"Science Stole My Religion"

[Escéptico]

All I'm saying is that the facts don't support either position.

So the fact that the type of design in living things is exactly what we'd expect to see from a process with no purpose or foresight doesn't support the position that evolution is a process with no purpose or foresight?

Exacly what facts would support either position, then?

 

[Storm]

So the fact that the type of design in living things is exactly what we'd expect to see from a process with no purpose or foresight doesn't support the position that evolution is a process with no purpose or foresight?

Exacly what facts would support either position, then?

How would the process look different if there was purpose and foresight?

A rquest for clarification: Do you wish me to discuss my own views, or continue to try and be generic? Because we're approaching the limts of my ability to do the latter.

 

[Escéptico]

A rquest for clarification: Do you wish me to discuss my own views, or continue to try and be generic? Because we're approaching the limts of my ability to do the latter.

You responded to one of my posts, remember? I never placed any demands on you in the first place. If you'd like to deliver your own take on the issue, feel free to do so. If you're not getting anything out of this dialogue, don't bother continuing it.

 

[Storm]

You responded to one of my posts, remember? I never placed any demands on you in the first place. If you'd like to deliver your own take on the issue, feel free to do so. If you're not getting anything out of this dialogue, don't bother continuing it.

No, you didn't. But the questions haven't been limited to my views, and as I said, I'm starting to have trouble staying generic. Since you don't mind, I'll switch to my own views. BTW, I was making an effort to be polite. It's too bad you couldn't return the favor.

Now, in my own view, there is purpose, but no foresight, so your last question is rather irrelevant. Do you have another, or would you like to end the conversation?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

People are easy to impress. Given a new cover and bold print with illustrations, the same message will rally the troops and, probably, convert others who are either disillusioned or bored with the familiar. Beneath the shiny veneer, though, it's the same superficiality, sentiment, evasiveness, misinformation, ignoring of information and the same refusal to follow ideas to their logical conclusion.

Popular books on atheism, Escéptico and the recent PBS program by atheists and about atheism are good examples. When challenged, rather than addressing the challenge, the challenger is dismissed as "delusional" or "just because" is the sufficient explanation of things like the ordered universe and the emergence of consciousness; the old "God in the gaps" is pulled out of the hat as though it explains people's belief in something they can neither fathom or deny.

Does science steal people's religion? Religion is the pursuit of values. Its first stirrings are likely to have been in response to self-preservation and fear, values not much higher than beasts. But it evolved. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were thought by some to be entirely different Gods so dramatic the difference. The pursuit of values shifted from "thou shalt not," an entirely negative message, to "thou shalt," a message of positive goodness in pursuit of a Supreme Ideal called "God."

Atheism denies God, secularism ignores God or seeks to take God's place as the Supreme Ideal. For them, the pursuit of values is groundless sentiment that must resort to politics and power in order to advance their values (or the lack thereof). If science steals a person’s religion, it wasn’t religion it stole, but a body of ideas.

 

[.lava]

Did science steal your religion? If so, how did it manage to do that? If not, why not?

on the contrary.
God created everything and there is nothing created that does not contain science in it.

 

[crystalonyx]

on the contrary.
God created everything and there is nothing created that does not contain science in it.

What created your god?

 

[.lava]

What created your god?

God is not mine, i am God's.
God is not created.

 

[crystalonyx]

God is not mine, i am God's.
God is not created.

It's just as easy to say that matter and energy have existed forever, which most current multiverse models now predict. So no creator god is needed. Since the universe is chaotic, a personal god is of necessity ruled out, so poof, no god exists.

 

[heavyarms553]

Storm, to be perfectly fair you are being an Artful Dodger in this conversation.

Artful Dodger