Atheism and Self-Esteem

[blader]

I bet this is something they had you memorize.

Evolution CAN ONLY WORK WITH REPRODUCTION.

Reproduction is between individuals.

I have never seen a population giving birth in the maternity ward. LOL

LOL.

Reproduction between two individuals is not evolution.

Reproduction in POPULATIONS of individuals is where evolution occurs.

 

[Stormy]

that is not completely true, there is some evidence that homosapiens and Neanderthals might have had sex and gave birth.

Some evidence that they "might " have had sex and "maybe " gave birth.

How can I refute evidence like that???

But what would this prove. Why do you give this has proof?

They are both species of man. You are still dealing in kind.

Tell me ...

What would happen if an ape were impregnated with human sperm??

Nothing.

Because it is against God's laws of nature!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Stormy
I bet this is something they had you memorize.

You see it often enough, eventually it sticks.

Evolution CAN ONLY WORK WITH REPRODUCTION.

Reproduction is between individuals.

Well, you figured out part of it at least. Evolution occurs as genetic information is passed down through generations in a population. Since that genetic information invariably changes, gradually the population changes. Eventually, once the population can no longer produce fertile offspring with the original parent population (many generations ago), you have a new species.

 

[Jedi]

i [sic] wish people would really learn about evolution before posting anything about it. Evolution has nothing to do with suicides. Crazy religist [sic] people have nothing to do with evolution it has to do with GOD.

What does that comment have anything to do with the piece of my post you quoted? You didn’t even comment on how what I said was untrue (or, dare I say, correct).

Strangely, I see myself as neither worthless, accidental, meaningless, or evolved pond scum.

Considering that I am the end product of hundreds of million years of refinement for survivability, that I am a member of the species out of many, many millions in evolutionary history that has finally come out on top of the evolutionary race, I feel like a million bucks, thanks.

But this doesn’t change the fact that you are nothing but a product of blind chance with no real purpose or direction (according to naturalistic/atheistic evolution).

This is true. But the fact that C+D chose to include this article (I'm assuming verbatim) would clearly show that they agree with it. Without reading the rest of their book, I can only assume that the premise of the article itself is used as part of the foundation of a larger argument. When the article is exposed for the fallacy it is, the foundation weakens, and the entire argument crumbles in their faces, much like the foolish man who builds his house upon the sand (Matthew 7:26, although I'm subsituting [sic] the words of logic for the words of Christ).

I’m sure C+D agree with the message of the article (and you’re right, I did post verbatim). This wasn’t really a logical argument like most people are used to here, but rather is more of a demonstration of the problems such beliefs easily contribute to.

Show me one documented link, from a reputable study, that shows a connection between evolutionary theory and teen suicide.

Considering that most people who go through with suicide don’t tell people, it would be rather difficult to know who to talk to and take a survey of. I have already said this earlier in this topic.

You can't; there is none.

Once again (this has to be at least the third time I’ve said this), no one is saying that naturalistic/atheistic evolution is solely responsible for suicides. However, what it does is lower the amount of worth someone perceives of having as a person (since they’re nothing more than blindly evolved pond scum with no real purpose or direction). For those who are already facing something that has them down on themselves, this is surely only a hindrance to the situation.

Evolution is no more responsible for teen suicide than any of those events were. So what's your point?

Your assertion is completely without basis, while at least the assertion made in the article has reasons to back up its claims (pointing out that naturalistic/atheistic evolution lowers the value of humanity to that of a virus or paramecium, since there is, of course, no real objective standard to say that complex organisms are better than primitive ones).

Evolution might lead people to low self-esteem, through unpleasant facts about their place in the universe

These “facts” you speak of are not scientifically based. They are nothing more than naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science. You did not observe (as science would have it) the construction of man through blind, chance evolutionary processes.

but Christianity, and religion and general, goes the step further to actively promote suicide (under the guises of self-sacrifice and martyrdom). Why not take issue with that?

