Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[laconicstudent]

No no. What does "works through" even mean? Is God causing mutations. Causing selection?

I suppose you could put it that way. I think it implies a physical intervention that I don't think is justified, but whatever. I think it is perfectly clear what I meant. God allowed life to develop through naturalistic means, as opposed to divine intervention.

Ambiguity + Ancient Allegory isn't exactly compelling.

The fact that you don't find it compelling doesn't really concern me. As a purely spiritual belief, it works just fine for me.

 

[desimusxvii]

I suppose you could put it that way. I think it implies a physical intervention that I don't think is justified, but whatever. I think it is perfectly clear what I meant. God allowed life to develop through naturalistic means, as opposed to divine intervention.

Why no just skip the God part and say life is natural? Why the added complexity if a being that doesn't want you to wish you had your neighbors stereo?

The fact that you don't find it compelling doesn't really concern me. As a purely spiritual belief, it works just fine for me.

You're welcome to it. But calling it a "purely" spiritual believe isn't correct. You're talking about a subject concerning reality. The explanation for the diversity of species. Your views on this matter are that supernatural elements coerce natural elements. I was just trying to find what evidence you have of this. If you don't have any just say so.

 

[laconicstudent]

Why no just skip the God part and say life is natural? Why the added complexity if a being that doesn't want you to wish you had your neighbors stereo?

I have my reasons for what I believe.

You're welcome to it. But calling it a "purely" spiritual believe isn't correct.

Theistic Evolution states that God created life through the natural mechanism of Evolution. He intervened only to grant humans souls. I don't see any non-spiritual elements there.

You're talking about a subject concerning reality.

Science now accepts "Souls" as part of physical reality?

The explanation for the diversity of species.

Which is identical in Atheistic and Theistic Evolution, so no conflict.

Your views on this matter are that supernatural elements coerce natural elements.

Ah, but I never actually said that, did I?

I was just trying to find what evidence you have of this. If you don't have any just say so.

I don't, because there is no scientific contradiction between Evolutionary Theory and the theology known as theistic evolution, and your preceding statements were not representative of what I've said, so I hardly feel compelled to defend them.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJXjASAM8_w&feature=related

 

[sfs]

<staff edit>
What magic? Seriously, do you do this in most parts of your life -- just make stuff up about other people and assume it's true? How do you reconcile this kind of approach with a scientific attitude?

 

[laconicstudent]

<staff edit>
Forgive me if I decline to share the details of my personal life. You are actually wrong about me, and lets leave it at that.

This is a contrivance! You're cherrypicking to assemble a mosaic worldview that fits all of your facts. There is no Biblical support for anything remotely like this. You can't just invent new dogma.

Again, Genesis 1 supports it. And I'm not inventing new dogma, since Theistic Evolution isn't dogmatized, and I didn't "invent" it anyways, Christian theologians decades ago did that. I fail to see any reason why we can't change our origins theology to be consistent with reality.

Why did you only respond to 2 of my statements, out of 6?

 

[JusSumguy]

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

I understood. Works for me.

My NIV says "Dust of the ground". Technically AV is correct. Genesis 2 doesn't say "Dirt".

Yeah, I don't think I'd challenge AV on point of scripture.

I've learned much from you AV. Thanx bro. I thought I was strong in the Lord, but you bring an unchallengeable faith in scripture. Which is really where all the answers are.

The point is that science requires critical analysis. Religion holds itself immune to such things. This makes science and religion fundamentally inconsistent approaches to discerning what is real and what is not. Theistic Evolution fails to reconcile this inconsistency.

Yep... Can't have one without the other.

I wouldn't. You either survive the crash or you don't, there's no reason to think there's any intervention.

Would I also have to thank Him if I died in a car crash? Or would it be my next-of-kin's responsibility to thank Him for that?

I thank him if I hit my thumb with a hammer. I thank God in all things.

BTW, that must be so.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Science now accepts "Souls" as part of physical reality?

Correct.

Gatz, C., Do Space Aliens Have Souls? Inquiring Minds Can Check Jesuit's Book, Catholic News Service, Nov 2005

 

[sandwiches]

Even as an atheist, I can't agree with desimusxvii on his idea that you can't rationally believe in theistic evolution. Now, desimus, if you mean that you can't take the Bible literally and believe in evolution at the same time, I would agree with you, but there is no reason to believe a deity who created this universe DOESN'T exist. Of course, there is no reason to believe one DOES exist, either - and that's why I'm an atheist - but I don't see any issue other than, as you pointed out, the fact that you add an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity.

 

[sfs]

Even as an atheist, I can't agree with desimusxvii on his idea that you can't rationally believe in theistic evolution. Now, desimus, if you mean that you can't take the Bible literally and believe in evolution at the same time, I would agree with you, but there is no reason to believe a deity who created this universe DOESN'T exist. Of course, there is no reason to believe one DOES exist, either - and that's why I'm an atheist - but I don't see any issue other than, as you pointed out, the fact that you add an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity.

It's not even clear to me that it does add an extra layer of complexity. Which is more complex, a self-existent, uncaused space-time filled with uncaused mass-energy obeying self-existent, uncaused physical laws, or a self-existent, uncaused creative agent? I haven't a clue how to evaluate that comparison, and I'm not even sure it means anything. This isn't an argument for the existence of God. It's just a reminder that at bottom science has no explanation for the universe either; fundamentally, we have no idea why any of it is here or behaves the way it does.

 

[sfs]

How refreshing to hear you guys stop calling it "magic" --- at least in this thread.

Now if he can just get you guys to stop saying, "poof".

