If atheistic evolution is true .....

[Gracchus]

"reality"? "interesting", "hope", "rationality" = Meaningless if atheistic evolution is true.

No. I am true. That is reality undeniable to me. (Cogito ergo sum.) If the god of the Bible does not exist, nevertheless "I AM". (Does that ring a bell?)

I have hopes. I take an interest. I find meaning. I reason. You obviously do not. You, apparently, must look outside yourself for reality, hope, interests, and reason. That being the case, it is you who are meaningless.

If there is a god, he must share these characteristics with me. That is what I believe is meant by "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Genesis 1:26 KJV

And this: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". Genesis 2:7 KJV

And I think what the writer was trying to indicate was that the human soul is a bit of the divine essence. It is the reasoning mind that distinguishes man from the other animals. And it is not ultimately from the dust of the ground that we are formed but from the fission and fusion products of stars.

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30 KJV

Science teaches me that I am not a separate thing, but rather a process that takes place in the universe, like a whirlpool in a river. I am one with the universe. The universe is conscious and self-aware because I, at least, am conscious and aware.

Of course, I am not an atheist, but the atheist is, usually at least, not an idolater, most theists are.

What would be your position if theistic evolution was true, or if pantheistic or panentheistic evolution was true?

 

[Cleaver611]

"Meaning" in this case is a subjective term. If I assign meaning to something, it is meaningful. Debating creationism is meaningful to me, therefore you are wrong.

If atheistic evolution is true then ultimately everything is meaningless including any "meaning" you may (temporarily) assign to anything.

That remains to be seen.

Eh?

 

[Cleaver611]

By "reality bubble" I mean people's personal paradigms, i.e. how they view and determine what they think is real or not.

Is science a "reality bubble"? Does science exist regardless of whether man exists? Is it not based, ultimately, on "peoples personal paradigms"?

Empty assertions are not arguments.

Peter

Then don't make any.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

[/size][/font]If atheistic evolution is true then ultimately everything is meaningless including any "meaning" you may (temporarily) assign to anything.

I said just that at least twice already. Of course everything is meaningless given enough time. Unfortunately, this universe isn't that concerned about making us feel good as you obviously want it to be, and wishing for something really hard doesn't make it any more real.

 

[Vene]

Why do fundamentalists always seem to think that without their god that life becomes a futile, meaningless existence?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Then absolutely everything we say is ultimately meaningless so why even discuss it? Why not leave the rest of us to our "wild imaginings" and "pointless ramblings" and quit these boards?

So, what is the meaning of your life? What would God be missing if you were not born?

 

[plindboe]

Is science a "reality bubble"? Does science exist regardless of whether man exists? Is it not based, ultimately, on "peoples personal paradigms"?

One could say that. Of course anyone can apply the methods, no matter what bubble they belong it, so it's not neatly divided into a separate, exclusive bubble, as religious belief systems tend to do.

Then don't make any.

I haven't.

So, will you provide some arguments for your assertion? Since it seems to be the basis of this thread, it would make sense if you at the very least provided some arguments.

Peter

 

[Psudopod]

If atheistic evolution is true then ultimately everything is meaningless including any "meaning" you may (temporarily) assign to anything.

What you mean is that if athiests are correct, then you consider there is no meaning to life. That's sad in my opinion, but hey, your choice.

Does science exist regardless of whether man exists? Is it not based, ultimately, on "peoples personal paradigms"?

Science is a man made methodology, yes, but the clever bit is that it though individuals may be biased, any mistakes and bias should be spotted and removed though review.

 

[Morcova]

If atheistic evolution is true then this is absolutely and utterly meaningless, a purely subjective, and pointless, exercise.

Then are you not just trolling these boards?Atheism, evolution and science are all ultimately meaningless if atheistic evolution is true.Nope.

If atheistic evolution is true then this is meaningless. Are any of you getting the point yet?

Was your point that you require an invisible sky daddy to have meaning in your life?

 

[Morcova]

BTW your own inability to find meaning in life without fantasy figures to adore is your own problem. Please don't project your issues upon us.

 

[m3th0dm4n]

Terrible troll is terrible.

Edit: Oh wait, let me add a sardonic smiley face and pink text to justify my smugness.

 

[Molal]

MOD HAT

Cleaver611 - please stop spamming this thread with repetitious posts.​

 

[Molal]

Back to normality - evolution is neither atheistic or theistic - it is merely a model that best describes the current data set. In lay mans terms, this means it's a fact.

 

[Danyc]

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution.

There is only a bological process called evolution. Get it through your heads.

 

[m3th0dm4n]

Not to mention the existence of theistic evolutionists (usually non-literalist Christians, which are the best Christians IMO) kills the idea that evolutionary theory is atheistic.

 

[MoonLancer]

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution.

yeah, as a opposed to the other kind of evolution

 

[Split Rock]

There is no such thing as atheistic evolution.

There is only a bological process called evolution. Get it through your heads.

If you are considering a philosophical view that incorporates evolution, then yes there is such a thing as "atheistic evolution," just like there is "theistic evolution." The scientific theory of evolution, however, is agnostic rather than atheistic. This is what many creationists have trouble understanding.

 

[RichardT]

I am not an atheist, but the atheist is, usually at least, not an idolater, most theists are.

What would be your position if theistic evolution was true, or if pantheistic or panentheistic evolution was true?

What is the difference between an atheist and a pantheist anyway? An atheist can define the universe as God and that shouldn't be a problem for him. Isn't pantheism just that? What I mean to say is that if you basically define reality as God, you're simply adding a label to what everyone agrees exists.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

Then absolutely everything we say is ultimately meaningless so why even discuss it? Why not leave the rest of us to our "wild imaginings" and "pointless ramblings" and quit these boards?

But evolution is true, and nothing you claim is meaningless, is meaningless. So your if-then statement fails. Sorry, you lose. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

If atheistic evolution is true then this is absolutely and utterly meaningless, a purely subjective, and pointless, exercise.