You’re grouping Christianity (and Islam under the guise of “religion in general”) together, which is a very grave error. Like I said, Islam is much more loyalty/war centered, unlike Christianity. To say that Christianity says suicide is acceptable is without basis. In fact, as far as I know (unless someone can show me otherwise), there is nothing in the Bible that says you should do anything that would get you killed. The early church suffered persecution not because they went looking for trouble (like the September 11 terrorists did), but because of people coming after them and hunting them down. The fact that a lot of their services & activities were done in secret (out of view from the public eyes as to avoid authorities) shows that they weren’t all giddy to get killed.

I suppose the Crusades, Jihads, and Inquisitions throughout history prove that religion stresses killing others instead. But that's ok, because they were "wicked."

You’re citing examples commonly cited by atheists who don’t really know what they’re talking about. The Crusades was not an example of Christianity, but rather the Pope going power crazy. There is nothing in scripture that supports the crusades, and all the material I can find related to such events teaches against it (“Love thy neighbor as thyself” anyone?). Not only that, but as I recall, people were being told be the Pope (and perhaps some priests) that if they went off and fought the Muslims, that they would get into Heaven. This isn’t Christianity at all, but a deceptive and greedy Pope on a tirade. If you’ll notice, the Pope even kidnapped the King and held him for ransom until the people paid up. The same argument can be used for things like the Salem Witch Trials (Want your neighbor’s land? Accuse him of being a witch and it’s up for grabs), the Inquisition, etc. All of these things were in direct violation of the teachings of Christ. That’s what matters. You argument then only goes as far as the actions of men, not Christianity.

In two words? prove it.

If God himself came out of Heaven and said, “Look! I am here! Stop doubting!” you would probably much rather believe you had gone mad or had obtained schizophrenia than to believe such an experience was genuine (Especially if you had no other witnesses of this event). The human mind can justify almost anything, and if your mind is set upon atheism, your mind will always defend it.

And doing a pretty good masquerade, it would seem. Evolutionary theory is observable, testable, and falsifiable. It is science, and an army of strawmen will not change that.

So you observed man evolving from a one cell organism (that some how assembled itself all nice and neatly with all its interdependent parts)? You can test how man’s nothing more than a product of blind chance? You can falsify the idea that man is nothing more than the result of time, blind chance (accident), and the forces of nature? I don’t think so. This is not science. It is precisely this definition of evolution I’m talking about.

let me get this straight: You believe God is the creator, and the only way for me to refute that is to witness Him not creating? Sorry, friend, you've made the claim for Creation over Evolutionary theory. The burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. You’re saying that man is a product of blind chance through meaningless evolutionary processes. My question for you and all the other atheistic/naturalistic evolutionists here is this: Prove it. If you cannot, then you are not holding on to science, but like I’ve been saying, merely naturalistic philosophy masquerading as such.

And should this Being requre [sic] anything of me, He/She/It/They know where to find me, and how to get my attention.

I find it difficult to believe that you would believe he’s contacting you if he really did so.

We can also toss in a healthy dose of Circular Reasoning: You still haven't proven that God is responsible for evolution, let alone that He is the "solution" to anything.

Where’s circular reasoning? The closest thing I’ve come close to is begging the question, and this isn’t a debate about logically proving which is true, but merely stating that the doctrines of evolution (that man is pond scum developed through blind chance) are not science.

If the God of the Bible truly exists, then free will is an illusion.

I’ve heard people try to argue that position before, and they all utterly fail. Simply because God knows what you’re going to do doesn’t mean he’s forcing you to do it (you’re still free to do so). But for the sake of time & effort, I’ll not get into that debate just yet. Let’s stay on track.

It's not Christianity specifically that I'm attacking, but to blame a science or philosophy for the problems of the world leads to the outlawing of independant [sic] thought in favor of blind dogma.

I’m not blaming either science or philosophy (on the contrary, I love studying both). Rather, I am blaming Naturalism & Atheism only, since they are the ones who have contorted evolutionary thought to mean that man is nothing more than blindly evolved pond scum with no real meaning or direction.

Any why exactly is evolutionary theory not "science"? What exactly makes it a "naturalistic philosophy"? Where's the masquerade you were talking about?

When I say evolutionary theory is not science, I am speaking of evolution in the sense that people say evolution states that man is a mere product of blind chance and natural forces through evolutionary processes. However, the large whole of science deals with observations repetitions, and tests. This is not observed and cannot be repeated and tested.

