Evolution Is Not Atheism

[Gracchus]

Today at 12:07 PM lucaspa said this in Post #77

--you have the problem that communism is dead.

Not as long as I'm alive. ()

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:48 PM Gracchus said this in Post #81



Not as long as I'm alive. ()

LOL!! Communism is dead, just not the last of its proponents. 

Yes, we had to wait until a few phlogiston chemists died before the last proponents of phlogistion were gone. 

 

[gladiatrix]

Yesterday at 02:55 AM Micaiah said this in Post #65

When gladiatrix said:
"If your God indeed designed "creation", then He is one rotten [engineer]! What follows is just a very small list of "crappy" designs that are NOT explained by any Intelligent Designer, but ARE explained by evolution where new species are created by modifying older ones."

As you are on a Christian forum, I ask you to refrain from blasphemy. You can make your point without resorting to those sort of tactics.

I am happy to discuss these matters with you, but ask that you show due respect in those discussions.

What blasphemy? I said "if" and what is more, what I said is all true. If God created the designs that I gave in the link (all really sloppy, flawed, or unnecessary, such as eyes on darkness-dwellers), then He is a very bad engineer IMO. BTW, your God is a very "small" one if He (or you for that matter) fretts over my opinion of His alleged handiwork (I don't think that "He" existed to create them in the first place). Mark Twain said it very well with "Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, He is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it". IMO a god(s?) capable of creating this universe that would get his/her/its/their "feelings hurt" of be threatened by what one naked primate said on a small planet circling an average star, sequestered in a remote area of an unremarkable galaxy in the backwater of the universe is not worth considering.

Blasphemy was invented as an excuse to censor criticism and to murder dissenters (death proscribed for "blasphemy" in the Bible). By making it a "crime" to "take the Lord's name in vain", one can also cover up the fact that nothing happens when the name of the "divine" is invoked. I mean, does the "blasphemer/profaner" get "zapped" (some inexplicable calamity befalls the "criminal") or does some "voice" boom from on high to "Shut the ** up"!? NO!! The only thing that such a "criminal" has to fear is harm that comes at the hands of believers who seem to think that the Creator needs "help" in defending His "good name".

You fail to recognise the differences between the assumtions underpinning discussions on origins held by Creationists, and atheistic evolutionists.

Creationists recognise that there is a spiritual dimension to life, while atheists typically assert matter is all that matters. I believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and Ruler of all.

You belief in something (spiritual dimension) does not make it so and that is all you've got. Belief is not science and that is what we were talking about. There are many Christians who don't have a problem with evolution and consider science to be in effect "reading the mind of God".

'm not selling you the teaching of Scripture as a quasi-scientific explanation of origins. I'm stating that it was supernatural. For me that is the only sensible way to describe how our universe came from nothing. As an atheist that is a big hurdle you must overcome.

Fine, then you should agree that it shouldn't be taught as science in schools, it belongs in a theology NOT a science class.

I agree that those who seek to marry Christianity and evolution are not consistent in their interpretation of the evidence, but I am not one of them. Scripture plainly teaches that God didn't use evolution to create man, or the animals.

This is an opinion on your part and not a fact. You can't demonstrate that your view of the Bible is the "Truth™ ". The very fact that this dispute exists among Christians is evidence to me that your book is not the work of a god capable of creating the universe, otherwise such a book would be very clear about the matter and there would not be this ongoing 2000 year debate over who is a TRUE Chrisitain™ . I find your attitude most arrogant in that you seem to think that only you and yours have solved this 2000 year old ( and counting) conundrum. It is people with the exclusionist/absolutist view (I'm right and you're wrong) that are responsible for the blood-stained history of Christianity.

You are right, when I view the intelligence seen in creation around me, my heart spontaneously recognises a wonderful and powerful Creator. I pointed out the logical conclusions we draw from artifacts we find. Why not do the same with the evidence you see all around you.

And people see images of the Virgin Mary in burns on taco shells, so what? How do you know you're just not engaging is self-deception or believing because it makes you feel good without evidence to the contrary? Sorry, but I don't take ANYTHING on faith (belief without proof).

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:25 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #83

What blasphemy? I said "if" and what is more, what I said is all true. If God created the designs that I gave in the link (all really sloppy, flawed, or unnecessary, such as eyes for on darkness-dwellers), then He is a very bad engineer IMO. 

Not just your opinion, Gladiatrix, but the opinion of all Western Christians by about 1850.  As more and more organisms were found in the first half of the 19th century, it became clear that Special Creation made huge troubles for Christianity. All those bad designs called into question that God was benevolent, kind, and superintelligent. That's why Christian theologians jumped at evolution and accepted it even faster than scientists.

