tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
For RedOne...
Atheism=/=Evolution
just as...
Theism=/=Creationism
Atheism=/=Evolution
just as...
Theism=/=Creationism
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
fantôme profane;1896412 said:When discussing/debating evolution I will happily concede the existence of God (for the sake of argument). If it really were about an atheistic worldview why would I do that?
Are you familiar with Ken Miller? Please check out the link in my signature. (Finding Darwins God by Kenneth R. Miller. For anyone interested in Creation/Evolution) He is a Roman Catholic who argues that the evidence of evolution is not only compatible with his belief in God but actually reinforces his faith. Again if evolution were about an atheistic worldview why would he argue this?
If it is about differing worldviews then it is about a worldview that accepts the empirical evidence and values an honest search for the truth, and on the other side a worldview that rejects evidence and values dogma. It is rationality versus irrationality.
There are Theists who accept evolution and there are Atheists who accept evolution. In fact there are many more Theists who accept evolution then there are Atheists. Saying that this is about Atheism makes absolutely no sense. There are Christians who accept evolution, Jews who accept evolution, Muslims who accept evolution, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists and so on.
I understand some people may want to promote creationism as a way to promote their own particular view of their own particular religion. And this may be what it is about for you, but it is not what it is about for me, and it is not what it is about for most people.
There's a reason why almost no one switches sides
And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there. I know many theists accept evolution, but I can't help but feel they cherry pick their way to their conclusion.
Well, seeing as cherry picking is what led to canonization of the various Biblical canons, I fail to see how cherry picking from the Bible to suit personal needs is inappropriate.
I'm a theist who accepts evolution. (Pantheist, to be exact.) It's perfectly compatible, as faith and religion are not found in Scriptures; those are just guidebooks in my opinion.
Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.
I should have been more clear, but I was talking about Christians when I said theists, and you could extend it to the Abrahamic faiths, I didn't mean it as an umbrella term for all theists.
Whether those "heresies" crept up over the years or there from the beginning is up for debate, and not the topic at hand.
However, you can't deny that there are several different canons for the Bible, not just the Protestant and Catholic ones.
(Besides, how is the Shepherd of Hermas heresy? I don't think it's a gnostic text.)
That's okay. (I still disagree, but since I'm not a follower of Abrahamic faiths...)
I'll concede as quantum mechanics is not something I'm comfortable debating. I'm fine talking about astronomy in general, just QM is something I've never looked up or had in school. From what I understand QM creating things out of nothing has to do with potential energy, and possibly dark energy. I see God as sustaining the innate, intrinsic properties of the QM field, so ultimately it all comes from God, not 'nothing'.
I do not claim victory, not every assertion equates to a 'claimed victory'. Do you just have one archetype of a creationist (From what I gather consists of someone making a claim, putting their hands over their ears and saying "lalalala, victory is mine".) then just project that one archetype onto every creationist you ever meet? Then insult their intelligence in a pompous, blatant manner? Implying brain damage or mental retardation? While I can't get this book right now, when I have time in hopefully a week or so I'll look into it.
Right, that's why people like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins advocate our universe coming from nothing and proclaim that the facts support them.
Come on now. I didn't start the topic on cosmology, I was responding to another post. While cosmology is irrelevant to the validity of biological theories (for the most part), it is part of the Evo vs. Creo debate, with evolution being at the center of attention. Usually evolutionists try to contain the debate only within the parameters of evolution, but the whole debate is so much more. That is why the fields of chemical evolution and cosmology come into play.
fantôme profane;1896207 said:Yes this has been my experience. Often the anti-evolution side will want to debate anything from abiogenesis and cosmology to morality and religion. And I think they do this for one of two reasons. Either they know nothing about Evolution and so cant intelligently discuss the topic, or they actually do know that the evidence in favour of evolution is absolutely overwhelming and therefore want to divert attention away from it.
I agree that when it comes to this debate about evolution the two sides are often debating completely different things. The evolution side is debating evolution, the anti-evolution side is debating ???? It is really frustrating to have a debate when both sides dont even agree with what the debate is. For my part I want to say that the evolution debate is not about religion, it is not about atheism, it is not about morality, it is not about abiogenesis, it is not about the origin of the universe. The evolution debate is about evolution.
What is the evolution debate about from your perspective?
If you truly believe the debate to be on evolution only then I think you are deceiving yourself. It is truly about two different world views. For many creationists it is about our world view versus yours. It is atheism vs. creationism, and evolution is the main field of play. That is why creationists not only involve evolution, but chemical evolution and cosmology along with religion, philosophy and morality. For us it is everything in one; when you support evolution your not just supporting evolution, you are attacking (unknowingly) creationism as a whole and people will fight back with everything they have.
Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.
And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there.
Ahh... I see you are the archetype after all. I won't touch on atheism/evolution vs. creationism since that's already been done. No need to rehash, yes?