 

[Jedi]

As least have the honesty to call it a rant like I do; that way the rest of us know to not take it seriously.

Despite what you label it, I would find it odd that you would object to the original post and seemingly put such a bad twist on Christianity without expecting someone to post in response to such objections. It’s like saying “I’m going to state your position falsely, and shine a bad light on you and all your friends who believe as you do, but don’t take it seriously.”

So God sends the atheist to burn in hell because he loves him equally as the Christian who goes to heaven? Is God bipolar?

You’re misunderstanding the situation again. God is love, but God is also just. He will not force an atheist into Heaven against his will, nor will he allow him into Heaven if he doesn’t deserve it. That’s why Christ came – to pay humanity’s debt of sin, and allowing humanity a choice, in spite of their own actions, on whether or not they wish to be with God for all eternity. It’s merely a matter of whether or not you accept the way out that’s been provided. If you don’t accept the way out, how does that make God unloving or unjust?

And how the Christian misconcption [sic] that atheists think they're better than Christians rules supreme, everywhere.

I speak from personal experience in reading post after post from atheists, and it never fails that the familiar condescending tone comes out sooner or later. Not all atheists are like this, but the vast majority of those I’ve discussed topics like this with are. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. If the general tones of atheists are condescending, then it’s only reasonable to conclude that’s what they feel inside as well.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion. From reading your own previous posts, a good number of your own posts are also tinged with condescenion [sic] and arrogance. Which is part of the reason why I always choose to reply to them. =)

Haha, well noted, Blader. I’ll try to keep an extra eye on my wording. Thanks.

So paleontology, geology, and archaeology can not be considered science?

Actually, a March issue of Newsweek has the following in an article titled “Mysteries of Evolution:” “Paleontologists have devoted whole careers to looking for examples of gradual transitions over time, and with a few exceptions they have failed.” There seem to be a few fossils thought to be examples of transitional states, but the fossil record is controversial at best, even though it lacks the millions of transitional states that should be seen if life had actually arisen from evolutionary process (Not to mention some fossils thought to be examples of transitional states in the past were later found out not to be). But, for the sake of time & effort, I’m don’t intend to be drawn into that debate all over again in the midst of this one. I’m quite sure you understand the time situation a non-evolutionist is in inside of this particular forum.

Anyway, these fields you mentioned are science, but they are also the type of science called Origin Science (not Operation Science, which is what people seem to usually think of when the term “science” is used). But I’d hardly cite them as examples of concrete evidence of supporting evolution via blind chance from some sort of primordial soup.

Besides, evolution says nothing about whether there is a God behind the scenes making it work out. It leaves plenty of room for theistic evolutionists, as evidenced by the considerable number of Christian evolutionary biologists.

Evolution, in the truest sense of the word, does not (you’re quite right). However, it’s when people say that “science” says that man merely evolved through blind chance, time, and natural forces from a single-celled organism (which happened to assemble itself together by chance) that I’m speaking about. That’s the definition of “evolution” I’m arguing against (which is, as I said, nothing more than naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science).

As Intel processors gains acceptance, suicide rates have been rising. In 1996, more teenagers and young adults died of suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia and influenza, and chronic lung disease combined. Just something to take note of.

Intel processors don’t directly affect how you look at yourself or lower your value as a person (saying you’re nothing more than a natural accident – a product of blind chance, time, and natural forces with no meaning, no purpose, whose whole existence will end at the moment of death).

What Jedi and others seem to be saying is that "Evolution can't be true, because belief in it leads to a society-wide loss of self esteem."

As my dear friend (and usual opponent in such discussions), Blader, will point out to you later, that’s not what I’m saying. Where did I ever say “It can’t be true because it makes people feel bad?” I simply pointed out that it seems to generally lower man’s perception of how much he’s worth.

yeah i completey agree with every thing you said.

Then you agree with his misunderstanding of what’s being said.

You really *are* an amateur psychologist... If you honesty and truly believe that teaching people how life is thought to have originated on this planet is a factor in people committing suicide... wow.

With the naturalistic twist evolution often has on it, is it so hard to see how that lowers the value of human life? The lower the value of human life is, the more likely the taking of it (even if it’s your own) won’t seem so bad.