So keep pounding that point for the benefit of the lurkers.  It won't gain you any converts to atheism   but I know you weren't going for that anyway. Evolution, instead of threatening Christianity, actually saves Christianity from Special Creation and YEC.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:25 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #83

I don't think that "He" existed to create them in the first place ...  Sorry, but I don't take ANYTHING on faith (belief without proof).

Apparently you take one thing on faith: the non-existence of deity.

Let me give you one another: Prove that you exist.  That is, satisfy us that everything you experience isn't just an hallucination in some other entity's head?

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 05:15 PM lucaspa said this in Post #85

Apparently you take one thing on faith: the non-existence of deity.

I don't think the Christian god exists (no evidence, the Bible gives a very self-contradictory portrait) and that is not taken on faith (belief without proof). In other words, what there is actually disproves the existence of this particular version IMO.

There is no evidence for the existence of other type of supernatural entity either. While I am well aware that this lack of evidence is not conclusive proof of "absence", that only requires me to acknowledge the following:

• From the standpoint of empirical evidence, it is impossible for me to know that a God(s?) doesn't (don't) exist(s) somewhere in the universe because there is no practical way for me to search this universe for any evidence that might indicate the presence of same. In other words, with respect to all concepts of God(s?), the most reasonable stance to assume is one of agnosticism. Could there actually be a Creator{s?), hiding in the "quantum'" details, so to speak? {I have often thought if there was (were) a God(s?)we might find God(s?) dwelling in the details instead of the Devil as it were.} Yes, the existence of some kind of deity(-ies? why not creation by Committee?) is(are) still possible.
  
• However, I am only obliged to believe in the probable, NOT the possible. Even though God(s?) is (are) possible, is such really probable? Given the evidence, IMO, No. I don't see this as a matter of "faith" in its' incarnation as simply "having confidence in something", like having faith in the good-will of my friends or the validity of logic (based my friends' track-record of trustworthyness and the efficacy of logic) or the other incarnation of "belief without proof.
  
• So, at this point in time, there is no evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists. If I had to take a "side" (many regard agnosticism as a self-serving way to escape censure for non-belief) I would have to come down on the atheist side of there being no God(s?). Atheism is simply NO belief in God(s?), based on the lack of evidence at this time.

Let me give you one another: Prove that you exist.  That is, satisfy us that everything you experience isn't just an hallucination in some other entity's head?

The very fact that we are communicating is evidence of this reality (my existence). I have memories, records, and experience the existences of others. Can I "prove" to a virtual certainty that what I now believe to be reality it the "truth"? No, but there is enough evidence for me to think so. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

If one wishes to retreat into the Buddha-like solipsism of "am I a man who dreamed he was a butterfly" or "am I a butterfly dreaming that it is a man?", then that is up to the individual. Could I be mistaken and this is just a "Matrix" reality? Sure, anything is possible, but again is it PROBABLE? As far as I am concerned, the answer is NO and I'm not going let it worry or distract me.

BTW, even if we were in some kind of "Matrix" world, we wouldn't know about it so, that world would still be our "reality" and without some kind of outside intervention, we would continue to think so. I have often found the notion that because I can't prove to a virtual certainty the "truth" of my existence/reality that this is somehow an argument that God(s?) must also exists (God is necessary to create reality/thought).

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 05:15 PM lucaspa said this in Post #85

Apparently you take one thing on faith: the non-existence of deity.

Please, not another debate on whether or atheism is a "belief" or not. Couldn't you just agree to disagree? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

 

[Melange_Thief]

Today at 02:15 PM lucaspa said this in Post #85



Apparently you take one thing on faith: the non-existence of deity.

It appears that you don't understand, lucaspa.  Atheists base their beliefs on evidence.  There is no evidence for a god, at least not without a leap of faith. 

 

[Arikay]

Wahoo, welcome to philosophy 101. This is all about symantics. Trully we take everything on faith, however, there are different levels of faith. There is the faith that what we cant see, feel, touch, hear and taste still exists. Then there is a faith that what we can see, feel, touch, hear and taste actually exists and isnt some sort of hullucination.

They are different types of faith. And really should be discussed in the philosophy forum.

Well, really its an agnostic that takes everything on evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

Lucaspa quoting Micaiah

"The scientific evidence clearly shows it is impossible for a person to die physically and then come back to life three days later. The doctors and scientists among us could confirm this is the case. Why then do those who believe that we should not accept the plain teaching of Scripture because it contradicts 'scientific' evidence, claim they believe the resurrection of Christ which also contradicts scientific evidence on this matter. If consistent, those who claim 'science' as the ultimate authority should drop the Christian label."

