Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[2PhiloVoid]

See the first two lines, and maybe give it
some thought

You do realize that my Bachelor's degree is in Atheism (**cough**, excuse me, I mean Philosophy), right?

I've read a lot of atheists. I've gone to school with atheists who were fellow students. I've listened to a lot of atheists (and still do on youtube). I've bantered here on CF since 2010 with a number of atheists. I've also worked with atheists.

I already know they, as fellow human beings, don't fall out of an epistemological cookie-cutter, cloned to perfection and prepared for skeptical repartee.

However, a number of them in the U.S., unlike where you live perhaps, do seem intent on destroying the alledged cookie-cutter that they feel they've been imprisoned by and have thus escaped from ...

 

[Astrid]

You do realize that my Bachelor's degree is in Atheism (**cough**, excuse me, I mean Philosophy), right?

I've read a lot of atheists. I've gone to school with atheists who were fellow students. I've listened to a lot of atheists (and still do on youtube). I've bantered here on CF since 2010 with a number of atheists. I've also worked with atheists.

I already know they, as fellow human beings, don't fall out of an epistemological cookie-cutter, cloned to perfection and prepared for skeptical repartee.

However, a number of them in the U.S., unlike where you live perhaps, do seem intent on destroying the alledged cookie-cutter that they feel they've been imprisoned by and have thus escaped from ...

I didnt much think you'd examine how what you
said comes across.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Because that’s exactly what separates a believer from an unbeliever.

Tell me this, BNR32FAN, how did you come to the Christian faith? Were you told by someone "Here's a bible, now just read it and believe it" and you did? Did you do any outside reading (or other study) apart from the Bible to come to the conclusion that you felt you believed it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didnt much think you'd examine how what you
said comes across.

You may be right. But then again, I'm an Existentialist, and I am, quite purposefully, less concerned than other folks about "how" people perceive my sometimes ascerbic wit.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Noah didn't bring any animals on the Ark.

He simply opened the door and they lined up and paraded in.

Genesis 6:19

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of theme still are.

Ain't that the truth!?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ain't that the truth!?

Hey, thanks for spot-checking my work for me, AV. I wouldn't have caught that typo without your help!

 

[AV1611VET]

Surprised somehow?

Yes.

Charles Darwin is venerated to the status of demigod:

1. Father of Evolution
2. Buried in Westminster Abbey
3. Face on ten-pound currency
4. Capital of major territory named after him

 

[AV1611VET]

Shemp was one of the three prophets of the early 20th century along with Moe and Larry but he was nowhere near as good as the great prophet Curly.

 

[Astrid]

You may be right. But then again, I'm an Existentialist, and I am, quite purposefully, less concerned than other folks about "how" people perceive my sometimes ascerbic wit.

So like you just say things with no regard for
what you are actually communicating

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So like you just say things with no regard for
what you are actually communicating

What do you mean by that, Estrid?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes.

Charles Darwin is venerated to the status of demigod:

1. Father of Evolution
2. Buried in Westminster Abbey
3. Face on ten-pound currency
4. Capital of major territory named after him

Just for the record, I definitely don't and won't venerate Darwin. Especially not when and where the likes of Herbert Spencer (or newer versions of him) get ahold of Darwin's thought and run off the road with it ...

 

[ottawak]

Because that’s exactly what separates a believer from an unbeliever.

Faith is what separates them, not belief in a literal Bible. The Bible merely corroberates and gives shape to what we believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just for the record, I definitely don't and won't venerate Darwin. Especially not when and where the likes of Herbert Spencer (or newer versions of him) get ahold of Darwin's thought and run off the road with it ...

What did you mean by this then?

Just to be clear, I didn't intend to imply that any atheists "worship" any other atheists. But I've been tracking atheism and its proponents for years and I've noticed there's been some problem among some atheists of being too gung-ho over certain individuals. Some of them still are.

I'm glad to hear that you guys, however, are cut from a different cloth and willing to learn rather than stoop to polemics and skeptical carpet b*mb!ng.

It sounds like you're giving these guys credit for not patting each other on the behind.

