• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
ratiocinator said:
What exactly is the faith in God? There are countless different religions, cults, sects, and denominations that believe in all sorts of different god(s).



Your evidence for this is......... missing.
Click to expand...
Faith is generic, it s a gift and vital to ALL evolutionary as well as revealed religions. Faith is the only requirement for salvation. Others make different claims about specific doctrine, not me. .
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
cOLTER said:
Is Richard Dawkins a Scientist and an Atheist?
Click to expand...
Unless you are going to claim that Richard Dawkins is the vast majority of scientists, your question makes no sense.

The post you responded to does not make the claim that there are no atheist scientist.
It claims that the vast majority of scientists are not atheists.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
So when you undermine the faith of other theists are you revealing your "atheist agenda" or is it only atheists who are accused of "atheist agenda"?

Is your faith really so weak that truth and fact threaten so?
seems to me that would be a YOU problem.
So why blame atheists for your lacking faith?
Click to expand...

I don't undermine the faith in God of other theist.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Joe W said:
So, it would be irrational for me to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
Pol Pot drew that conclusion, and it was entirely logical to him. But "You" also have a monopoly on what's rational???

"Logic is the technique of philosophy, its method of expression. Within the domain of true science, reason is always amenable to genuine logic; within the domain of true religion, faith is always logical from the basis of an inner viewpoint, even though such faith may appear to be quite unfounded from the inlooking viewpoint of the scientific approach. From outward, looking within, the universe may appear to be material; from within, looking out, the same universe appears to be wholly spiritual. Reason grows out of material awareness, faith out of spiritual awareness, but through the mediation of a philosophy strengthened by revelation, logic may confirm both the inward and the outward view, thereby effecting the stabilization of both science and religion. Thus, through common contact with the logic of philosophy, may both science and religion become increasingly tolerant of each other, less and less skeptical.

What both developing science and religion need is more searching and fearless self-criticism, a greater awareness of incompleteness in evolutionary status. The teachers of both science and religion are often altogether too self-confident and dogmatic. Science and religion can only be self-critical of their facts. The moment departure is made from the stage of facts, reason abdicates or else rapidly degenerates into a consort of false logic." UB 1955
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
So you agree with all other theists, right?
Click to expand...
Faith in a First Source and Center is right, associated concepts frames can only be relatively right at any station in the universe, myself included.

I could tell another person of faith that I believe that God created life via the technique of evolution, they might say the Genesis narrative is the correct belief. We both have faith in God but differ on the origins of created life.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
cOLTER said:
Faith in a First Source and Center is right, associated concepts frames can only be relatively right at any station in the universe, myself included.

I could tell another person of faith that I believe that God created life via the technique of evolution, they might say the Genesis narrative is the correct belief. We both have faith in God but differ on the origins of created life.
Click to expand...
So you count the hits, ignore the misses, and pretend all is good?
 
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
cOLTER said:
Pol Pot drew that conclusion, and it was entirely logical to him. But "You" also have a monopoly on what's rational???
Click to expand...
Rational conclusions require both evidence and non-fallacious reasoning. You just admitted that you have no evidence. And that sentence alone employs at least two logical fallacies.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
cOLTER said:
Is Richard Dawkins a Scientist and an Atheist?
Click to expand...
Depends on how one defines "atheist".

I separate "atheist" and "agnostic", whereas the former I define as believing there are no deities and the latter as not knowing if there are any deities. However, some people apply "atheist" to both definitions. If one uses the latter definition, Dawkins is an "atheist"; but if one uses both definitions, Dawkins actually is an "agnostic" since he says there's a slim chance there could be a deity, iho.

But why Dawkins? He ain't the only "game" in town, ya know.

BTW, Darwin was actually a lay minister in the Anglican Church, although he became more agnostic later in life probably more due to Christian groups demonizing and making fun of him. Nowadays, he's in a crypt in Westminster Abbey, the "headquarters" of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church.
 
Colt

Colt

Well-Known Member
metis said:
Depends on how one defines "atheist".

I separate "atheist" and "agnostic", whereas the former I define as believing there are no deities and the latter as not knowing if there are any deities. However, some people apply "atheist" to both definitions. If one uses the latter definition, Dawkins is an "atheist"; but if one uses both definitions, Dawkins actually is an "agnostic" since he says there's a slim chance there could be a deity, iho.

But why Dawkins? He ain't the only "game" in town, ya know.

BTW, Darwin was actually a lay minister in the Anglican Church, although he became more agnostic later in life probably more due to Christian groups demonizing and making fun of him. Nowadays, he's in a crypt in Westminster Abbey, the "headquarters" of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church.
Click to expand...
Dawkins wrote a book "The God Delusion". "In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."
 
ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
cOLTER said:
Dawkins wrote a book "The God Delusion". "In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator, God, almost certainly does not exist, and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."
Click to expand...

metis said:
Yes, and I did read the book but was not impressed.
Click to expand...
I wasn't impressed by the book overall, but he did make some good points. That was one of them.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
cOLTER said:
Faith is generic, it s a gift and vital to ALL evolutionary as well as revealed religions. Faith is the only requirement for salvation. Others make different claims about specific doctrine, not me. .
Click to expand...

Evolutionary religion. What a ridiculous idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top