Micaiah, can a person be a Christian and accept evolution? All your posts say "No". Therefore, try to follow this simpe logic:

Lucas accepts evolution. Lucas can't be a Christian. Lucas isn't a Christian

Again you have quoted me out of context, which you call bearing false witness. The context of the discussion was that if you claim to only accept that which may be verified by science, then it is inconsistent to believe the gospel. No hint here to support a claim of me denying the gospel, just a call for the TEV's to be consistent.

I'll say it again. I have demonstrated that to be a Christian logically means you accept the historicity of Genesis. People are inherently illogical. I do not suggest that you cannot be a Christian if you believe in evolution. I have stated this before.

Again you have allowed subjectivity to cloud your interpretation of the clear facts.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:34 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #86 I don't think the Christian god exists 

The Christian god? Does that mean you believe that another god exists like the Wicca god or goddess? Or the Hindu or Muslim god?

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 05:12 PM lucaspa said this in Post #84

Not just your opinion, Gladiatrix, but the opinion of all Western Christians by about 1850.  As more and more organisms were found in the first half of the 19th century, it became clear that Special Creation made huge troubles for Christianity. All those bad designs called into question that God was benevolent, kind, and superintelligent. That's why Christian theologians jumped at evolution and accepted it even faster than scientists.

So keep pounding that point for the benefit of the lurkers.  It won't gain you any converts to atheism   but I know you weren't going for that anyway. Evolution, instead of threatening Christianity, actually saves Christianity from Special Creation and YEC.

Agreed. There is no reason for evolution to be contrary to the idea that a deity of some kind exists and that all we are doing is simply deciphering "God's word" (understanding the operation the phenomena/constants of the universe). Who knows? Such a search may provide us with the means to find out if a deity(-ies?) actually exists. What if its like this....

Consider human history before the invention of the microscope. If someone told you that some disease were caused by "animalcules" invisible to the naked eye, you probably would have thought he was a crackpot. Since he wouldn't be able to prove that claim, you would be within your rights to think so.

We may be is a time before the invention of instrumentality that will allow us to access a reality in addition to this one (now know as the "supernatural" for a lack of a more descriptive term). Someone might develop a "theo-meter" for detecting the "divine". The irony here is that the "supernatural" would become the "natural" because we would be able to study and understand it. I suspect that if there is such a thing that "God(s?) isn't (aren't) going to be what anyone suspects. Then there will be those who are going to be disappointed because "God isn't God" if we are capable of understanding Him/Her/It/Them. (Members of the Church of the "Unknown, but Sublime Purpose)

Another question is why should we "worship" such a Being if Such exists? Such an Entity would have the whole universe as a testimonial to It's power and just wouldn't need "adoration" from such a minor part of it, namely us. Just my opinion, of course...........

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 07:02 PM Melange_Thief said this in Post #88 It appears that you don't understand, lucaspa.  Atheists base their beliefs on evidence.  There is no evidence for a god, at least not without a leap of faith. 

Perhaps there is no "evidence" for your concept of God. Or perhaps God is outside of what you are able to verify.

You have 5 senses, but perhaps God can not be detected with these five senses. So He could very well exist, but you can not know that with the limited ability you have.

In order to know if there is a God or not, then you would have to be all knowing. If your are not all knowing, then you can not know for sure if there is a God or not.

Who was it that said we only know 1% of what there is to know about the world and the universe we live in? Others would say we do not even know that much.

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 08:06 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #91



The Christian god? Does that mean you believe that another god exists like the Wicca god or goddess? Or the Hindu or Muslim god?

No... At this time there is no evidence to support the existence of any God(s?), so I have no belief in any by any name. That doesn't mean that I totally rule out the possibility of there being a Deity(-ies? why not creation by divine Committee?) of some kind and we just haven't got the means to discover and explore His/Hers/Its'/Their nature yet.

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 08:15 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #93

Perhaps there is no "evidence" for your concept of God. Or perhaps God is outside of what you are able to verify.

You have 5 senses, but perhaps God can not be detected with these five senses. So He could very well exist, but you can not know that with the limited ability you have.

What you say is true.

In order to know if there is a God or not, then you would have to be all knowing. If your are not all knowing, then you can not know for sure if there is a God or not.

Who was it that said we only know 1% of what there is to know about the world and the universe we live in? Others would say we do not even know that much.

