Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[PsychoSarah]

You asked for proof, I gave you proof.

Dawkins is 1, rather opinionated and one sided person. He is not the king of the atheists, I actually don't particularly like his positions.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not claiming that Dawkins is representative of all atheism. The request was made concerning atheism producing a philosophy of life. The quotes are an example of atheism producing Dawkins' philosophy of life.

In other words, it proves nothing, just as I thought.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dawkins having that sort of world view is not provably a result of evolution. You do realize that philosophical views can have multiple sources, right? And that also that Dawkins is rather weak in the philosophy department.

 

[justlookinla]

Dawkins is 1, rather opinionated and one sided person. He is not the king of the atheists, I actually don't particularly like his positions.

I think we're all opinionated, that's not necessarily a bad thing. As there are mean spirited Christians, there are mean spirited atheists. As there are kind and loving Christians, there are kind and loving atheists.

My point was that our theistic outlook helps shape our philosophy of life.

 

[justlookinla]

Dawkins having that sort of world view is not provably a result of evolution. You do realize that philosophical views can have multiple sources, right?

Sure, I realize that.

 

[justlookinla]

In other words, it proves nothing, just as I thought.

It proves one's philosophy of life is shaped, in part, by one's theistic view.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think we're all opinionated, that's not necessarily a bad thing. As there are mean spirited Christians, there are mean spirited atheists. As there are kind and loving Christians, there are kind and loving atheists.

My point was that our theistic outlook helps shape our philosophy of life.

And my point is that, since not all atheists have a similar or even close to philosophical view point as Dawkins, that clearly his way of thinking is not a result of atheism or evolution itself.

 

[justlookinla]

And my point is that, since not all atheists have a similar or even close to philosophical view point as Dawkins, that clearly his way of thinking is not a result of atheism or evolution itself.

I have to disagree somewhat. For example, if Dawkins was a theist, he would probably have somewhat differing views. If I were an atheist, I'd have a differing philosophical view.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have to disagree somewhat. For example, if Dawkins was a theist, he would probably have somewhat differing views. If I were an atheist, I'd have a differing philosophical view.

Maybe, maybe not, there is no way of knowing that for sure.

 

[bhsmte]

You asked for proof, I gave you proof.

Proof of what?

 

[bhsmte]

It proves one's philosophy of life is shaped, in part, by one's theistic view.

Not quite, but you can believe that if you need to.

 

[theophilus777]

2. Show how evolution in particular is uniquely naturalistic compared to any other scientific theory, because you have to show why it is especially bad if you are trying to discredit it for this reason, and ignoring all other scientific theories.

Not a bad point, but surely you know the answer?

3. It doesn't demand anything, the bible is far more demanding than any scientific theory. No scientific theory suggests bad things will happen to those who don't agree with it, no scientific theory demands people to accept it. Perhaps some proponents of it might be that way (most aren't) but they theory itself is not.

Have you read these forums? The judgmentalism here is pretty extreme by your comrades

 

[bhsmte]

And yet Mr FSM has gotten his panties in such a grundle that he has confused this issue. It reminds one of Bugs Bunny outsmarting Duffy Duck by getting Daffy to tell Elmer it's Duck season.

But nope, no religion involved here. Certainly not any fundamentalism, nor insisting upon strict adherence of orthodox doctrine

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.[2] While the word was originally used to refer to this specific movement within Protestantism, it has come to be applied to a broad tendency among certain groups mainly, although not exclusively, in religion in general. This tendency is most often characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining in-group and out-group distinctions, which can lead to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which it is believed that members have begun to stray. A rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.[3]

 

[bhsmte]

I think we're all opinionated, that's not necessarily a bad thing. As there are mean spirited Christians, there are mean spirited atheists. As there are kind and loving Christians, there are kind and loving atheists.

My point was that our theistic outlook helps shape our philosophy of life.

Does you theistic outlook allow you to think it is moral for a murderer to have eternal life if finds Jesus in prison and the highly moral Hindu or non believer is doomed?

 

[theophilus777]

And I am strait up telling you that you are WRONG, not one bit of what you have said in regards to evolution is true.

Don't follow Mr FSM's footsteps, now. Read what he said rather than just assuming. There's only 1 error in it, that ToE dictates life started with 1 organism. That goes beyond, but the rest is correct.

 

[theophilus777]

Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Elmer, do you watch them often?

No need to with this cast of characters here

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not a bad point, but surely you know the answer?



Have you read these forums? The judgmentalism here is pretty extreme by your comrades

The answer is the only reason evolution is targeted is because it doesn't match up with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Gravity not so much an issue.

So what if people are judgmental, the theory itself is not. And neither am I, I am fine with people not agreeing with it, so long as they don't get all agitated that I disagree, and try to present the theory in an inaccurate way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't follow Mr FSM's footsteps, now. Read what he said rather than just assuming. There's only 1 error in it, that ToE dictates life started with 1 organism. That goes beyond, but the rest is correct.

It does not assume gods don't exist, that is not true at all. Gosh, most evolution supporters are religious.

 

[theophilus777]

And my point is that, since not all atheists have a similar or even close to philosophical view point as Dawkins, that clearly his way of thinking is not a result of atheism or evolution itself.

This is a weak position.

 

[theophilus777]

Maybe, maybe not, there is no way of knowing that for sure.

So you're an agnostic now?