Atheists, Theists, and Evolution

[Mocca]

What about the Raelians?

Not sure if they count...

 

[Ed Vidence]

"Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from god, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance."
- Robert Green Ingersoll

Could one expect an atheist like Ingersoll to say anything else ?

EV















​

 

[notto]

Why would a Darwinist suddenly betray the central point of Darwin's theory (Genesis Creator not involved in nature) ? This is also tantamount to asserting the earth is flat.

We have TEist rhetoric evading the invulnerable OP points and logic.

EV

Have you read any Darwin? Can you point out this 'central point'? For being central, it certainly is obscurely outlined in his work.

 

[Ed Vidence]

Notto, apparently we are mortal enemies. I think that means this town's not big enough for the both of us.

Anyone who denies that atheists and theists are mortal worldview enemies has plunged into subjective illogical nonsense. If a Darwinist would deny this undisputed point then just think what they do with scientific evidence ?

Nobody has yet to dent my OP points, facts, and observations = inability to refute.

EV

 

[Ed Vidence]

Have you read any Darwin? Can you point out this 'central point'? For being central, it certainly is obscurely outlined in his work.

Tantamount to asserting the earth is flat. I don't have to post the undisputed. NS says the God of Genesis was not involved in the production of nature. I suggest you get an education and some honesty and/or objectivity.

EV

 

[notto]

Anyone who denies that atheists and theists are mortal worldview enemies has plunged into subjective illogical nonsense. If a Darwinist would deny this undisputed point then just think what they do with scientific evidence ?

Nobody has yet to dent my OP points, facts, and observations = inability to refute.

EV

What's a 'Darwinist'?

Where does Darwin discuss the points in your OP? I'm assuming he is a 'Darwinist'?

Have you read any Darwin?

You OP has been refuted because it is based on a falsehood. That falsehood has been pointed out.

You have also been pointed at and laughed at by the crowd.

That you would deny this undisputed point then just think what you would do with a scientific theory. Probably distort it and lie about its 'central point'.

 

[Mocca]

Tantamount to asserting the earth is flat. I don't have to post the undisputed. NS says the God of Genesis was not involved in the production of nature. I suggest you get an education and some honesty and/or objectivity.

EV

Says the pot to the kettle: "You are black."

But seriously, the Theory of Evolution does not make any claims about God. It certainly does contradict certain people's interperetation of God, but it makes no claims about God in any way.

 

[notto]

Tantamount to asserting the earth is flat. I don't have to post the undisputed. NS says the God of Genesis was not involved in the production of nature. I suggest you get an education and some honesty and/or objectivity.

EV

So, you haven't read any Darwin, have you. I guess if I was going to go on a discussion board and talk about the 'central point' of a theory, I would at least familiarize myself with it first. Then at least I would know that it doesn't deal with 'the production of nature', whatever that is. At the very least, I would be able to actual point to the work and reference it when asked questions about it, but that's just me.

I suggest you get some funny shoes and a big rubber nose.

 

[fromdownunder]

of that I understand. Wouldn't, by default, an Atheist need to be an Evo, if they were to consider origins? (or more specifically, abiogenesis, but you get my point.)

Not necesarilly. An atheist oculd accept solipsism...although it would be pointless of such a person to post on BBs.

I suppose he/she could also believe in a "matrix" type thing, although as with panspermia, mentioned on one of the earlier posts, this simply shifts the problem of origins to somewhere else, and people who think this way (if they really do) never answer that one.

But nobody ever said all atheists had to be logical, and have scientific backgrounds.

Norm

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not necesarilly. An atheist oculd accept solipsism...although it would be pointless of such a person to post on BBs.

I suppose he/she could also believe in a "matrix" type thing, although as with panspermia, mentioned on one of the earlier posts, this simply shifts the problem of origins to somewhere else, and people who think this way (if they really do) never answer that one.

But nobody ever said all atheists had to be logical, and have scientific backgrounds.

Norm

that would be true enough.

 

[TheBear]

"Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from god, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance."
- Robert Green Ingersoll

Could one expect an atheist like Ingersoll to say anything else ?

EV















​

Hey, not fair! You copied my sig...even down to the [ center] format, color, font and quotation marks.