Again I agree here and because it is impossible for me to search the entire universe in all places and at all times (God(s?) may just have been around in the beginning and moved on, may show up in the future), I can't rule out the POSSIBLITY of there being the "divine" somewhere, so I don't. However, what you want here is absolute, 100% proof (all-knowing) that God(s?) doesn't (don't) exist(s), that is not practical. One can't function if one is forced to believe in every possibility. The simpler approach is to believe in the probable and if something is probable then there is some evidence for it (however meager meaning that it has a low probability as opposed to something with a high probability which means there is a lot of evidence for it). There is as yet no evidence for the divine, therefore, no probability for it, so I have no belief in it (keeping an open mind though).

 

[Praxiteles]

14th March 2003 at 11:52 PM Micaiah said this in Post #20



Your own experience sadly proves the two beliefs are logically exclusive. To seek to marry the popular views of man on origins and Scripture undermines the truth of God. It is sad to hear of cases such as yours Praxiteles, but I suspect this same scenario has occured in many lives. That is why Bible believing Christians take pains to promote and support the plain teaching of Scripture.

Over recent months I've heard several testimonies along the lines of your own. In each case, it seems doubts raised over the matter of Creation precipitated the loss of faith. In a few cases, the person involved related how they cannot regain their faith now it is lost.

Hi Micaiah,

I think you've misunderstood the thrust of my post.

What I've said was that theistic evolution was my point of view when I was a Christian.  At no point (except perhaps as a young child) did I think that the Creation story recounted in Genesis was a narration of events.

My own loss of faith/belief was entirely unrelated to YEC beliefs, although like you I have read numerous stories of rejection of YECism leading to catastrophic rejection of all Christian faith.

My own rejection of Christianity was as a result of not seeing any divine activity in my life. 

What I have said above, though, is that modern science has provided for me the ability to understand the world in a non-theistic framework.  Had it not, I suppose I may have turned to some other religion or philosophy, but I doubt that I would have remained Christian.

I read an article recently of a well known Christian turned atheist ( surname Templeton?). In an interview, the aging atheist related how much he admired and learned from the man called Jesus. He said how much he missed Jesus.

I can understand that.  The belief that there was an all powerful, loving being who was looking out for me was a very comforting one.  It was always reassuring to be able to pray, as if I were mulling over things with a friend.

I do miss that. 

 

[Praxiteles]

15th March 2003 at 02:27 AM lucaspa said this in Post #22



You do accept one creation story: mainstream science!   You just believe there is no deity and that the natural processes all work on their own.

Your post illustrates what I said to Pete about discussing the relationship of evolution to atheism.

Before Darwin, there was no answer to the Argument from Design. Since biological organisms obviously have designs, and the only known (at that time) way to get design was manufacture by an intelligent entity, then the inference was that biological organisms were made by an intelligent entity. Since human intelligence wasn't up to the job, it had to be supernatural intelligence -- God.

The Argument from Design was proof of God.  To be an atheist before 1859 was not only to believe without reason or evidence, it was to believe in the face of contradictory reason and evidence.  Atheism was obviously a faith, and an irrational one at that.

Exactly!  Thanks Lucaspa, for putting more into words my point more concisely than I had.

Darwin's discovery of natural selection changed all that.  While Darwin thought (legitimately) that natural selection can be viewed as the method by which a Creator works, atheists could now believe that natural selection (like all natural processes) did not require a deity. For the first time, an atheist could be intellectually fulfilled (to use Dawkins' phrase).  For the first time, it was reasonable to be an atheist.  Evolution didn't "prove" atheism, but it made it possible.

It was always possible, I suppose, but it certainly made the position more tenable.  Without the science of the last couple of centuries, I would have had more trouble making sense of my life experience.  I would no doubt have blamed God's "indifference" to me on myself.

 

[Praxiteles]

15th March 2003 at 02:43 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #23



Science had it's beginings with the Greeks? Your kidding me right?

Certainly not!  The first genuine attempts to explain the natural world without relying on the intervention of gods were made by the Greeks.

Science even goes back further than Egypt to Babylon and even further back than that to Mesopotamia. It began in the furtile cresent in the cradle of civilization. They had some very nice and furtile land there, but it seems the area kept having floods that would wipe out whole groups of people. That is just the way it is, flood plans make very nice farm land, but they keep flooding. This is a problem today along the Mississippi river. Great farm land, but it tends to flood. The flooding leaves sediment and that is what makes the soil so rich.

