Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree that atheists don't have to declare themselves as Humanists.
I'm having a hard time seeing Christians declaring themselves as Humanists though(?)
Seems reasonable, but my position on "why"-type questions (as in why is the universe the way it is) is basically that they are not something I think too much about. I'm an atheist in that I see no evidence for any deities, any supernatural entities or actions, and so, feel no need to for them. If some being created the universe, I'm not sure how that answers and real questions, not sure how that changes what we know about, say, cosmology (post-big bang, anyway) or biology, for there is at least some evidence that such propositions are not needed.I was raised without religion as well, though now I am an avid church goer and happy to be so.
But I think that there is a difference here in the topic of evolution and the topic of something along the lines of the anthropic principal.
The question of if there are long neck giraffes is a bit different from the question of why any giraffe even exists to begin with rather than the universe being some mottled or incoherent, non-sentient jumble of matter.
I have to say, I'd go with the atheists here in the topic on the theory of evolution, but as far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be an answer from atheists for why the universe has the apparent order that it does that hosts life. And to be fair, theists have beliefs, but it's not like we were alive in the beginning to "know" these deep questions either beyond faith based ideas. For atheists though, as noted, the rabbit appears in the hat without any particular reason or rhyme nor even a purpose.
Atheism doesn't really have a clear philosophy on life. Something to collectively motivates people in life through ups and downs, together as a "church". It doesn't have a philosophy that makes efforts for cohesion of people.
@tas8831 what do you think of this?
I suspect most atheists would say, "We don't know!". Whatever your belief or lack of it, sooner or later you reach brute fact, e.g. "Why does God exist?"
That's because atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods. I suspect most atheists have some kind of philosophy of life, but that's an individual decision.
Atheists are members of clubs, societies, charities, all kinds of groups, depending on their interests and affiliations. Some atheists have tried a 'semi-religious' approach with all the social trimmings of religion, e.g. weekly 'church' meet-ups, but AIUI, it hasn't really caught on significantly.
Seems reasonable, but my position on "why"-type questions (as in why is the universe the way it is) is basically that they are not something I think too much about. I'm an atheist in that I see no evidence for any deities, any supernatural entities or actions, and so, feel no need to for them. If some being created the universe, I'm not sure how that answers and real questions, not sure how that changes what we know about, say, cosmology (post-big bang, anyway) or biology, for there is at least some evidence that such propositions are not needed.
Regarding guiding philosophies, that too is not something I am all that interested in. But from my own life experiences, the atheists I know are no different (at a fundamental level, anyway) than theists - we enjoy time with family and friends, complain about taxes, go to work, etc. We don't seem to need external guiding values/worldviews/philosophies/beliefs to make sense of things, or to guide us through rough times. You (the generic you) may go to church for such things, we just hang out, maybe talk with a friend. I knew certain things were wrong when I was kid because I felt it, not because my family dragged me to church to be told they were (my family was religiously neutral - never went to church, but had bibles, and a crucifix hanging in the living room, etc.). My only exposure to Scripture was when my older sister would show me the scary pictures in our big family bible, but I didn't read it until I was 20. Got a bit off topic, but my point is I, and most of the atheists I personally know, don't really feel a need for those things.
Atheism is an answer to one question "do you believe in god/god's" were not a hive mind or organized in our beliefs, there are religous athiest, spiritual atheist (I fall into that category) and non-religous non-spiritual atheist. I think you are trying to make it out to be more then it's suppose to be.I think this makes sense.
I think it also helps me understand my own thoughts.
I think that what we really need is the honesty of atheistic humanism with respect to things like questions of science and the universe (theists don't have a particularly good track record with handling scientific advances), but I think that atheism lacks a centralized idea that mobilizes and motivates people to do things.
I suppose the secular government has programs that help with poverty and programs that redirect taxes to fund housing for the elderly. Though I think that a lot of people view these things with an expectation of personal gain. Growing up I may have volunteered to help somewhere a couple times for the sake of passing a class. In comparison, volunteering is basically a norm at church. If you aren't volunteering, you're doing something wrong. This mentality of modern protestant churches appears to stem from teachings of Christ (if Christ gave his life for humanity, then the least you could do is give your free time to do the same).
While it is fair to say that there are christian sinners who might rob you while your back is turned, I think that in large part, while theism seems to lack this critical scientific honesty on origins, I think that atheism seems to lack the mobilizing, inspirational and somewhat humanistic ideas (maybe modern christian ideas as opposed to historic) of the new testament.
Those are my thoughts. I suppose I'm typing this for myself but all are welcome to share thoughts.
That's because atheism isn't a philosophy, a position, or a worldview, it's just a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all there is to it. Atheists can have whatever philosophies, positions, or worldviews they prefer.I think that there is merit in saying that at the end of the day "we don't know". But I also think that's a shortcoming of atheism, not having a clear or unified positive position.