 

[Hydra009]

Teddy, I'm on your side. Notto, you're going down! I'm sure we could persuade Hydra to join us... together we will vanquish the Christians, because it's an obvious fact that Christians and atheists cannot agree on anything, and are mortal enemies.

lol, sarcasm ftw. The irony of the accusation is that creationism actually harms Christianity (I believe a creationist at this forum put it along the lines of "either the Earth is 6,000 years old or the Bible is full of lies" - it doesn't take a genius to figure out where that kind of reasoning ends up) so defending science against fundamentalist pseudoscience has the side effect of benefitting Christianity as well.

 

[TooCurious]

Anyone who denies that atheists and theists are mortal worldview enemies has plunged into subjective illogical nonsense. If a Darwinist would deny this undisputed point then just think what they do with scientific evidence ?

Nobody has yet to dent my OP points, facts, and observations = inability to refute.

EV

Wait, so what you're saying is that because atheists and theists disagree with each other on the point of the existence of gods, they are "mortal worldview enemies" and must therefore disagree with each other on all topics? Okay. That leaves us with:

Atheist: Hey, Theist! I just baked some cookies. Would you like one?
Theist: You have baked no cookies! You are my mortal worldview enemy, and therefore anything you believe is false! There are no such things as cookies!
Atheist: Um... okay... *wanders off munching cookie*

(Feel free to reverse the "Atheist" and "Theist" positions, if you prefer.)

Now, regarding your claims of evolution and its stance on the existence of God, I don't know where you got your ideas, but you should try and get your money back.

The theory of evolution by natural selection discusses a change in allele frequencies in response to environmental pressures. (Granted, Darwin himself didn't know about alleles, but that's largely because when the Beagle sailed, Watson and Crick probably hadn't been born yet.) However, no comment whatsoever is made about the existence of God, nor his role (if any) in guiding the process of evolution. The Theory of Evolution's answer to that one is a big "No Comment." If you dispute this point, please provide textual evidence from a relevant and legitimate scientific source to support your claim. In support of my claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not preclude the existence of God, I will quote you the last two sentences of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, a copy of which I have in my hand at this moment

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Emphasis mine.)

If Charles Darwin, the progenitor of this "Darwinian" idea of evolution that you seem to think is so atheistic, can conceive of a Creator god breathing life into its first forms so that natural selection could shape it into its countless variations, how can one say that "Darwinian evolution" has no room for God? Wouldn't Darwin know?

 

[Jet Black]

of that I understand. Wouldn't, by default, an Atheist need to be an Evo, if they were to consider origins? (or more specifically, abiogenesis, but you get my point.)

no, they could also be stupid. I've met a few.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why would a Darwinist suddenly betray the central point of Darwin's theory (Genesis Creator not involved in nature) ?

This is not the central point of Darwin's theory. The fact that Darwin was himself a Christian when he formulated his theory should have been a very large clue to that.

Another very large clue should have been the fact that science does not deal in Metaphysics at all. Hence science of any kind makes no comment upon the existence or none existence of God. So, by definition, if Darwin's Theory did try to make a claim on the existence or non-existence of God, the theory would be crossing the demarcation criterion and would not itself be entirely scientific.

We have TEist rhetoric evading the invulnerable OP points and logic.

No what we have is people pointing out that the OP is founded on false actions and poor logic. To begin with you state as a premise that Atheists and Theists are mortal enemies. This is a false premise, we are not. I number a great many atheists amongst my close friends. You stated an assertion and provided no evidence for it. You built the rest of your argument on that unsupported assertion, which turns out to be a false premise. therefore, logic dictates that when a premise is wrong, the conclusion based upon it will also be wrong.

So the OP does nothing other than show us that you have a faulty grasp of;-
1). The theory of Evolution
2). The sceintific method
3). Theology
4). Logic

Your spelling is faultless thou’ I’ll give you that.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

of that I understand. Wouldn't, by default, an Atheist need to be an Evo, if they were to consider origins? (or more specifically, abiogenesis, but you get my point.)

No not realy. They could hold to some odd panspermia/Von Damikenesque belief. There were a lot did in the 60s, don't know if there are many left tho'.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Tantamount to asserting the earth is flat. I don't have to post the undisputed.

The point is, that your assertion IS disputed, by atheists and theists alike.

I suggest you get an education and some honesty and/or objectivity.

Nottos education is not in question here, yours is. you have made a lot of unsupported and inaccurate claims. You have demonstrated you do not grasp science, theology or philosophy well, and you have founded an argument on a false premise (several actually).

Now, if you assert that Darwinism makes a claim it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the claim is, on fact, made. This is a simple academic skill taught to all undergraduates in their foundation year, so rather than claiming you do not have to do it because those who are not in agreement with you are uneducated, perhaps you can demonstrate that you are educated by doing what any honest undergrad knows they must do when making an assertion. Back it up.

