\\\[R]espectfully, Sir, I can ignore 90% of your comments. And I shall do so via scholars, dictionaries, and evidence.\\

Scholars? Dictionaries? Evidence?

Your scholars have shown themselves to be lacking. Your dictionaries outdated and incorrect. Your evidence has yet to appear at all.

"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"

You can ignore as much of my comments for any reason you so desire; there's nothing requiring you to comment, or even read it. When you do so on such an obviously flimsy basis, employing some of the most thorough misunderstandings of the topics and engaging in Olympic-level cherry-picking, you will always come out looking foolish.

\\So, as you try to leave me with The Princess Bride, I shall leave you with an evolutionist.\\

I'm going to give this one it's own comment, because it perfectly illustrates the levels of dishonest quote-mining you'll sink to. You demolished your credibility and integrity early on, but this one is a very illustrative nail in the coffin for anyone as yet unconvinced.

First, your quote:
\\“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” - Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School\\

Ooh, sounds impressive, doesn't it? Sounds like a scientist who supports evolution flatly undermining it, right?

Well, let's put it in context, from the 2005 Boston Globe article (during the Dover School District' trial -- which ended in a smack-down -- over Intelligent Design):

\\If anything, Kirschner and Gerhart hope their book will have an impact at least as substantial on their colleagues in biology. For too long, they say, researchers in its different domains-from evolutionists in the field to cell biologists in the lab-have remained isolated. ''I wouldn't call it an antagonism as much as one not knowing anything about the other," Gerhart offers.
Kirschner likes to invoke the much-quoted declaration of famed 20th-century biologist Theodesius Dobzhansky that ''nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (the title of a 1973 essay). ''In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself," Kirschner declares. ''Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
As a result, scientists working on genetics, cells, and molecules-a background Kirschner and Gerhart share-have not always considered how components of an organism reveal both its physiological properties and evolutionary properties and provide a window into the history of the organism. Evolutionary science, argue Kirschner and Gerhart, will advance as more biologists place their lab research within this evolutionary framework.\\

Wait, now that suddenly doesn't seem so bad, does it? Of course not, because what he's saying is that most of the work that the *medical* field has relied on hasn't taken the time to inform itself on the implications gleaned from evolution, but that they *should*.

Of course, why stop the lesson for SPC Wolcott, the dishonest quote-miner, there:

\\"We shouldn't dismiss questions, even if some are ill-intentioned," says Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. "But at the same time, we need to realize that science has real answers to these questions."
Far from being restricted to the fossil record, as creationists often imply, research in the last 25 years from molecular biology, genetics, cell biology, and embryology has added greatly to the existing evidence for evolution. "There are all sorts of demonstrations of evolution going on all the time," notes John Gerhart, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
Even so, Kirschner and Gerhart believe, some biologists and many science-literate general readers-not to mention a larger slice of the public-are unaware of the advances in the field. If Behe, for one, can question evolution, Kirschner and Gerhart contend, biologists have an increasing responsibility not only to explain evolution to the public, but to be fully aware of the evolutionary implications of their own work.
As it happens, Kirschner and Gerhart give several of these advances in evolutionary biology a broad public airing as coauthors of a new book, "The Plausibility of Life," published this week by Yale University Press. In it, they discuss the origins of complicated biological features-from the bat's wing to the human eye-and present their theory of "facilitated variation," which they believe addresses a major question in evolution: How can small genetic changes develop into complex, useful body parts? In a sign of the times, they also rebut claims of irreducible complexity made by Intelligent Design advocates.\\

\\"People should be asking about the nature of complexity, not just how complex it is," amplifies Kirschner, in conversation. "You look at a clock, and you see that every part is purposely made. That's what you would do if you were an Intelligent Designer. But instead, when you look at biology, you find that there are very few types of parts, and they are being co-opted from one place to another. We have a Lego-like capacity to very easily generate new structures."\\

\\Among other things, that means tackling the creationists' mantra that evolution is "only a theory," and explaining that it is based on natural principles, which can be studied and tested in labs like any other science. Granted, evolutionists must toe a fine line between emphasizing the certainties of the discipline and acknowledging areas that need more work. "Science has got to be an open process," argues Alberts, adding that if events like the Dover trial limited biologists' impulse to debate one another, it would "harm science more than the [Intelligent Design] movement itself."\\

\\"If you take all the genes of a human and look at them, most of them look just like genes in other organisms, and many of them look like genes in bacteria," explains Gerhart. Closely related species have closely matching genetic codes. But even bacteria and humans, distant relatives, share identical stretches of DNA relating to the metabolism. Such data provides powerful evidence for evolution by common descent.\\

Starting to see the picture yet? Your quote-mine is thoroughly discredited, and the actual context refutes what you tried to use it to suggest. This is very illustrative of the way you've engaged everything here, though: dishonest and without integrity. In so doing on such a consistent basis, your actions reflect great *dis*-credit upon yourself.

\\Thank you for confirming that atheism is a statement of active belief (rejection) in the existence of God.\\

Wrong again. You can't seem to realize that the very terms "disbelieve" and "lacks belief" are passive. You refute yourself (not surprisingly). Atheism *can* be an active rejection. It doesn't *require* such. Historically, it *never* did, though older dictionaries defined it incorrectly.

What I was really exposing was the depths to which you cherry-pick, seeking out only that which supports your preconceived notion and going out of your way to reject the rest. That's dishonest, and by extension through the very fact of how much you've done it throughout this entire topic, *you* are dishonest. You have shown a profound lack of honor and integrity throughout, and we are well past the point where that spade should simply be called as such.

You reject *some* dictionaries that meet your artificial criterion because you willfully either misunderstand or ignore their own words (Dictionary.com / Oxford). You also selectively quote others, like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, to try to make a case that it doesn't support. (The very first sentence of that article is "The term 'atheist' describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.", and "does not believe" is passive; it then goes on at some length, supporting the passive interpretation.)

And the rest, you ignore because you impose an artificial criterion as to what you'll allow to be a dictionary. I understand why you may have thought you could do that, but language doesn't work like a collection of facts, so the fact that a university is cited doesn't lend it the same credence. Instead, it evolves, it changes, and disregarding both newer and more accurate definitions or the methods by which they can be found is an incorrect method of evaluation.

Of course, it's also a deliberate attempt only to stick to outmoded and less accurate definitions *because* they are less kind to atheism. As demonstrated by the American Atheists line, historic definitions often show a distinct anti-atheist bias. And obviously from everything you've said in this entire topic thread, so do you.

And while the fact that even the very root of the word disproves the accuracy of many historic definitions, you could also always go to the source by actually *asking atheists what they believe* and how they identify with the term. You will find a broad understanding of the term being a passive lack, not an active rejection, though it *allows* for individuals to go further if they so choose.

\\So, again, I will continue to follow the universities, dictionaries, and evidence, rather than your unsupported opinions.\\

Let me rephrase that:

You will continue to follow outmoded, incorrect, and deliberately biased definitions, and ignore any others, and even misunderstand passive terms to be active just to support your view, rather than actually attempt to be honest about a definition, and continue to flail around the word evidence despite demonstrating you have a profound lack of any.

Of course, we already knew that. You're dishonest and epistemically closed. Not surprising for a creationist.