What are you talking about? I've never used either "magic" or "poof".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It's not even clear to me that it does add an extra layer of complexity. Which is more complex, a self-existent, uncaused space-time filled with uncaused mass-energy obeying self-existent, uncaused physical laws, or a self-existent, uncaused creative agent?

You are making a grave mistake here. The universe (or whatever) doesn't cease to be just because you posit a God (or something). It is not that you would have on one hand "universe" and on the other hand "God." It is rather that you would have on one hand the "universe" whilst on the other hand you would have "universe + God".

And it is easy to see which one of these is more complex. And no matter what exactly you take "God" to be, no matter how simple, it would definitely add to the complexity of the sum total (if it is taken to be something at all).

 

[sandwiches]

It's not even clear to me that it does add an extra layer of complexity. Which is more complex, a self-existent, uncaused space-time filled with uncaused mass-energy obeying self-existent, uncaused physical laws, or a self-existent, uncaused creative agent? I haven't a clue how to evaluate that comparison, and I'm not even sure it means anything.

This is what you're comparing, using your own words and edited a little:

"A space-time filled with mass-energy obeying physical laws."

versus

"A space-time filled with mass-energy obeying physical laws."
PLUS
"a self-existent, uncaused creative agent"

You tell me which claim is more complex.

This isn't an argument for the existence of God. It's just a reminder that at bottom science has no explanation for the universe either; fundamentally, we have no idea why any of it is here or behaves the way it does.

No reasonable person needs a reminder that our knowledge, senses, and sources are finite. And within our finite knowledge, it's pointless to add an extra layer of 'goddidit' when explaining ANYTHING. If you want to, be my guest. However, I just don't see what's gained from such act.

 

[USincognito]

This is exactly my point! How can one reconcile being a scientist AND being religious. It's a wife-beating cop. There is no integrity in that. Either you hold the pursuit of knowledge to a certain standard or you believe in magic. Doing both is confusing and not constructive.

Thinks of some of the TE participants here and Newbies can be so cute when they're petulant.

Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.

Awesome! You've slain the religious dragon. No go back to RDFwhere this crap is more appropriate. This subforum is for the Crevo debate and the non-believers, TE's, PC's, etc. get along fine in confronting Creationism. Find another place if you want to get into apologetics.

Umm, you might want to read up on Theistic Evolution. {snip}

You'd best not make assumptions. Who knows how my strategy will unfold.

Bahahahahah! You don't have any idea who you were dealing with in this post. Good thing I had my irony meter turned off.

I personally know religious people that are superb scientists.. at work. But when they get home they shed that persona and believe in magic. As I've said before, to me, this is like a policeman that enforces the law all day and then goes home and beats his wife. It's lacking in integrity. I'd be fine with religion if they'd let go of trying to explain how the world works, and stop trying to undermine science.

Please! Stop. You're killing me.

LOL.

Right. And there is no such thing as life.

Agony, you might want to learn what a non sequitor fallacy is.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

there is 0 evidence of extra-terrestrials.

That's absurd.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-06/it-raining-aliens

Is It Raining Aliens?

CNN.com - Mysterious red cells might be aliens - Jun 2, 2006

Mysterious red cells might be aliens

Red rain could prove that aliens have landed | Science | The Observer

Red rain could prove that aliens have landed

"Personally, I'm absolutely convinced that extraterrestrial creatures have stopped on our planet because of the many traces they left behind." -- Viatscheslav Zaitsev, philologist, 1968

"Anyone who thinks that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of UFOs, has simply not studied the evidence." -- David E. Twichell, author, 2001

 

[Bushido216]

"Aliens are an absurdity."

-Brian H. West, B.A..

I win.

 

[laconicstudent]

That's absurd.

Is It Raining Aliens? | Popular Science



CNN.com - Mysterious red cells might be aliens - Jun 2, 2006



Red rain could prove that aliens have landed | Science | The Observer



"Personally, I'm absolutely convinced that extraterrestrial creatures have stopped on our planet because of the many traces they left behind." -- Viatscheslav Zaitsev, philologist, 1968

"Anyone who thinks that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of UFOs, has simply not studied the evidence." -- David E. Twichell, author, 2001

Peer-reviewed research citation proving this speculation or please just stop insisting that aliens exist.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Peer-reviewed research citation proving this speculation or please just stop insisting that aliens exist.

I don't need peer-review because I have physical evidence.

"It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

Peer-review this:

"The case in point is the origin of the human race. By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's, Occam's Razor argues that the single hypothesis of earlier alien contact with extraterrestrials to explain the wonders of the ancient world and the remarkable agreement among ancient texts in speaking of visitation by "the gods" should be prefered to the multitude of separate and ad hoc explanations others have offered. If mainstream science were not so preoccupied with avoiding extraordinary hypotheses, it would surely be agreed by most parties that the evidence, severely lacking though it is, mildly favors the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis over most others. However, it cannot be argued that the evidence is anything approaching compelling, especially since it is all indirect (i.e., no definite extraterrestrial artifacts have been found). And since the hypothesis is certainly extraordinary, science prefers to reject it until and unless some extraordinary proof comes along. But what if the hypothesis were true, but most of the evidence has been destroyed?" -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

"... in a universe in which life is also possible at many levels in an infinite range of scale too, life elsewhere becomes a certainty. It is therefore of interest to speculate about why we are not in obvious communication with extraterrestrials, rather than about whether or not such beings exist." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

"To me the most exciting speculation is the idea that extraterrestrials have indeed visited this planet in the past, which is what deductive logic would dictate." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1995

 

[USincognito]

...By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's...

Von Daniken? Sitchin?

Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

Dr. from Flanders was a crank

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Have you ever heard of the Drake Equation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKHuyhhyuM