Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[PsychoSarah]

This is a weak position.

Dawkins is a weak philosopher, and I dislike the association with his views I constantly get. Seriously, I didn't even know his name until I was on this site, and I have been an atheist ever since I can recall thinking about having a position on the existence of gods.

 

[bhsmte]

No need to with this cast of characters here

Speaking of cast of characters........................

 

[theophilus777]

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]

Oh look! He thinks he's proven something. Isn't that cute?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you're an agnostic now?

Agnostic atheist, to be exact.

 

[theophilus777]

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?

What makes you think eternal life is determined by morality? (Or that it should be?)

 

[bhsmte]

Oh look! He thinks he's proven something. Isn't that cute?

It appeared you needed a bit of education, so I thought I would help.

You can thank me later.

 

[Davian]

True. Also true is that in the vacuum left behind (see: power vacuum) with no belief in God, as compared to Christianity, certain things will of necessity change. Words used to describe this might include philosophy, world view, or a host of others.

The same vacuum left behind by the lack of belief in extraterrestrial visitors, unicorns, Bermuda triangles, Santa Claus, and monsters under the bed? Are these the things that shape your philosophy on life? When you stand on a hillside, looking out over the land, do all of the thousands of supreme beings, spirits, and demons that you do not believe in go through your head?

If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

Fortunately no one here is attempting to assert that atheism results in having no morals; I think we all tired of that one.

The "Darwinian strawman" that justlookinla is dragging through these forums has the earmarks of an appeal to consequences argument, if anyone would engage him on it.

 

[bhsmte]

What makes you think eternal life is determined by morality? (Or that it should be?)

If you answer the question, you can reveal your thoughts, which is the whole purpose of asking a question, to get an answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What makes you think eternal life is determined by morality? (Or that it should be?)

-_- so how benign or evil a person is shouldn't make a difference if there is a good and bad afterlife?

 

[theophilus777]

The answer is the only reason evolution is targeted is because it doesn't match up with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

That is misrepresenting things almost to the extent that justlooking has done. ToE is inherently atheistic. Many folks come here all bothered by "how can I accept Christianity now that I realize (some aspect of) ToE is true?"

When the fact is they do not even speak to the same aspects of life for there to be any conflict. But that is not so readily apparent to many people. Which is why skybringr made a decent point earlier, that there wold be a lot less blowback if some mention were made that you really don't have to be an anti-theist to learn ToE, and ToE does NOT teach there is no God.

I think the curriculum could withstand the 10 seconds it takes to say that, and that statement makes no preference of any one religion over another.

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.

But that is the issue here: what ToE says "itself" is irrelevant; the classroom setting is determined by the teacher. And by corollary, the conduct of its adherents here reflects ToE. (Not to mention the idea of morality being connected to atheism)

I do appreciate you generally being a non-judgmental type though. I also understand being agitated at things being mis-represented, esp when its done repetitively.

 

[theophilus777]

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

Go back and read justlooking's post in question, it does not contain that.

 

[theophilus777]

Dawkins is a weak philosopher, and I dislike the association with his views I constantly get. Seriously, I didn't even know his name until I was on this site, and I have been an atheist ever since I can recall thinking about having a position on the existence of gods.

Well I agree, Dawkins should stay within his field. Because outside of it he's pretty bad. But that doesn't mean somebody couldn't figure out what atheists have in common that differs from theists. (Not that I'm about to make that attempt)

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think it was pretty apparent that the theory of evolution doesn't teach there is no god in the fact that the majority of people, numerically speaking, who support it do believe in gods. How teachers present it is out of the theory's and my control, what exactly do you want done about it? You can't control people like that, really, you can't, but I guarantee most teachers make an effort not to present evolution in such a way as to suggest gods don't exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well I agree, Dawkins should stay within his field. Because outside of it he's pretty bad. But that doesn't mean somebody couldn't figure out what atheists have in common that differs from theists. (Not that I'm about to make that attempt)

Just please, if people are going to make generalizations about atheists, please, don't use Dawkins as the basis for it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Go back and read justlooking's post in question, it does not contain that.

He says it is inherently atheistic constantly, all the time. That evolution only allows for naturalistic life development, that it won't allow for anything else.

 

[theophilus777]

The same vacuum left behind by the lack of belief in extraterrestrial visitors, unicorns, Bermuda triangles, Santa Claus, and monsters under the bed?

No, because that is not a valid contrast.

The "Darwinian strawman" that justlookinla is dragging through these forums has the earmarks of an appeal to consequences argument, if anyone would engage him on it.

If you're suggesting that "appeal to consequences" is a formal logical fallacy and therefore wrong outright, and therefore no action has consequences,

you should remove that discussion to the philosophy section.

 

[theophilus777]

Just please, if people are going to make generalizations about atheists, please, don't use Dawkins as the basis for it.

I think this might make you the most sensible atheist I've ever seen!

 

[theophilus777]

He says it is inherently atheistic constantly, all the time. That evolution only allows for naturalistic life development, that it won't allow for anything else.

Now wait a minute, this is the same thing that Mr FSM got tripped up on by getting so emotional, just like a religious fundie would. Science, as a whole, DOES only allow for naturalistic processes. It in fact does NOT allow for anything else. Mr FSM has gone to great lengths establishing this. Are you wanting to contradict him on that point?

 

[justlookinla]

He says it is inherently atheistic constantly, all the time. That evolution only allows for naturalistic life development, that it won't allow for anything else.

Nope, I haven't said that. I don't mind folks disagreeing with my views, that's to be expected, but you're misquoting me.

Let me set the record straight once again.

Darwinist creationism, the view that humanity is the result completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form (or however many you wish to claim) is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint. Darwinist creationism will not allow for any other creationist viewpoint, all differing creationist viewpoints are disallowed.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope, I haven't said that. I don't mind folks disagreeing with my views, that's to be expected, but you're misquoting me.

Let me set the record straight once again.

Darwinist creationism, the view that humanity is the result completely, totally, only, solely by naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form (or however many you wish to claim) is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint. Darwinist creationism will not allow for any other creationist viewpoint, all differing creationist viewpoints are disallowed.

Darwin never said that and the TOE never said that, so............

That means you are talking about; justlookinlaism