Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[bhsmte]

Its not my problem.

Who's problem is it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You do know that the vast majority of Satanists do not worship Satan right? Satanism is an atheistic religion/philosophy. There is no worship, no metaphysics, no "spirituality", no gods, no demons and no supernatural.
Satanists who worship Satan is actually a rarity and I have only known 2 people who do this. Satanism is much like BUddhism in that it is a non-theistic religion.
I cannot believe you did not know his

There are Theistic Satanist that do worship Satan. I don't know a number of the adherents which is not surprising.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who's problem is it?

I have a coherent reason to believe why I am an intelligent being, with a sense of inherent morality, with a conscience, with consciousness and purpose. You are the one that has no reason for those things to be a reality.

 

[Dizredux]

You aren't reading this from Collins' website, BioLogos......

From BioLogos

"We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today. While we accept the science of evolution, we emphatically reject evolutionism. Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. Christians disagree, however, on how God created. Young Earth Creationists believe that God created just 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and disagree with much of mainstream science. Supporters of Intelligent Design accept more of evolutionary science, but argue that some features of life are best explained by direct intervention by an intelligent agent rather than by God’s regular way of working through natural processes. We at BioLogos agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created. The term BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to the opening of the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.”

How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? | BioLogos

This is an accruate quote. Good, you finally backed up what you have been saying at least a little in that you cited someone who seems to agree with you on the idea of evolutionism. We have been waiting for any kind of back up from you rather than bald unsupported assertions. Keep it up.

However, did your also read this on the same page?:

We see no biblical reason to view natural processes (including natural selection) as having removed God from the process of creation. It is all God’s and it is all intelligently designed.

This is what many Christians as well as myself believe and I think makes my point rather well. I don't know if this find was intentional but thanks anyway.

To keep things in context:

The BioLogos View

The BioLogos view holds that both Scripture and modern science reveal God’s truth, and that these truths are not in competition with one another. While there are varying views within the BioLogos community of how to reconcile the truths of science and Scripture on particular issues (for example with regards to a historical Adam1), we believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. BioLogos accepts the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and common ancestry, including the common ancestry of humans.

On intelligent design:

To summarize, BioLogos differs from the ID movement in three respects:

1. We are skeptical about the ability of biological science to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer (whom we take to be the God of the Bible), while ID advocates are confident.

2. We find unconvincing those attempts by ID theorists to scientifically confirm God’s activity in natural history, while ID theorists believe they have sufficiently demonstrated it.

3. We see no biblical reason to view natural processes (including natural selection) as having removed God from the process of creation. It is all God’s and it is all intelligently designed. Those in the ID movement for the most part reject some or all of the major conclusions of evolutionary theory.

They pretty much see things as I do. Just, thanks for pointing me to some very good validation for some of my ideas.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

I have a coherent reason to believe why I am an intelligent being, with a sense of inherent morality, with a conscience, with consciousness and purpose. You are the one that has no reason for those things to be a reality.

Let me get this straight.

I am the one that has no reason for being an intelligent being, to be able to be moral, and to be able to define a purpose in life?

You are saying I have no coherent reason to believe the above is a reality for me personally?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me get this straight.

I am the one that has no reason for being an intelligent being, to be able to be moral, and to be able to define a purpose in life?

You are saying I have no coherent reason to believe the above is a reality for me personally?

No, not personally. For anyone that believes we are products of an unintelligent process with no purpose or goal for the life forms that exist.

To understand the fact that we do indeed have purpose, intelligence and morality supports that we were not products of an unintelligent process without purpose or goals.

 

[bhsmte]

No, not personally. For anyone that believes we are products of an unintelligent process with no purpose or goal for the life forms that exist.

To understand the fact that we do indeed have purpose, intelligence and morality supports that we were not products of an unintelligent process without purpose or goals.

Backpeddling?

You stated I had no coherent reason to believe I had purpose, intelligence or morality.

If I don't believe as you do, I have no coherent reason to understand why I have purpose, intelligence or morality? Quite an arrogant point of view once.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Backpeddling?

You stated I had no coherent reason to believe I had purpose, intelligence or morality.

If I don't believe as you do, I have no coherent reason to understand why I have purpose, intelligence or morality? Quite an arrogant point of view once.

I am not backpeddling. It is not arrogant either. You are endowed with the same intelligence, morality and purpose that humankind is endowed with, you just have reason for it in your worldview.

 

[bhsmte]

I am not backpeddling. It is not arrogant either. You are endowed with the same intelligence, morality and purpose that humankind is endowed with, you just have reason for it in your worldview.

Not what you said before.

You stated I had no coherent reason to have; intelligence, morality or purpose.

 

[biggles53]

Not what you said before.

You stated I had no coherent reason to have; intelligence, morality or purpose.

What.....?? Once changing her tune to suit the occasion...?

Well, I never.......!

 

[DerelictJunction]

Right, that humans have no worth or purpose which is what "Slave" said.

They may not have "worth" or "purpose" in so far as supermassive black holes and the rest of the universe is concerned, but that wasn't Just's point nor part of the rebuttals.
Justlookinla said that the theory of evolution as taught in school denies the existence of God and, as such, suggests an inherent worthlessness and lack of purpose for humans. The rebuttals consisted of:
1. The theory does not make statements about the existence of God, either positively or negatively.
2. No other scientific theory makes statements about the existence of God, so they are in the same boat as the theory of evolution.
3. The theory of evolution makes no statements about worth or purpose for humans or any other species.
4. No other scientific theory makes statements about the worth or purpose for humans or any other species.

