Souls and Evolution

[gaara4158]

Enough's enough.

/thread

 

[pgp_protector]

Enough's enough.

/thread

[move][/move]

 

[BananaSlug]

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?

Let me say it again: 100% of Atheists accept Evolution.

And backing up even further --- here's my whole point:

Atheists have two doctrines that I know of:

1. Evolution
2. There is no God

I'd say that 99.9% of atheists accept evolution. We do not have a "doctrine" we simply don't believe in any supernatural creator being. In other words we don't believe in any gods.
Second, the Theory of Evolution is not a doctrine. It is simply a collection of multitudes of observations, hypotheses, laws, and other phenomena that make up the Theory. Would you say Cell Theory is doctrine or Gravatational Theory is doctrine?

 

[BananaSlug]

Darn it! He already /thread! Well, he'll be back...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Darn it! He already /thread! Well, he'll be back...

I dunno, can you re-enter a thread you already /thread? I'll have to check internets etiquette.

 

[MoonLancer]

I dunno, can you re-enter a thread you already /thread? I'll have to check internets etiquette.

you can but little kitties laugh at you.

 

[Split Rock]

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?

Let me say it again: 100% of Atheists accept Evolution.

And backing up even further --- here's my whole point:

Atheists have two doctrines that I know of:

1. Evolution
2. There is no God

Here's some more:

1. Germ theory of Medicine
2. Theory of Gravity
3. Stopping your car at a red light or stop sign Doctrine
4. Locking the door to your car when you leave it in a parking lot Doctrine.
5. Not sticking your hand into a fire Doctrine
6. The Don't spit into the wind Doctrine

 

[Ectezus]

Here's some more:

1. Germ theory of Medicine
2. Theory of Gravity
3. Stopping your car at a red light or stop sign Doctrine
4. Locking the door to your car when you leave it in a parking lot Doctrine.
5. Not sticking your hand into a fire Doctrine
6. The Don't spit into the wind Doctrine

Actually, I dont think there is a consensus about not spitting into the wind yet.

 

[GhostSlug]

What does this have to do with what we're talking about?

Let me say it again: 100% of Atheists accept Evolution.

And backing up even further --- here's my whole point:

Atheists have two doctrines that I know of:

1. Evolution
2. There is no God

Do me a favor and please tell me how on Earth you have talked to every single atheist both living and dead to ask them if they agree with evolution or not. Obviously you have because you make statements like that. That would be like me saying that all Baptist Denomination Christians believe in Creation, which I personally know not to be true.

Your statements boggle my mind AV, they really do.

 

[Tiberius]

Answering by way of repeated requests:

Thanks for the reply.

I don't know all your doctrine (beliefs), as I don't think like an atheist --- but two come to mind:

1. Evolution
2. There is no God

Dictionary.com defines doctrine as "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government". The definitions provided suggest that a doctrine is a philosophical teaching.

Regarding evolution, it is not a doctrine. It is a scientific theory that is based upon evidence. But, it is commonly held to be true by atheists, yes. However, there are also a great number of religious people who believe that the theory of evolution is, for the most part, correct. I'd hardly say it is an atheist-only point of view.

The second belief you mention as being common to atheists - the lack of belief in a deity - is accurate.

I thought 100% of atheists also embrace evolution?

Most do, it is true, but it is quite possible that a person who does not believe in God could also find evolution to be hard to believe. The two do not go hand in hand.

I wouldn't know --- thus I'm asking.

I can assure you that I have never found anything that shows that all atheists agree on the existence of souls. I doubt that there is even a majority agreement among atheists on the existence of souls. Asking what the atheistic viewpoint on souls is won't get you a good answer, because atheism doesn't really say anything about the existence of souls. it would be like me asking Christians what the best car is. There would be a tremendous vairety of answers, because Christianity doesn't really concern itself with the relative benefits and disadvantages of cars.

Not from a Christian perspective --- I simply want to know if it is taught in any science classes as existing. If not, the definition is moot. In fact, if you would have responded, "yes" --- I was going to ask you what it is?

Well, if by "soul" you mean some part of me that holds my memories and my personality, I would say that yes, I do believe in that, but I call it my consciousness. I don't see it as a supernatural or mystical thing. I believe that higher animals, such as humans, cats dogs, apes etc do have this, although I would have no idea if animals such as insects have it as well.

However, if you define "soul" to be something that carries my personality and memories beyond death, something that goes to an afterlife, then I would say no.

