|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Open letter to all Atheists. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My point regarding "atheist/evolution" is that they're both inseparable. I know there are christian evolutionists out there ... Then you know that your point is wrong. If you can have evolution without atheism, then evolution and atheism are separable.
... but you'll probably not find an atheistic creationist any time soon. But you could in principle have an atheist who denied evolution. Of course, he'd have to be nuts, but then some people are, even atheists. Fred Hoyle was a fine example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
In what capacity? Did He create life and then just walk away? That doesn't make sense. A being capable of creating everything, must be more complex than His creation - otherwise He becomes obsolete.
In other words, if He is more complex than we are, it's illogical to conclude that He would create us and then fade away into obscurity. There can be only evolution, or a creator, but not both. An evolutionary god repudiates himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
faceman writes: In what capacity? Did He create life and then just walk away? That doesn't make sense. A being capable of creating everything, must be more complex than His creation - otherwise He becomes obsolete. In other words, if He is more complex than we are, it's illogical to conclude that He would create us and then fade away into obscurity. Only if you assume a creator consistent with the Christian deity, or some other similar entity. Perhaps the universe is a high school science experiment that was accidentally left running over summer vacation. Then the creator might have completely forgotten about it the first time he espied a pretty girl and we're simply waiting for the janitor to come along and toss us into the rubbish bin. While there's certainly no evidence to support such a hypothesis, there's nothing illogical about it either.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
The problem is everywhere with that argument, but we can start in Alpha Centauri. Obviously you must think that the laws of identity and non-contradiction do not apply out there, since humans have yet to arrive on the scene, is that right?
Shirley you don't think the laws of logic were constructed by humans do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In what capacity? Did He create life and then just walk away? Well, that would be a creator God, wouldn't it? In that he'd be a God who created stuff. I don't claim that that's what happened, of course, but that would be a creator God compatible with evolution.
That doesn't make sense. A being capable of creating everything, must be more complex than His creation - otherwise He becomes obsolete. In other words, if He is more complex than we are, it's illogical to conclude that He would create us and then fade away into obscurity. I'm not sure you've grasped this whole "logic" thing. And God can do what he wants, that's the great thing about being God. That and the excellent dental plan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined:
|
Then you know that your point is wrong. If you can have evolution without atheism, then evolution and atheism are separable. No, those people are just inconsistent, that's all. As Christians, they're in effect saying that God was either mistaken, or lying, when He said that He created everything in six days and all creatures were created after their kind.
But you could in principle have an atheist who denied evolution. True, if I live long enough, I suppose I might run into that. Again though, that would simply be another example of inconsistency with one's own worldview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
That's right, I'm not really here. I'm just stardust in your dreams.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As Christians, they're in effect saying that God was either mistaken, or lying, when He said that He created everything in six days and all creatures were created after their kind. If you ask any of them, they'll point out that they're saying no such thing. Besides which, theists are not limited to Christians.
Again though, that would simply be another example of inconsistency with one's own worldview. No. Hoyle's world-view was perfectly self-consistent, it was just crazier than a sack of badgers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
As Christians, they're in effect saying that God was either mistaken, or lying, when He said that He created everything in six days and all creatures were created after their kind. No, they're saying that the Genesis story is not accurate about how God (allegedly) created everything. You have the choice - Believe the superficial printed by man word, or believe what can be seen by actually looking at the creation. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
I'll let Richard Dawkins explain my point then. This is probably the only time I'd actually admit to agreeing with him btw.
Man vs. God Richard Dawkins writes: Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place. Now before you welcome me to the club and hand me my atheist coffee mug, I should point out that the only point I agree with Dawkins on is the one re: the incompatibility of evolution and theism. It's either one or the other and I think you know which one I'm leaning towards - the one with the better dental plan of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
No, they're saying that the Genesis story is not accurate about how God (allegedly) created everything. Maybe as an atheist you can say that, but not as a Christian. As a Christian, you have to acknowledge that the Bible (including Genesis) is the inerrant word of God. Thus a Christian cannot claim that the Genesis story is inaccurate. To do so would ultimately indict God himself as flawed (capable of making mistakes). Again - as an atheist you can say that, but a Christian cannot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well some of the oddities of your posts are explained if you thought that that was one argument, and that it was a good one.
It is two arguments. The second one: "But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain." is just the old "Who created God?" argument rehashed. I leave it up to you to decide how good it is, but in any case it has nothing to do with the first argument. The first argument is this: "Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip." Now this is a bad argument, because of course there are plenty of other things that God could do, from the creation of the Universe to the Incarnation to frying unbelievers in Hell, that "might attract our praise, our worship or our fear". --- Here, look at it this way. Suppose you die and go to Heaven. Suppose you see God sitting on his great white throne with Jesus at his right hand. Suppose he says "Well done thou good and faithful servant, by thy faith thou hast been saved". Suppose he then adds: "Oh, by the way, you were wrong about evolution. I appreciate your zeal and all, but, yeah, you'll have to rethink that." Would you at that point exclaim: "Oh, then the atheists were right all along --- there is no God!" --- In any case, to return to our original subject, if that is how you would react, that would just be your opinion. Science teachers teach about evolution and why it's true. If you want to additionally teach people that this means that there is no God, and if you borrow your arguments for this from Richard Dawkins, then it seems unfair that you should complain that they are teaching atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As a Christian, you have to acknowledge that the Bible (including Genesis) is the inerrant word of God. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Obviously you must think that the laws of identity and non-contradiction do not apply out there, since humans have yet to arrive on the scene, is that right? Logic applies to language statements, not to physical reality. If we describe something on Alpha Centauri, then we are using human language. So language would be as applicable there as it is with human language used elsewhere. If there are creatures living on Alpha Centauri (or a planet of Alpha Centauri), then it is an empirical question as to whether those creatures are using a language to which logic is applicable.
Shirley you don't think the laws of logic were constructed by humans do you?
Leave Shirley out of it. Logic works to the extent it does, because of the way that we have constructed the languages with which we use logic.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As a Christian, you have to acknowledge that the Bible (including Genesis) is the inerrant word of God.
The Adam and Eve story is a fable. If the Bible gives a reasonably correct rendering of that fable, it can be said to be inerrant. In any case, inerrancy is not a requirement for being Christian. It might be a requirement of some particular groups.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024