If 'serving a greater purpose' is what floats your boat, that's fine. I (and, I suspect, many others) prefer not to be an involuntary servant. It seems that some people need to be explicitly given a 'greater' purpose, told what's right and wrong, and how to live their lives; and some people don't.I think that the idea of not knowing why God exists (or holding a faith based position that God is eternal), and by extension viewing us as created in an organized anthropic principal-like universe, is a bit easier than the idea that we don't know why anything exists as it does, in that holding a belief in God still points us toward the unified idea that we serve a greater purpose. Rather than purpose being more individually determined (my purpose on earth is to be happy for example). What do you think about this last statement @FrumiousBandersnatch ?
As I said, there is no atheist 'position' - any more than there is a 'non-stamp collector's position', or a 'non-believer in the monster-under-the-bed position'."His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,"
I tend to view this as, in a Christian view, we've been created to display the glory, wisdom and beauty of God and Gods creation for essentially the universe and beyond to see, and to be inspired by. And that creation was essentially made to display the glory of God as Gods image bearers.
When we compare these ideas. An atheist approach of, you live maybe to be happy, or to help others, or maybe not for any particular reason at all, compared to the idea that you were created to shine. The atheist position, without something more attached to it, I think it feels kind of non-inspiring or empty.
Atheist beliefs, philosophies, worldviews, etc., vary - all they have in common is not including a god or gods. If you want to know if someone thinks there is a greater purpose, you should ask them. Personally, I don't; I have my own purposes in life, and I find this apparent obsession with 'greater purpose' suggestive of some deep insecurity.Do atheists largely prefer the idea or belief that we don't serve a greater purpose? or do atheist beliefs vary and perhaps some do view a greater purpose? And what might that greater purpose be?
Huh? you've lost me there...And that's what thurwood or whatever that guy's name is was really getting at when he brought up the rabbit in the hat
It certainly makes more sense to me that your church should reflect your core values rather than your core values reflecting your church.Sometimes I think that I've been fortunate to find a church that reflects some of my core values and so it's easy for me to become a part of
Humanism is typically a non-religious worldview - see about humanism.Christian humanism - Wikipedia
I get the impression that people have taken humanistic ideas and have tied them to religions and non religions in various ways. Though I'm thinking that these days humanism is probably more of a secular concept.
Humanism is typically a non-religious worldview - see about humanism.
Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.In these discussions it's quite common for creationists to claim they accept microevolution, but don't accept macroevolution. What is less clear is precisely what creationists think those two things are.
To clear the air, this thread is for the purpose of creationists explaining their respective understanding of each. If you're a creationist, what do you think microevolution and macroevolution are exactly?
So here we have a process. Doesn't matter what it is. It's a process. And we have two measurements of that process. One is tiny increments of the process and we call that "microprocess." The other is large increments of the process and we call that "Macroprocess."Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.
Your analogy is not correct. Drops add up to fill the test tube. Microevolutionary steps don't add, they are random occurrences. You must calculate the joint occurrences of microevolutionary changes by multiplication of their probabilities of occurrence.So here we have a process. Doesn't matter what it is. It's a process. And we have two measurements of that process. One is tiny increments of the process and we call that "microprocess." The other is large increments of the process and we call that "Macroprocess."
They are both the SAME PROCESS. Just different measurements of that process.
For example, I have a test tube and we fill that test tube with an eye dropper. One drop is a Microfill. When it's full it's a Macrofill.
If you only saw three Microfills and then saw a Macrofill are you seriously going to tell me that you couldn't state that the Macrofill wasn't directly related to the Microfill?
Macro evolution has been demonstrated in a lab with green algae.Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.
There are many experiments that demonstrate microevolution. The Lenski LTEE and Kishony Mega-Plate experiments are good examples of measurable and repeatable experiments that demonstrate microevolution with multiple microevolutionary steps.Micro evolution has been demonstrated in a lab with green algae.
I mistyped, I meant macro and have edited the postThere are many experiments that demonstrate microevolution. The Lenski LTEE and Kishony Mega-Plate experiments are good examples of measurable and repeatable experiments that demonstrate microevolution with multiple microevolutionary steps.
Have you ever tried to do the mathematics which predicts and simulates the behavior of microevolution?
Identify the specific genetic changes in your reference on algae evolution. I read your link and they don't identify those mutations.I mistyped, I meant macro and have edited the post
I read many of your discussions on math with the experts, you say the same things over and over and fail to take correction.
Of course they add. Once speciation occurs, which in itself is a micro-level event that's Macroevolution.Your analogy is not correct. Drops add up to fill the test tube. Microevolutionary steps don't add, they are random occurrences. You must calculate the joint occurrences of microevolutionary changes by multiplication of their probabilities of occurrence.
Actually it has been. The problem is that creationists do not even understand what macroevolution is.Microevolution can be demonstrated experimentally, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated experimentally.
Oh rats. You already answered my challenge.Of course they add. Once speciation occurs, which in itself is a micro-level event that's Macroevolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?