I was merely trying to point out that you can't pigeonhole social evils. And if you really want to discuss atrocities, Christianity's got its own share.

Christianity has no such atrocities. Christians do, but Christianity does not. There is a fine difference. I’d like to see someone give me an example of something terrible that was in accordance to the teachings of Christ (Christianity). Christianity is all about saying “God loves you,” while atheism/naturalism says “You have no real purpose, direction, meaning, worth, and no reason to even survive.” Which is more complimentary to the average man’s self-esteem?

Yes, you're quite right. He hasn't said it outright. That would expose the fallacy of the position too quickly. However, the inference is there!

I don’t see where. I have said this before, and I’ll say it again. This topic was not posted for the sake of logically trying to prove one belief objectively wrong, and another right. It was posted to merely point out some of the contributions and effects naturalistic/atheistic evolution (generally seen as simply “evolution” by the mass public) has towards society.

Eventually, once the population can no longer produce fertile offspring with the original parent population (many generations ago), you have a new species.

Microscopically and theoretically speaking, of course. I have yet to even hear of this happening at the macro-level (odd that would be the case for a process that's supposed to be the way of life and happens "all the time").

Alright, let's call it a night. I'm getting a bit sleepy here, and there's always class to attend in the morning. You all have a good night, and I'll try to get to your replies later.

 

[chickenman]

When I say evolutionary theory is not science, I am speaking of evolution in the sense that people say evolution states that man is a mere product of blind chance and natural forces through evolutionary processes. However, the large whole of science deals with observations repetitions, and tests. This is not observed and cannot be repeated and tested.

yes it can - all aspects of evolution can and have been observed and tested - mutation, natural selection, speciation, population genetics etc.

evolution is a science and the majority of scientists know that

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Jedi
With the naturalistic twist evolution often has on it, is it so hard to see how that lowers the value of human life? The lower the value of human life is, the more likely the taking of it (even if it’s your own) won’t seem so bad.

Honestly, I don't see the connection. Maybe it's because I don't share that viewpoint (as I stated on the first page of this thread, I don't think it lowers my value as a human at all).

If you can get some psychological or medical evidence to back up your view then, like I said, I'll consider it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

Christianity has no such atrocities. Christians do, but Christianity does not. There is a fine difference. I’d like to see someone give me an example of something terrible that was in accordance to the teachings of Christ (Christianity).

Then fine. Naturalism has no such atrocities. Naturalists do. Islam has no such atrocities. Muslims do. There is a fine difference. (See, I can do that too )

Christianity is all about saying “God loves you,” while atheism/naturalism says “You have no real purpose, direction, meaning, worth, and no reason to even survive.” Which is more complimentary to the average man’s self-esteem?

Well, your take on atheism/naturalism is flat-out wrong. Find me an atheist who actually professes such a belief.

 

[blader]

But this doesn’t change the fact that you are nothing but a product of blind chance with no real purpose or direction (according to naturalistic/atheistic evolution).

Only if that's how you want to see it. Like I said, it depends on your point of view. Evolution doesn't cause low self esteem unless you want it to. What you call "blind chance" and "no real purpose" I call hundreds of millions of years of refinement for survival and fitness.

 

[blader]

Jedi: If God himself came out of Heaven and said, “Look! I am here! Stop doubting! Islam is the truth!” you would probably much rather believe you had gone mad or had obtained schizophrenia than to believe such an experience was genuine (Especially if you had no other witnesses of this event). The human mind can justify almost anything, and if your mind is set upon Christianity, your mind will always defend it.

 

[blader]

Getting a bit back on track here...

Can you (or anyone else here) explain to me why evolutionists can be so allegedly "prideful" when evolution should cause "low self esteem?" Shouldn't we be groveling in self pity right now rather than feeling good? Doesn't the fact that we're not groveling in self pity right now falsify the argument right there?

 

[Praxiteles]

Again, why the hill is this subject in a science forum?

I'd love to seem some stats on this. I speak from ignorance, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that in much the same way that atheists are underrepresented in prison populations, so they would be underrepresented amongst suicide attempts. After all, if you think you're going somewhere better....

