|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism, a dangerous idea? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
(he must meet some pretty odd women, but anyway). That's one of the advantages of being a nihilist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Also, there is always this equating atheism with Darwinism. I think the great majority of theists either accept biological evolution theory (call it "Darwinism" if you wish) or are indifferent about it. Probably a significant portion of the theists view atheism as it's hard variety - "There is no God". And that atheists are hostile to religion. I don't think most atheists are the hard variety and are not hostile to religion, unless perhaps, because some of the religious are to them. I think that Jimmy Carter was probably the most religious of the recent Presidents. He was quite open about his faith. BUT he did not let his religious faith intrude upon his actions, even if some went against his religious beliefs. For example (as I understand it), per his religious faith, he was anti-abortion. But he felt that it wasn't proper to impose his religious beliefs on others, and thus he was not promoting anti-abortion legislation. He, however, did promote programs to try to minimize the needs for abortion. In a way, he was functionally a soft athiest as far as his government actions, in that he very much believed in the seperation of church and state.
Or something like that. Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I would guess that most atheists probably don't care all that much about evolution, either. Most of the atheists (and agnostics) that I have known seem to think that the intensity of my interest in the subject is another of my eccentricities. -
quote: Born again Baptist, I believe. "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Why does it seem like you try to turn everything into a nihilism topic.
STOP IT! In general, people, are you going to discuss the issue as presented in message 1, or are you going to use this topic to trade one-liners? If anyone really feels the need to reply to this message, go to the "General..." topic, link below, to do it. Adminnemooseus (heading towards the cranky mode) New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why does it seem like you try to turn everything into a nihilism topic. Ha, ha, ha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Minnemooseus writes
quote:I don't agree. My personal experience tells me that the majority of theists tend to be indifferent about it because they don't know anything about it but tend to lean away from it whenever the topic comes up. You have to admit that the surfaces of evolution have some kind of theistic repellent characteristic. More often than not, evolution theory is viewed more of an atheistic concept than a true scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I happened to bump into this web page. It seems pertinent to the topic under discussion here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
It all goes back to the Puritains.
Those were the first settlers, you know, and they were religious wackos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Really? I thought that it was an important voting block which had a very high voter turnout rate. Wouldn't that make it a large percentage of the voting population?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Asimov writes: They have said that one can't be a liberal and a good Christian at one and the same time so that if you don't vote right, you are going straight to hell whatever your religious beliefs are. Fortunately, at every election they will tell you what the right vote is so that you don't go to hell by accident. I love Asimov. He was one of the last American Renaissance intellectuals: has anyone published more books on more topics? His 3 Laws of Robotics were like a conversation with Hillel the Elder*; his Foundation Trilogy synthesized the major schools of historiography. Great Mark Twain/Will Rogers strain of plain spoken humor, too, as above. *
Asimov writes: 1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Hillel writes: If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? (Pirkei Avot 1:14) and
Hillel writes:
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary...(Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
schraf writes
quote:It was an important voting block because the few fundamentalists had their god-given loud mouths that demonized gay people, misrepresented science, and sometimes outright lied about political issues. They also had the will and resources to organize whole congregations to the voting booths via bus. Heck, they were even willing to FedEx people to the right voting locations if it meant making a victory for the ultra-right. quote:The large percentage of the voting population you are speaking of are people who don't know (pardon my french) a fucking shit about evolutionary science or the so-called gay agenda. You have to admit that even though we have a lot of liberals in the media, none are as vocal, insistent, and outright doomsayeth (if that's a word) as the fundamentalists. Even in this day and age, there are still congregations that teach about the "gay plague". Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless dedicates a whole chapter to the so-called gay plague and denies HIV's nondiscriminate nature when dealing with heteros versus homos. There is one thing that Fundamentalists have that our side doesn't: The will to sensationalize bullshit issues. Quite frankly, people nowadays worry more about gay marriage bringing down fire and brimstone than what is happening to the ozone layer or the average global temperature. Heck, they don't even give a second's thought on how many orphans are out there waiting to be adopted. Why do you think the right is pushing for legislations on banning gay people from adopting? How are the fundamentalists achieving all of this? They sensationalize bullshit issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi,NWR. From your link
Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others. ”Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5878 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
rgb, when you return, I would like for you to send me a private e-mail so we may discuss this gay issue. To do so here would way off topic!
My mail is open...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alan Fox Member (Idle past 2012 days) Posts: 32 From: France Joined: |
Asimov. My favourite science fiction writer of all time, and a professor of biochemistry. I came across his "Foundation Trilogy" while a biochemistry undergraduate. I have not read his "In the Beginning" which would appear to be relevant to this thread. Did anyone here read it, and did they find it a good analysis of the creo/evo debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alan Fox Member (Idle past 2012 days) Posts: 32 From: France Joined: |
Tom Flannery (who I had never heard of until spotting a link to this article) writes the sort of diatribe I had in mind when I posted about right wing fundamentalists equating liberals, atheists and Darwinists.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024