 

[Astrid]

What do you mean by that, Estrid?

You really - really dont know?

What do YOU mean saying you are " purposely less
concerned...how... perceive"?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh, gee-willikers! You had to pick the most pedantic and dry source imaginable, didn't you?

All I had in mind for you to do was to google Lessing, maybe just pull up a Wiki on him and find something like the following:

In his religious and philosophical writings he defended the faithful Christian's right for freedom of thought. He argued against the belief in revelation and the holding on to a literal interpretation of the Bible by the predominant orthodox doctrine through a problem later to be called Lessing's Ditch. Lessing outlined the concept of the religious "Proof of Power": How can miracles continue to be used as a base for Christianity when we have no proof of miracles? Historical truths which are in doubt cannot be used to prove metaphysical truths (such as God's existence). As Lessing says it: "That, then, is the ugly great ditch which I cannot cross, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make that leap."[11]
​

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing - Wikipedia

But NOOOOoooo! You had to find ... "something else."

What was his conclusion on Christ’s resurrection? Did he conclude that he could believe that it actually took place or not? No he concluded that he could believe that Jesus and the apostles said it took place but he could not conclude that Christ’s resurrection actually did take place because it defied logic and reason. So this example can’t be used to support Christians who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the rest of God’s miracles since Lessing was at least consistent in his reasoning whereas those who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the other miracles performed in the Bible are being inconsistent. So I’m sorry but I think this was a very bad example to support your position brother since not believing in Christ’s resurrection is not believing the gospel so it doesn’t accurately fit the situation we’re discussing.

 

[Astrid]

Faith is what separates them, not belief in a literal Bible. The Bible merely corroberates and gives shape to what we believe.

Whatever you believe, the bible will corroborate it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What did you mean by this then?
It sounds like you're giving these guys credit for not patting each other on the behind.

What do I mean? I mean that Darwin's theory of biological development among earth's organisms doesn't easily translate into a full blown theory of Social Evolution. Some folks think it does. I don't.

No, as far as rational, social development can be seen among the human species, I credit Jesus of Nazareth for much of the ideological and ethical (re)direction in the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What was his conclusion on Christ’s resurrection? Did he conclude that he could believe that it actually took place or not? No he concluded that he could believe that Jesus and the apostles said it took place but he could not conclude that Christ’s resurrection actually did take place because it defied logic and reason. So this example can’t be used to support Christians who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the rest of God’s miracles since Lessing was at least consistent in his reasoning whereas those who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the other miracles performed in the Bible are being inconsistent.

I never said Lessing's Ditch "can be used to support Christians who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the rest of God’s miracles."

My point was that it is this that causes pause for disbelief among a whole lot of people, and this is because there is a whole horde of epistemic problems with the biblical text itself to surmount on what can be qualified as a "purely objective basis," both from a historical point of view and a text critical one.

But this is where the likes of Blaise Pascal and Soren Kierkegaard, and fellow Christian Philosophical Hermeneuticists today, pick up, recognize and affirm the problems, and then hurdle over them in a qualified, rational, but yet "Subjective," Leap of Faith ...

So I’m sorry but I think this was a very bad example to support your position brother since not believing in Christ’s resurrection is not believing the gospel so it doesn’t accurately fit the situation we’re discussing.

Of course it doesn't. It's the hurdle you have to jump over. One that you don't see is there. Apparently, you're running on some other epistemological track ...

 

[ottawak]

What was his conclusion on Christ’s resurrection? Did he conclude that he could believe that it actually took place or not? No he concluded that he could believe that Jesus and the apostles said it took place but he could not conclude that Christ’s resurrection actually did take place because it defied logic and reason. So this example can’t be used to support Christians who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the rest of God’s miracles since Lessing was at least consistent in his reasoning whereas those who believe in Christ’s resurrection but not the other miracles performed in the Bible are being inconsistent. So I’m sorry but I think this was a very bad example to support your position brother since not believing in Christ’s resurrection is not believing the gospel so it doesn’t accurately fit the situation we’re discussing.

Inconsistent with what? With a belief in the literal inerrancy of scripture? Sure. So what?