What Slave or any other person says about the worth or purpose of humans is irrelevant to the discussion of what the theory of evolution states or does not state about human worth or purpose.

 

[bhsmte]

What.....?? Once changing her tune to suit the occasion...?

Well, I never.......!

Yes, well, some things we come to learn, are quite predictable.

"I have a coherent reason to believe why I am an intelligent being, with a sense of inherent morality, with a conscience, with consciousness and purpose. You are the one that has no reason for those things to be a reality."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, well, some things we come to learn, are quite predictable.

"I have a coherent reason to believe why I am an intelligent being, with a sense of inherent morality, with a conscience, with consciousness and purpose. You are the one that has no reason for those things to be a reality."

So biggs has no reason for those things to be a reality?



Ok...ok...I need to stop laughing...ok

Now, if that was meant for me and not Biggs I'll answer.

What coherent reason do you have to believe that a non-intelligent process could produce intelligent beings with an inherent morality, a conscience, being conscious and with purpose?

And why or how do you think you have a better explanation than mine?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So biggs has no reason for those things to be a reality?



Ok...ok...I need to stop laughing...ok

Now, if that was meant for me and not Biggs I'll answer.

What coherent reason do you have to believe that a non-intelligent process could produce intelligent beings with an inherent morality, a conscience, being conscious and with purpose?

And why or how do you think you have a better explanation than mine?

We've been discussing just that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They may not have "worth" or "purpose" in so far as supermassive black holes and the rest of the universe is concerned, but that wasn't Just's point nor part of the rebuttals.
Justlookinla said that the theory of evolution as taught in school denies the existence of God and, as such, suggests an inherent worthlessness and lack of purpose for humans. The rebuttals consisted of:
1. The theory does not make statements about the existence of God, either positively or negatively.

Correct, but Darwin did make a statement in a letter about life originating in a warm pond somewhere and his theory was based upon the belief that life came from non-life. In fact, Scientists are still trying to prove that today. So to say that life could have indeed been started by chemical's and the right conditions is making a veiled claim to no God needed as well as the diversity of life being a result of natural mechanisms and nothing more. Now the theory doesn't include Abiogenesis, but in many text books it is spoken of as a given rather than something totally without evidence.

2. No other scientific theory makes statements about the existence of God, so they are in the same boat as the theory of evolution.

Most other theories don't make assertions about the way life began without the aid of God. Which like I said the Theory doesn't "include" Abiogenesis but it implies it by being put in Science books and other materials, and that scientists still are trying to find evidence for it.

3. The theory of evolution makes no statements about worth or purpose for humans or any other species.

No but what purpose could it have for any species, us included? We are no more important to evolution than bacteria in our intestines.

4. No other scientific theory makes statements about the worth or purpose for humans or any other species.

No. I don't think that was implied by Just.

What Slave or any other person says about the worth or purpose of humans is irrelevant to the discussion of what the theory of evolution states or does not state about human worth or purpose.

Well, that depends. Are you talking about what evolution has provided us? How does it provide us with worth any more than any other life form and what purpose or goal can it give? The fact that we do have meaning, purpose and intelligence does not fit with ToE, it fits with being created with intelligence from intelligence, with meaning and purpose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We've been discussing just that.

I've been waiting for your response but haven't seen it?

 

[Loudmouth]

What coherent reason do you have to believe that a non-intelligent process could produce intelligent beings with an inherent morality, a conscience, being conscious and with purpose?

Because that is exactly what happened. That's the reason.

We are the product of natural processes, and we are conscious, intelligent beings that can produce meaning and purpose in our lives.

You might as well ask how non-lightning processes can produce lightning, or non-cloud processes can produce clouds. It's nonsense.

And why or how do you think you have a better explanation than mine?

Our explanation is backed by evidence. Yours isn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because that is exactly what happened. That's the reason.

How did you determine that?

We are the product of natural processes, and we are conscious, intelligent beings that can produce meaning and purpose in our lives.

If we are just chemical reactions in our brains, how do we know that we have meaning or purpose at all? What makes you think you do?

You might as well ask how non-lightning processes can produce lightning, or non-cloud processes can produce clouds. It's nonsense.

Right. And it makes sense that non-intelligence can result in intelligence.... What is nonsense?

Our explanation is backed by evidence. Yours isn't.

No it isn't. You have no evidence that non-life became life. You have no evidence that non-intelligence can give rise to intelligence. You have no reason to believe that a meaningless process can give you meaning. You have no evidence that a purposeless process can provide purpose to the species it produced. Where is that evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

So biggs has no reason for those things to be a reality?



Ok...ok...I need to stop laughing...ok

Now, if that was meant for me and not Biggs I'll answer.

What coherent reason do you have to believe that a non-intelligent process could produce intelligent beings with an inherent morality, a conscience, being conscious and with purpose?

And why or how do you think you have a better explanation than mine?

Once, after the months of posts on this topic, you keep coming back to the same thing that has been answered for you over and over.

It is impossible to have an honest discussion with you, your filter allows nothing through or you simply play like no one ever answered you.

If you can look in the mirror and keep going, keep drinking the kool aid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, after the months of posts on this topic, you keep coming back to the same thing that has been answered for you over and over.

It is impossible to have an honest discussion with you, your filter allows nothing through or you simply play like no one ever answered you.

If you can look in the mirror and keep going, keep drinking the kool aid.

There have been a multitude of topics actually. What has been answered exactly?