Can anyone dig up any stats on this - or know where to look?

Cheers,
Prax

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Again, why the hill is this subject in a science forum?

I'd love to seem some stats on this. I speak from ignorance, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that in much the same way that atheists are underrepresented in prison populations, so they would be underrepresented amongst suicide attempts. After all, if you think you're going somewhere better....

Can anyone dig up any stats on this - or know where to look?

Cheers,
Prax

Unfortunately, the statistics for suicide are not similar to that of prison populations.


"We do observe that suicide cults inspired on religions have existed for millenias. However, it has been shown that suicide rates decrease with religiosity (P.F. Fagan, Heritage Foundation, 1996). It is not a causal link as such, but there is certainly indication to that effect - it would also be nice to have age-related information on that subject. At any rate, the makers of Christianity were not stupid, and made suicide a sin. Religion also brings a sense of well-being, which may reduce the desire for suicide, or reduce stress. This is not unique to religion, however."

"Crime rates, however, tend to tell a different story. In fact, prison statistics show that there are thirty times less atheists than we would expect by proportionality (U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, March 1997). Such a disproportion would be difficult to explain without having to discuss religious dogmas."
Source: http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach...82532+atheists+"suicide+rates"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The PF Hagen study mentioned is here:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cach...e+Foundation,+1996+religiosity&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Are we to reject Germ theory because it leads to a loss of belief in faith healing?

I don't get this reasoning at all. If G~d cures someone of AIDS, does that mean AIDS wasn't caused by a virus? What does miraculous healing have to do with whether or not germs exist?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Eventually, once the population can no longer produce fertile offspring with the original parent population (many generations ago), you have a new species.

Right. A mosquito speciates and becomes a new species of mosquito. Call me when it becomes a muskrat and we'll talk about macroevolution.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley
Right. A mosquito speciates and becomes a new species of mosquito. Call me when it becomes a muskrat and we'll talk about macroevolution.

Yes Nick, we've heard this one before.

Tell you what, when one of your "creation scientists" gets an article dealing with YEC or creationism in general published in a scientific journal than we can talk about creationism.

 

[Nathan Poe]

One good strawman deserves another....

Originally posted by npetreley
Right. A mosquito speciates and becomes a new species of mosquito. Call me when it becomes a muskrat and we'll talk about macroevolution.

Right. As an experiment in creationism, let's have everone on this thread pray really really hard for a two-headed, firebreathing chicken.

When God snaps his fingers and *POOF*s such a creature into being, or at the very least, gives us an acceptable answer why He won't create a two-headed, firebreathing chicken, call me, and we'll talk about creation.

 

[Jedi]

yes it can - all aspects of evolution can and have been observed and tested - mutation, natural selection, speciation, population genetics etc. evolution [sic] is a science and the majority of scientists know that

So then you are saying that the idea that man is a result of blind chance through time and natural forces with no meaning, no purpose, and no direction is “science?” This is an aspect of evolution that many people accept to be true, yet it’s never been observed, tested, or repeated. Very curious...

Honestly, I don't see the connection. Maybe it's because I don't share that viewpoint (as I stated on the first page of this thread, I don't think it lowers my value as a human at all).

If you can get some psychological or medical evidence to back up your view then, like I said, I'll consider it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

How can you not see how the thought that someone viewing himself as nothing more than a product of random chance with no purpose, direction, meaning, living in a world where things such as love, intimacy, compassion, and joy do not exist (since, according to naturalism/atheism, they’re nothing but chemical reflexes in the brain), knowing that you live only to end your meaningless existence six feet under to rot with bacteria and worms... you can’t see how this can tear down someone’s self-image? None are as blind as those who don’t want to see.

Then fine. Naturalism has no such atrocities. Naturalists do. Islam has no such atrocities. Muslims do. There is a fine difference. (See, I can do that too )

This is where you’re quite mistaken. The things done by Naturalists are seen as permissible by Naturalism (since all moral judgments are subjective, and so right and wrong really don’t exist, thus everything is equally acceptable). Why was the Holocaust wrong? According to Naturalism, it was natural selection taking its course through survival of the fittest (The Strong, Nazis, wiping out the weak, Jews). Whenever murder takes place, it should be seen as just as okay as when you see it happen in the animal kingdom. With this in mind, I see no reason why you should be the least bit concerned about atrocities at all. Not only that, but Islam permits a Muslim to do these things (In fact, it promotes it by making Jihad the only sure-fire way to get into Heaven). It is acceptable under Islam. You cannot say this for Christianity. There is a fine difference.

