Non-theists...

[Edward Vil - E for short]

The agenda of evidence.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

I wonder if atheists are tolerant of theistic evolutionists just because they support their agenda. Talkorigins.org has an entire paper defending theistic evolution, but it was probably written by atheists.

It was most likely written by Christians. MOST Christians are evolutionists, anyhow.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deal.

Yes. It's all one big conspiracy to get rid of the Christian Truth (TM).

 

[ZaraDurden]

In my experience with christians, which is fairly vast because i was raised an active christian but also biased because i have only interacted with christians in my general area and on this board, theistic evolution is not popular at all. Maybe though, somewhere else or even world wide it is the most popular.

I would like the bible a lot more if people did use it as more of a spiritual guide. Again, i have to say in my experience this also is not a popular option. This is because the people i have talked with this about feel that you cant pick and choose or twist the bible as you like, or else you arent really being a christian. They feel you need to follow the bible to a "T" because it is the actual words of god.

Jesus makes a few direct references to them as if they are historical facts, at least thats what i took out of it. He talks about cain and able and noah from what i remember. Maybe i will go back and check it out, though. And everything Jesus ever said was supposedly true.

According to christian doctrine, we are all born sinners because of adam and eve. If we are not born sinners, i think it makes jesus almost less necessary. Why shouldnt we just try to go through life sinning as little as possible? It would be a possibility that a person could go through life without sin, especially if they died early or something like that. Would that make them equal with jesus? If adam and eve do not give us original sin, i dont know where else it would come from, and you then are opening up a whole new can of worms about christian doctrine.

 

[Jet Black]

I wonder if atheists are tolerant of theistic evolutionists just because they support their agenda. Talkorigins.org has an entire paper defending theistic evolution, but it was probably written by atheists.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deal.

absolutely, you have hit the nail right on the head, it says here, in my "atheist's guide to crushing religion once and for all (top secret edition, do not reveal to theists) page 674 paragraph 6 "in order to destroy a religion, you may enlist the assistance of relevant groups within that religion in order to undermine the beliefs of other groups within that religion. Once the other groups have been destroyed, then we can set about mopping up the remains"

 

[Edward Vil - E for short]

Which version of that manual did you get?

 

[DrLao]

I wonder if atheists are tolerant of theistic evolutionists just because they support their agenda. Talkorigins.org has an entire paper defending theistic evolution, but it was probably written by atheists.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deal.

Tolerant of? I don't think I am intolerant of anyone because of their beliefs about the nature of living things. I generally get along better with theistic evolutionists than I do creationists. Probably because theistic evolutionists tend to be more knowledgable and rational and they don't go around saying false things about science and the world around us. I don't get along well with people who lie or spout off about things that they know nothing about.

Of course there are creationists who don't spread untruths about the Earth and living things. And I usually get along fine with them too. But I often don't know they are creationists.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Hum...most of the atheists I've met are pretty contemptous of the idea, declaring that "there is no reason to believe in theistic evolution" and "how do Christian evolutions explain original sin," ect.

I see no reason why. If you look at the atheists on this board few are contemptuous of theistic evolutionists. Most think YECs are laughable. That's because one is an opinion (does God exist) the other is not (evolution).

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Theistic evolutionists are the lesser of two evils from an atheists standpoint. To the atheist/evolutionist they're both wrong. However the theistic evolutionist is at least on the right track while the YEC's are in outter space, chasing their own tail, and picking their nose.

Christians are going to believe something that I'm not going to agree with. With theistic evolutionists I can at least have an intelligent arguement over the details of a body of facts rather than trying to convince some loon in a tin foil hat that science is not an elaborate atheist conspiracy designed to collect souls for the devil or <insert psychotic YEC belief here>.

 

[Jet Black]

Which version of that manual did you get?

I have the original version, penned by Charles Darwin Himself. Stalin scribbled some notes in the margin though, which were hepful.

 

[Edward Vil - E for short]

Ah! Lucky. Mine came from a box of Cocoa Pebbles and was missing chapter eleven. To this day I still don't know what to do when cornered by Jehova's Witnesses.

 

[Meatros]

I see no reason why. If you look at the atheists on this board few are contemptuous of theistic evolutionists. Most think YECs are laughable. That's because one is an opinion (does God exist) the other is not (evolution).

I agree with you, and I'll also add that YEC's act as though theistic evolutionists are cafeteria christian (as though they aren't!) and have stabbed them in the back.