Just the scientific one(s). However, I'm getting the impression that it is NOT taught as something that is real, and so I believe my question has been answered.

I'm not aware of any scientific definition of what a soul is.

Hooray for the Bible --- this has NOTHING to do with It. It is a science question.

I would disagree. If we take this biblical passage as true, then mankind would be raised above the animals if man had a soul and the animals didn't.

My definition for soul, in this thread, can take a hike --- you're turning the question around on me, and I'm not going to go there.

Just a simple YES or NO.

You would know, I wouldn't --- I haven't taken the classes you have.

I assumed that you, as a religious person, would have a definition for soul that you were using for the purposes of this thread. Sorry to have misunderstood.

I do believe that the answer to this question depends on the definition you use for "soul".

If using the religious definition of soul - a part of you that survives death and goes to an afterlife of some kind - I would say that Humans (that you called glorified apes) do not have souls.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dictionary.com defines doctrine as "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government". The definitions provided suggest that a doctrine is a philosophical teaching.

I know doctrine is a strong word to use, but the Bible exposes atheism as a form of nature worship.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

I agree with Answers.com here, and I don't think that just because a person decides to become an atheist, that that somehow exempts him from being just as "religious" as we are.

Regarding evolution, it is not a doctrine.

I strongly disagree. It is a belief that has never been observed (and I'm assuming we're talking macro-evolution here), and, as my Mariana Trench thread showed, believed on by faith.

It is a scientific theory that is based upon evidence. But, it is commonly held to be true by atheists, yes. However, there are also a great number of religious people who believe that the theory of evolution is, for the most part, correct. I'd hardly say it is an atheist-only point of view.

If you're talking micro-evolution here, I will agree; but macro-evolution is definitely a faith-based belief.

The second belief you mention as being common to atheists - the lack of belief in a deity - is accurate.

Most do, it is true, but it is quite possible that a person who does not believe in God could also find evolution to be hard to believe. The two do not go hand in hand.

I can't even fathom what an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution does believe, then.

I can assure you that I have never found anything that shows that all atheists agree on the existence of souls. I doubt that there is even a majority agreement among atheists on the existence of souls. Asking what the atheistic viewpoint on souls is won't get you a good answer, because atheism doesn't really say anything about the existence of souls. it would be like me asking Christians what the best car is. There would be a tremendous vairety of answers, because Christianity doesn't really concern itself with the relative benefits and disadvantages of cars.

Then I'll assume your answer to the OP is NO.

Well, if by "soul" you mean some part of me that holds my memories and my personality, I would say that yes, I do believe in that, but I call it my consciousness. I don't see it as a supernatural or mystical thing. I believe that higher animals, such as humans, cats dogs, apes etc do have this, although I would have no idea if animals such as insects have it as well.

However, if you define "soul" to be something that carries my personality and memories beyond death, something that goes to an afterlife, then I would say no.

Again, what I think is the definition of soul doesn't apply to the OP. This isn't about me, it's about whether or not a "soul" is taught as "standard equipment" in Homo sapiens.

I'm not aware of any scientific definition of what a soul is.

This tells me you haven't been taught it.

 

[AirPo]

I know doctrine is a strong word to use, but the Bible exposes atheism as a form of nature worship.I agree with Answers.com here, and I don't think that just because a person decides to become an atheist, that that somehow exempts him from being just as "religious" as we are.I strongly disagree. It is a belief that has never been observed (and I'm assuming we're talking macro-evolution here), and, as my Mariana Trench thread showed, believed on by faith.If you're talking micro-evolution here, I will agree; but macro-evolution is definitely a faith-based belief.I can't even fathom what an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution does believe, then.Then I'll assume your answer to the OP is NO.Again, what I think is the definition of soul doesn't apply to the OP. This isn't about me, it's about whether or not a "soul" is taught as "standard equipment" in Homo sapiens.This tells me you haven't been taught it.

In the spirit of full disclosure, answers.com says:

n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

It seems someone skipped definition #1.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the spirit of full disclosure, answers.com says:

It seems someone skipped definition #1.

Indeed --- both statements are true.

• beliefs → doctrines → -isms

What starts out as a belief, ends up as a doctrine.

 

[Cabal]

I know doctrine is a strong word to use, but the Bible exposes atheism as a form of nature worship.

Citation needed, as ever.

I can't even fathom what an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution does believe, then.

Then maybe stop broadbrushing an entire group of people (broadbrushing them wrongly, for one thing)....