Ghost

 

[Lilandra]

your numbers do not matter.

We have Chuck Norris on our side. Anything you do he's gonna see...

Teddy, I'm on your side. Notto, you're going down! I'm sure we could persuade Hydra to join us... together we will vanquish the Christians, because it's an obvious fact that Christians and atheists cannot agree on anything, and are mortal enemies.

 

[rjw]

Atheists, Theists, and Evolution

How do we explain when all three agree ?

Objective persons know genuine theists and genuine atheists are mortal worldview enemies. But the facts of reality make this objective observation a "lie" when the issue is evolution.

For all intents and purposes, all atheists support and defend neo-Darwinian evolution. This fact betrays an axiomatic truth: If evolution was anything about supporting the existence and handiwork of the Genesis Creator, then they would not support.

However, a large mass of persons who think of themselves as theists and Christians wholeheartedly support and defend neo-Darwinian evolution just as much as any atheist.

These preceding facts demand ONE fact is not a fact.

Either the atheist is not a real atheist or the theist/Christian is not a real theist/Christian IF the first fact is true (atheists and theists mortal worldview enemies).

There is no way around it; the theists/Christians are not as such. How do we now explain their belief about themselves and actions ?

Luke 22:48

"But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?"

Judas = TEists.

kiss = support of atheist evolution.

Looks like the Bible perfectly corresponds with reality.

EV

Hello EV,


Your logic makes no sense, unless you reject much, if not all of modern science.

For example, I claim that all meteorological phenomena are not directly caused by the hand of God (as described in Job). Such phenomena are better explained naturalistically.

I am a genuine atheist.

Many/most theists accept that all meteorological phenomena are better explained naturalistically than as being caused directly by the hand of God (as explained in Job).

Those theists claim to be genuine theists.


Therefore does modern meteorological theory demonstrate that either these theists are not genuine theists or that I am not a genuine atheist?

I am an atheist:-

I deny that the wind blows because God goes “pooooof” and the wind blows. I claim that the wind blows when the sun heats the atmosphere, causing pressure differentials which themselves cause forces which in turn cause the flow of air from regions of high pressure to low pressure.


You are a “genuine” theist:-

I gather you claim that the wind blows when God goes “poooof” with his breath and you deny that wind blows when the sun causes pressure differentials in the atmosphere which then try to even themselves out.

Am I correct in my claim?

If so, then on what grounds to you claim to know that the wind blows when God goes “pooooof”?

Do you accept any atheist modern meteorology at all? What about modern atheist germ theory of disease? What about modern atheist neuroscience? What about modern atheist geology? What about modern atheist mathematics?


As for bending verses from the Bible to suit yourself, should I bend a verse of two from the Bible (about an ass) to suit myself – then declare that the Bible gets some things correct? Or would that be too unfair of me?



Regards, Roland

 

[Willtor]

C'mon, now. I mean, I know some Theists support evolution. But that's only because they're steeped in worldly wisdom. One day, they'll have to realize they're fighting a battle with each other and there can be no true intersection in what the Theist and the Atheist think. In the end, Theists and Atheists are like Ninjas and Pirates (respectively; we're the ninjas*). They just don't mix, and when they do, swords come out and heads roll.

Don't you all know that if the two sides don't polarize each other, people might start thinking for themselves? And, really, who wants that? Don't you all realize that our prime model ought to be the U.S. government wherein there are two parties and when one takes a stand, the other must necessarily take the opposite stand? The proof is in the pudding. With the exception of so-called "moderates," and "independents," (who nobody likes, incidentally) the system is flawless. I cite bipartisanship-style thinking. If you can't trust Big Brother, who can you trust?

Godwin Alert: Please skip the next paragraph if you are pregnant or nursing.

You know, Hitler liked ice cream. Therefore, I never touch the stuff. If I liked ice cream, why, people might start associating me with Hitler. And I don't want that. Hitler was a bad man. Some bad men like ice cream. Therefore all men who like ice cream are bad men. It follows this sort of logic (which, anybody who has taken a course in logic ought to be able to follow):

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
---
Ergo: All men are Socrates.

So, I'd appreciate it if you'd all stop giving Ed such a hard time. In the end, you know his reasoning is valid and sound. How long are you going to keep lying to yourselves?

* - (the purpose of a Christian is to flip out and kill people; and be totally sw33t).