I've seen some real intolerance on the part of YEC's when it comes to theistic evolutionists in my day.

 

[Michali]

I was recently converted to theistic evolution, not by atheists or this forum (I was previously agnostic about the subject), but by a Jehova's Witness (believe it or not). He and I would always debate on scripture. Jehova's Witnesses are very believing of scriptural divinity. To hear that they actually believed in an old earth astonished me. They believed there was evolution to some extent, but they believed creatures were constantly being made by God during the long creation rather than common ancestry. For a time after discussing this, I decided I would not choose between YEC or OEC believing it was insignificant to the meaning of the faith. But, it seems, we are made out to be liars if we force YEC down other peoples throats. So YEC is actually lying. Which is something we shouldn't be doing. And atheist are finding it hard to believe in a God that we make out to be a liar. It is true that most Christians that really know what they believe (like they make an effort to understand the faith), believe in OEC.

I do believe in Adam and Eve, because there was eventually a first man and woman in history. Jesus does quote Genesis saying "he made them male and female" in regard to divorce. I do believe that the body was formed through evolution, but not the human soul. And I like how Mike Flynn put it, "forming man of the dust" is that process of evolution. Then God breathed into man the breath of life (a soul).

I do not know if Jesus ever spoke of the flood. I still believe something like it happened, but I don't recall Jesus mentioning it.

 

[Cantuar]

I think atheists have more respect for theistic evolutionists than Born Again True Christians do. Some of the things Phillip Johnson says about theistic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller and Denis Lamoureux are quite vicious.

 

[Vance]

Congratulations Michali, and I mean that!

I agree that non-theists tend to fall into two camps, those that hate theistic evolutionists because they don't fit their stereotype of Christians as ignorant inferiors, and those who are glad the Christian in question at least has his facts correct.

I think the issue comes down to how "anti-Christian" the non-theist is. The more militant against Christianity, the more likely they are to dislike the TE position.

The odd thing is that these types of "militant" atheists and YEC's actually agree on the important basic premise that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. They should get together and have lunch and talk about how silly the TE's are for not grasping this.

 

[WinAce]

I think evolution can form the basis for a powerful philosophical argument against the existence of a benevolent god. But then, so does the universe in itself, and that doesn't stop all theists from believing, so it's not a particularly bad inconsistency.

 

[Michali]

I think evolution can form the basis for a powerful philosophical argument against the existence of a benevolent god. But then, so does the universe in itself, and that doesn't stop all theists from believing, so it's not a particularly bad inconsistency.

Rather... I feel the complete opposite. The sheer uncomprehensible beauty of the universe shouts a creator in my view. The "natural" process is assumed to be an alternative to a creator, but, our creator uses the natural processes (TE). So, looking at the outcome and its brilliance, I gather that there was a good bit of ordained thought put into the universe and life. It helps give a purpose to it all as well.

 

[Revenant]

I think it's a lot more rational than creationism, that's for sure.

 

[Michali]

Atheism is alot more complicating, because it finds every way around a creator. And no matter how unlikely the circumstances. I believe in the slow development of things, I just don't believe it to be as chancy as some make it out to be (i.e: the mutations were obtained through guidance or ordainment.). It is not more rational than atheism, in that, it makes perfect sense that such complexity should exist if there was a being that creates other beings (<in my opinion). And the "boundless" theory of God brings about stability in infinity and existence by being omni-potent while being able to limit His own actions. God provides a true meaning to creation as well as a purpose/drive to unconceal what matters he has hidden (creation).

Atheism is atleast just as rational as theism. I think agnostics are the most rational. They don't make any assumptions. They wait for a matter to be proven. Which is where I would be, if I did not know that God had to be accepted through faith. I would much rather accept God than not know if he's there.

 

[Jet Black]

Atheism is atleast just as rational as theism. I think agnostics are the most rational. They don't make any assumptions. They wait for a matter to be proven. Which is where I would be, if I did not know that God had to be accepted through faith. I would much rather accept God than not know if he's there.

that sounds like pascals wager.

 

[ajayc]

When you think about how we have been created the millions of cells, blood vessels, our capacity to think, to recreate, etc. It is kind of impossible to deny such a wonderful creation such as us happened by chance. The earth has many parameters like the axis of rotation, the distance from sun, percentage of the different gases, elements, gravitational pull etc. It is hard from me to imagine it was all coincidence. There is a definite design in everything we see. And with every design is a designer.