Well, your take on atheism/naturalism is flat-out wrong. Find me an atheist who actually professes such a belief.

So you mean to say differently? You have a purpose (other than to survive), meaning, worth, and reason to survive? Where’s your objective basis for these things? You can’t give yourself worth any more than money can give itself worth (Money is only valuable, because people put value into it. If no one wanted money, it would be worthless).

Only if that's how you want to see it. Like I said, it depends on your point of view. Evolution doesn't cause low self esteem [sic] unless you want it to. What you call "blind chance" and "no real purpose" I call hundreds of millions of years of refinement for survival and fitness.

So you view yourself as superior, right? But what is the basis to feel superior? That you’re more complex & biologically advanced? You’re still left with the question of “Why is a complex organism better than a primitive one?” It can’t really be because it survives better in the given environment (Sharks survive much better in the ocean than I can, though I’m more complex). And even if that were the reason, you’re stuck with the question hidden question of evolution “Why survive?”

Can you (or anyone else here) explain to me why evolutionists can be so allegedly "prideful" when evolution should cause "low self esteem?" Shouldn't we be groveling in self pity right now rather than feeling good? Doesn't the fact that we're not groveling in self pity right now falsify the argument right there?

You also must keep in mind that you only represent a small fragment of the whole of evolutionists. Also, I never said that all evolutionists are groveling in self-pity. What I’ve been saying is that the doctrines of naturalistic/atheistic evolution (Man is merely evolved pond scum here by blind chance with no meaning, purpose, or direction except for ultimate destruction) only contributes to the poor self-image that depressed people have (thus pushing them closer to doing such things as suicide).

I speak from ignorance, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that in much the same way that atheists are underrepresented in prison populations, so they would be underrepresented amongst suicide attempts.

Again, there’s a reason for this. It’s because atheists compose the very minute minority of the general population. If this is true, it only follows that there will be less atheists in jail than theists. What I’d like to know is how many people are in jail for following the instructions of Christ (following Christianity). Seems to me like most people in there did things Jesus taught against.

Tell you what, when one of your "creation scientists" gets an article dealing with YEC or creationism in general published in a scientific journal than we can talk about creationism.

So basically you’re saying, “When consensus decides to accept your view, it might have credibility.” But what you must realize is that consensus does not decide truth (Majorities of people have been known to be wrong).

Right. As an experiment in creationism, let's have everone [sic] on this thread pray really really hard for a two-headed, firebreathing [sic] chicken.

When God snaps his fingers and *POOF*s such a creature into being, or at the very least, gives us an acceptable answer why He won't create a two-headed, firebreathing [sic] chicken, call me, and we'll talk about creation.

Your proposition isn’t reasonable for obvious reasons. Where would this chicken go to prove his existence to everyone here (We'd all have to see it form via Creation)? Not only that, but just because it won’t happen at this very instant doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen in the past. Further more, you’re asking for a creature of your will to be created – God created creatures out of his will. It’s like saying, “If God doesn’t bow to my will at this moment, then Creation never happened!” I don’t think so. For the Creationist, Creation was a past singularity, so your demand for it to be repeated doesn’t make sense. Evolution from species to species at the macro-level, however, is supposed to be the reason why we’re here, and the very way of life, and so it should be overwhelmingly observable since it happens “all the time.”

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
One good strawman deserves another....

Right. As an experiment in creationism, let's have everone on this thread pray really really hard for a two-headed, firebreathing chicken.

When God snaps his fingers and *POOF*s such a creature into being, or at the very least, gives us an acceptable answer why He won't create a two-headed, firebreathing chicken, call me, and we'll talk about creation.

That actually would be quite a good analogy if I were proposing that, because we can create automobiles, one could extrapolate the hypothesis that G~d created the universe. But I'm not.