But here's the flaw in your thinking. If the bible were really true then evidence would support such a thing. Children wouldn't need to be indoctrinated and brainwashed in to their faith, they would merely be given a slide rule, a microscope and some litmus paper and told to go find the truth.
Lemme ask you something. Do you question, say, the theory of relativity with the same fervor that you question and argue against the theory of evolution? Or do you question newtonian physics? Do you question the laws of thermodynamics? Do you question whether fire will burn you or not? Gravity? The strong and weak nuclear forces? Chemistry? Geometry?
No. You don't. (I'm actually guessing you're a fan of Newtonian physics since you mentioned a knowledge of astronomy and we owe a lot to Newton in that arena.) You should ask yourself why and think very hard about the answer. Because when you question, argue and deliberately disbelieve in evolution, without thinking about it you are also questioning, arguing and deliberately disbelieving in every scientific bit of knowledge we've obtained over the last 500 years, from astrophysics to navel lint.
But Shake, you may be saying, that doesn't make any sense! Of course Gravity is true, it's gravity!
But did you know that we know practically nothing about gravity? We've no clue about why gravity works. We know that it does and we can study it's effects, but as to the why of gravity? Not the slightest idea. Some theories, but even now it remains frustratingly elusive. We've learned more about evolution in the last 150 years than we've learned about gravity since Newton got smacked on the head with a wayward piece of fruit.
However, that's neither here nor there. Our knowledge about the nature of gravity is irrelevant, I'm just pontificating now. Forgive me, it's a failing of mine.
When you question, argue against and deliberately disbelieve in evolution what you're actually doing is arguing against the scientific method. And the scientific method is what makes your modern life work. Without it, we'd still be living in sod and timber houses, going to town on horse drawn carts and dying from a splinters in our big toes. What you're essentially doing is saying that the scientific method is true in every other place that doesn't contradict the bible, but in case of Evolution, it's complete bollocks.
Does that make sense to you? Is that the action of a rational and sane individual?
-S-
I don't understand it either. Could you explain it again, as to a small child? Thanks.
NO IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE !!!
Erh.. Sorry, got so excited reading your post... Very good, hope he actually reads it.
I have been to Busan but never Pohang, which one is the better?
I'm not familiar with the Shepherd of Hermas. In either case, perhaps heresy is too strong a word to apply it across the spectrum of rejected canon. An example is the Catholic Bible, it has books in it that the Protestants don't. Yet I wouldn't call those extra books flat out heresy, rather they are just not necessary for Christian doctrine.
I understand that and that is why I am perfectly willing to concede the existence of God for the purpose of these kind of debates. Also you should understand that I have no intention of trying to convince anyone that the theory of evolution is true. What I try to convince people is that the theory of evolution is overwhelming supported by mountains of scientific evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines. Then the choice is yours. You can either accept the conclusion of science or reject the conclusions of science. If you choose to maintain an irrational dogmatic position in spite of overwhelming evidence then there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to change that. All I can do is point out to you that you have chosen to maintain an irrational dogmatic position in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence.I'm not saying that is my view of the debate, but the main creationist view of it. I think many naive evolutionists see this as a purely scientific debate, it isn't, at least on the creationist side. And until evolutionists see that you will not get very far with the average creationist. There's a reason why almost no one switches sides.
Yeah, I think I have heard of that guy . I dont claim that all atheists are rational.And there are some atheists who accept intelligent design, they're rare but out there. I know many theists accept evolution, but I can't help but feel they cherry pick their way to their conclusion.
Absolutely, and I want to tell you that when I encounter an Atheist who misuses science to support what is a metaphysical non-scientific position I am the first to jump down their throats. I think it is absolutely tragic when people are told that they must reject science in order to have faith in God. I dont want to see anyone think they must deny themselves the wonder of science, regardless of their religion.I know a few atheists who want to de-convert people via the debate, so it is not completely unheard of. I'm not here to solely promote my religion (it is more of something in the background), but to provide support for other creationists, but they seem to be in very low numbers here.
If you truly believe the debate to be on evolution only then I think you are deceiving yourself. It is truly about two different world views. For many creationists it is about our world view versus yours. It is atheism vs. creationism, and evolution is the main field of play. That is why creationists not only involve evolution, but chemical evolution and cosmology along with religion, philosophy and morality. For us it is everything in one; when you support evolution your not just supporting evolution, you are attacking (unknowingly) creationism as a whole and people will fight back with everything they have.
Christianity was largely uniform in the first two centuries. What was rejected as canon were heresies that crept up over the years.
I should have been more clear, but I was talking about Christians when I said theists, and you could extend it to the Abrahamic faiths, I didn't mean it as an umbrella term for all theists.
You're still wrong. Both the Pope (Catholicism) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglicanism) have publicly stated they believe in the value of science and do not believe American creationists (that's you) should attempt to undermine science education in schools with Bible stories. Your sect is a TINY, insignificant minority in the big picture of Christianity. The rest of Christianity is telling you to go to the library and stop talking just to hear yourself talk.