One man Noah had a rather ingenious idea, he built a big boat and survived the floods that way. The people laughed at him the whole time he was building it. But when it began to rain and the flood began, they were not laughing anymore. Finally later on some men came along with: science and figured out a way to control the flooding and they then lived rather productive lives and civilization had it's beginning. Then in Egypt, they had some very furtile land at the delta of the nile river, but that was rather limited. When they began to figure out a way to irrigate the land, then they could produce more food. Also it took science to be able to build the prymids that they had there.

How is any of this science?  The pyramids were built using very precise mathematics, but where's the science?  Where is the observation and deduction?  I'm not sure that you understand what is meant by science in this context.

Back in the beginning, people wanted to appoint leaders. So they usually would appoint a king who was a good warrior and rather big in size. So he could lead the nation in battle. All of the measurements in a kingdom was based on the king. A span was about 18 inches or the distance from the tip of his fingers to his elbow. A foot was the size of the kings foot. So everyone in the kingdom would know how big the king was. That is normal size for us today. But back then it would be considered big, sense most people were smaller than that.

The king then would surround himself with the most learned men as advisors. It was a very nice job to have so there was a lot of competition. You had to prove yourself to be better than all of the other people who wanted to be an advisor to the king.

In Egypt they actually had a Pharaoh. Moses was raised as a prince or a son of the pharaoh at that time. So he had the best education available. Moses was trained under Egyptian schools then when he was 40 he went to live with the Medians and learned theology from them. He even married the daugher of Jethro a Median priest, who would from time to time come along and advise him. Usually what happened was that Moses would get tired of his wife and send her home to daddy, and her daddy would bring her back and get it all straightened out between them.

When Moses was 80 years he wanted to advise the pharaoh of Egypt. Actually someone who would be kinda like a brother to him, but there were a lot of princes. So Moses had to prove himself and the contest was on. The first thing Moses did was throw his staff down on the ground and it turned into a snake. He picked the snake up by the tail and it turned back into a staff again. So Pharaoh called all his wise men, sorcerers and magicians, and they could do the same thing Moses did. But then the staff of Moses swollowed up theirs, so Moses was the winner. That was just the beginning, he did other things also, like he turned the Nile river red, and things like that.

Another time there was a contest was with Daniel in Babylon. He was the top advisor for the King of Babylonians and that was a position that he had to win the competition to get. In the case of Esther, she was a queen and she had to compete with other women to become the queen to the king. She had a good advisor thought who knew just what the king liked.

Then another show down was a prophet Elijah who had a contest with the priests of baal. But that was more of a religious thing.

Even assuming that all of the above is true (which you clearly do, and for the sake of argument I will too), again, where is the science?  All you've recounted here is politics with a bit of magic thrown in.

 

[Praxiteles]

15th March 2003 at 01:53 PM Stormy said this in Post #36



Oh? And you think that you can explain it now? I don't think so.

Maybe you don't think I can, but that's not the point.  It has been made clear to me time and again that often the simplest and easiest answer is not the correct one.  I have a reasonably good understanding of the processes that have led to my existence, if not the metaphysical reason (should there be one) for it.  And it's process that is at the heart of my desire for explanation.

The fact is that we now understand enough now to know that natural processes can lead to our existence, and probably have.  Whether that's driven by an external supernatural force is another question, which is outside the realms of scientific enquiry.

That question is a much more personal one, and it's the lack of the divine in my life that leads me to believe that there probably isn't a God - especially if the God in question is the personal God of the Jews/Christians/Moslems. 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 07:02 PM Melange_Thief said this in Post #88




It appears that you don't understand, lucaspa.  Atheists base their beliefs on evidence.  There is no evidence for a god, at least not without a leap of faith. 

Sorry, Melange_Thief, but you have two problems.  The first is how science works and how evidence is used.  Science works by falsification and the evidence is used to falsify the existence of entities.  Flat earth, geocentered solar system, special creation, phlogiston.  All falsified entities. Unless an entity is falsified, science must consider it possible.  You, of course, can personally believe what you want but it isn't science.

Unfortunately for atheists, science hasn't been able to falsify the existence of deity.  Thus atheists have tried to change the nature of science and evidence. What you are voicing is called "logical positivism" and has been disproved as an epistemology (way of reliably knowing).

Second, theists do have evidence in the form of personal experience.  This evidence is not available to you or I that have not had the experience, but we have no basis to say the experience isn't real or accurate.  People like Thomas Aquinas and CS Lewis -- intelligent, skeptical, rational -- have had experiences that convinced them, often against their will, that deity exists. So your claim that theists have "no evidence" is wrong.

They don't have "scientific evidence", but science never made the claim that science was the only way of knowing.