Evolutionists ARE proposing that because the size of a beak changes or a mosquito loses the hots for another of its tribe, one can extrapolate from these events that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. And even though they cannot and do not subject such hypotheses to the scientific method, they have the gall to call it "science." Such a notion would be hilarious if so many people didn't take it seriously.

 

[lithium.]

So then you are saying that the idea that man is a result of blind chance through time and natural forces with no meaning, no purpose, and no direction is “science?” This is an aspect of evolution that many people accept to be true, yet it’s never been observed, tested, or repeated. Very curious...

Well your wrong again, Evolution has been tested and observed and repeated. There is evidence of this everywhere on this planet and every second of these planet.

How can you not see how the thought that someone viewing himself as nothing more than a product of random chance with no purpose, direction, meaning, living in a world where things such as love, intimacy, compassion, and joy do not exist (since, according to naturalism/atheism, they’re nothing but chemical reflexes in the brain), knowing that you live only to end your meaningless existence six feet under to rot with bacteria and worms... you can’t see how this can tear down someone’s self-image? None are as blind as those who don’t want to see.

No it doesn't tear down someones self-image. It just proofs that people are still living in the middle-ages, thinking that man is the center of the galaxy and universe. and that everything moves around man and earth. And are to scared to die. Its that people are so scared of dieing and losing there family and ever seening anyone ever again so they created a GOD that takes you when you die and you live forever and see all your family again. To bad that GOD doesn't exist lol grow up and get a life.

So you mean to say differently? You have a purpose (other than to survive), meaning, worth, and reason to survive? Where’s your objective basis for these things? You can’t give yourself worth any more than money can give itself worth (Money is only valuable, because people put value into it. If no one wanted money, it would be worthless).

there is no other purpose other than to survive that is the way life works, life procreates and moves on and does it forever.

So you view yourself as superior, right? But what is the basis to feel superior? That you’re more complex & biologically advanced? You’re still left with the question of “Why is a complex organism better than a primitive one?” It can’t really be because it survives better in the given environment (Sharks survive much better in the ocean than I can, though I’m more complex). And even if that were the reason, you’re stuck with the question hidden question of evolution “Why survive?”

Yes we are superior after millions of years of evolution we have a right to be. Afterall we all the only ones that survived. And you asked Why survive well there is alot of answers to that, but mine is to explorer, and live on.


1.man created god so that we could be at the center of the universe.
2.Man got smart enough to understand that god isn't real.
3.Man became god.
4.Some people have a problem understanding science so they will just say its impossible.
5.Science becomes god.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's try to get this thread back on topic.

Let us assume, just for a laugh, that the article Jedi quoted to start this thread is correct: suppose, just suppose, that evolutionary theory leads to low self-esteem and an increase in suicide rates.

However, let us also assume, because we must, that evolutionary theory is the product of scientific observation, and not just some naturalistic philosophy cooked up by a bunch of atheists. let us assume that evolutionary theory arose out of meticulous observation, reasonable speculation, and logical conclusions.

Taken all together, the question becomes: SO WHAT?

Can we really afford to toss aside the ToE, just because Carlson and Decker have "proven" that it is psychologically unhealthy? If what Jedi says is true (and it is) :

consensus does not decide truth (Majorities of people have been known to be wrong).

Then do our personal feelings and need for happiness decide truth instead? Is a theory automatically discounted because it's unpleasant?

The facts of evolution (that which has been observed and tested) are clear. Call it microevolution if you must. From those facts, scientists do what they often do: they hypothesize. If a species can make small changes over a short period of time, why not major changes over a massive period of time? Call it macroevolution.

Is this a "naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science?" No. It's the real thing. Could this lead to a loss of self-esteem? Perhaps. Finding out that you're not the most important thing in the universe has got to be a serious blow to the ego.

Again: SO WHAT?

If the choice is between an unpleasant theory based on facts and scientific methods, and a pleasant idea based on belief, dogma, and wishful thinking, then, as Jedi said, my mind is made up.

Truth is not always pretty, and nobody should have their eyes shielded from unpleasantness. How else will we ever be able to deal with the harsh realities of life?

Regardless of whether an invisible man in the sky created me or not, I hardly need Him to tell me why I'm here and what to do with myself. I can take it from here.