This tells me you haven't been taught it.

...an ideal place to stop broadbrushing would be before you came up with this wonderful piece of fiction.

 

[AirPo]

Indeed --- both statements are true.

• beliefs → doctrines → -isms

What starts out as a belief, ends up as a doctrine.

Too bad the first definition, which someone seems to have missed and/or misread, doesn't start with belief.

 

[Tiberius]

I know doctrine is a strong word to use, but the Bible exposes atheism as a form of nature worship.

Well, most atheists think that study of the world around us is the best way to learn about it, if that's what you mean. But it isn't common practice to worship nature in the same way that a Christian would worship God.

I agree with Answers.com here, and I don't think that just because a person decides to become an atheist, that that somehow exempts him from being just as "religious" as we are.

An atheist can be just as passionate about his beliefs as a Christian, yes. But I wouldn't say that atheism is a religion. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

I strongly disagree. It is a belief that has never been observed (and I'm assuming we're talking macro-evolution here), and, as my Mariana Trench thread showed, believed on by faith.

If you're talking micro-evolution here, I will agree; but macro-evolution is definitely a faith-based belief.

We'll have to disagree. I have seen evidence - very strong evidence - that macro-evolution (a change into a new species that is reproductively isolated) has occured. However, this is a discussion for a different thread. (Although I would appreciate a link to the marianas trench thread you mentioned.)

I can't even fathom what an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution does believe, then.

To be honest, neither can I. But just because we can't understand, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Then I'll assume your answer to the OP is NO.

It is. However, that is me speaking from my own personal opinion. it shouldn't be taken as a standard atheist answer. There are many atheists who may believe there is a "soul", such as the people who believe in reincarnation. While many religious people believe that souls can be reborn in new bodies, religion is not a requirement. There are probably people out there who beleive in reincarnation and are atheists.

Again, what I think is the definition of soul doesn't apply to the OP. This isn't about me, it's about whether or not a "soul" is taught as "standard equipment" in Homo sapiens.

"Standard equipment" of Homo Sapiens would be taught in the science class, in biology. Science deals only in what is scientific - it must be testable for it to be scientific. The existence of the soul can't be tested in any scientific way. Not, at least, as far as I am aware of.

So, science doesn't say that humans have no souls. Is simply makes no comment on the issue, one way or the other.

This tells me you haven't been taught it.

This can occur for one of two reasons:

1. There is a scientific definition for soul, but nobody ever got around to teaching me.
2. There is no scientific definition for soul.

Personally, I suspect that the latter is the case.

 

[Ectezus]

but macro-evolution is definitely a faith-based belief.

Evolutionist:
Micro-evolution: Mutations can cause small changes.
Macro-evolution: A lot of small changes added up eventually result into big changes.

Creationist:
Micro-evolution: Mutations can cause small changes. (Same)
Macro-evolution: There is a magical barrier that prevents 1+1 becoming 2. At most it can become 1.99. A grand designer made us very special and it can not be any other way.

Evolutionists need to have faith huh?
Creationist macro-evolution is making wild assumptions that have no evidence at all.
Macro-evolution on the other hand is simply a logical extrapolation from micro-evolution. No more, no less.

- Ectezus

 

[Split Rock]

I know doctrine is a strong word to use, but the Bible exposes atheism as a form of nature worship.

NO> You're flawed interpretation of the Bible (a form of junk theology) makes this claim.

I strongly disagree. It is a belief that has never been observed (and I'm assuming we're talking macro-evolution here), and, as my Mariana Trench thread showed, believed on by faith.

As your Marianas Trench thread showed, you have a warped understanding of "faith."

If you're talking micro-evolution here, I will agree; but macro-evolution is definitely a faith-based belief.

No it is not. It is inferred from the physical evidence.

This isn't about me, it's about whether or not a "soul" is taught as "standard equipment" in Homo sapiens.This tells me you haven't been taught it.

More sophistry. You cannot learn something that is never taught.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then maybe stop broadbrushing an entire group of people (broadbrushing them wrongly, for one thing)....

In that case, Cabal, please tell me what an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution does believe.

 

[Jester4kicks]

In that case, Cabal, please tell me what an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution does believe.

Could you tell me what a christian who doesn't believe in YEC does believe?

It's a rediculous question. Certainly you couldn't know every single non-YEC's viewpoint or what they all believe... how would you expect any of us to know the viewpoints of every atheist in the world who doesn't think evolution is correct?