• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

Status
Not open for further replies.

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0
T

theophilus777

Guest

Oh look! He thinks he's proven something. Isn't that cute?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0
T

theophilus777

Guest
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.
 
Upvote 0
T

theophilus777

Guest

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)
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Upvote 0
T

theophilus777

Guest
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.

 
Upvote 0
T

theophilus777

Guest
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?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

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

That means you are talking about; justlookinlaism
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.