|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: Every time you say something like, "Just the fact that we have curiosity about X seems to indicate that God exists.", or "It just makes more sense, if X is a certain way, that God exists.", it certainly appears as though you are attempting to argume that your view represents an attempt to provide evidence for God's existence. How else are we meant to take such a statement, other than that you are stating your reasons, which you think are good and sound arguments, for thinking God exists? It is a bit precious for you to make such statements repeatedly, but then say that you aren't trying to present "a case". Presenting circumstances about the way the world is or was can in my view give evidence that may or may not suggest that God exists. I have never claimed that it represented a proof of my beliefs.
nator writes: Why does it make more sense than anything else? If there is no Divine intervention then it means that this little group of nomads that are forever being dominated by and enslaved by their powerful pagan neighbours on thir own came to an entirely different view of the world than did these neighbours. It also meant additional hardship in many cases and in many cases meant death for many of them.
nator writes: Which is more sensical?: 1) That many people have observed suffering and wish to alleviate it in their fellow humans, simply because we are capable of empathy, which is a product of our brains and evolved just like all other brain functions, or 2) Your particular conception of god exists, and magicked into those people the thought that we should be kind to each other. Seriously, which one passes the rationality test? I agree that it only makes sense if you agree that divine inspiration is possible. If you do believe that it is, then I suggest 2 makes more sense, if you don't then the obvious answer is 1. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Taz writes: I could have sworn you're an IDist. It seems that people keep co-opting terms. Yos I believe in ID but I don't believe that it is scientific. They only way I believe that ID should be taught in a science or biology class is in conjunction with the statement that the TofE is agnostic, in that it is neither theistic or atheistic. This holds true for all science. Any time you go beyond that statement you are outside the realm of science IMHO. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Taz writes:
That's the trouble with these terms. You used the term creationism. Unless you know the hidden meaning you would assume that it just means that one believes that the world is created. The term should have nothing to do with a 6000 year old Earth. If you define it as YEC then it at least makes sense. Now you know the true origin of ID. It started out as creationism. With the literal meaning of the words I believe in both ID and creationism but I have no problem with evolution or any other form of science on religious grounds. The Bible is not a science text. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Taz writes: Again, let's be honest with yourself. How many everday creationists do you know of that do not have at least a dozen misconceptions about science in general and do not take the bible as a science text book? Just to be sure that we are talking the same language here; when is use the term creationist I am only meaning it in the pure sense of the word. I have been involved in 3 churches, in 3 very different areas since I became a Christian. To be honest the subject doesn't come up a lot. A lot of the confusion comes from the fact that I accept the creation story as being truthful, I just don't accept that it was ever intended to be read literally. Essentially it tells us that we were created, live in a created universe and have been given the knowledge of good and evil and with that knowledge have turned the wrong way. Having said that I do believe that there is defined metaphor throughout the story, so if I were to be giving a talk on Genesis I would refer in a literal sense to the creation story. For example I might say; "so the snake said to Adam.......", knowing full well that the Moses meant the snake to be a metaphorical snake. Possibly this leads people to get the wrong impression about people's views in the Bible. Now to answer your question. First off, all non-scientists have misconceptions of science, so I'm sure that's true of many Christians as well. The question is, do these misconceptions come from their Christian faith. For the vast majority of Christians I have spoken to, which is a fairly large number, they do not read the creation story literally and see no contradiction between science and Christianity. That includes all of the pastors that I have spoken to about it as well as others. Arguably the greatest Christian apologist in the last century was CS Lewis and I've already given you a quote from him on the subject. In my view the greatest Christian scholar today is NT Wright who believes that reading the Bible in that light devalues it. Wright is not a liberal theologian. He is very much in debate with The Jesus Seminar. One other factor in all this is evolution itself. There are many Christians and secularists who have no understanding of biology or genetics that have trouble believing that we evolved from single celled animals, and again,this has nothing to do with religion. I fall into the category that doesn't understand, but I have faith that those that do understand know what they are talking about even if it does seem pretty far fetched. Because of this I believe that many who are Christians just go along with the YEC view because either position takes a stretch of the imagination and they just sorta go along without putting a lot of thought to it. (I realize that there are many who have thoughtfully come to this position as well.) The simple answer to all of this is that the great majority of Christians whose views I know do not believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Edited by GDR, : correct link Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
bluescat48 writes: Most of my Christian Friends hold the same views on the earth's age but they vary on evolution vs ID, about 50 50 Wouldn't you say though that this may stem from an misunderstanding of what ID is?. The ID "Movement" claims that ID is science and that the science disproves evolution. I think most people just see ID as saying that there is an intelligent designer. If given the choice between evolution and an Intelligent Designer with no middle ground I would probably opt for ID myself, but fortunately it isn't necessary to make that decision. I, and I believe most Christians, would say that if the Intelligent Designer, or even specifically the Christian God chose to create modern life through the evolutionary process then that wouldn't present any problems theologically. The problem is that we have this strawman set up as even epitomized by this forum of "Evolution vs Creationism". I think it would be more appropriate to call it "Evolution and/or Creationism". Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
GDR writes: I think most people just see ID as saying that there is an intelligent designer.Ringo writes: But nobody cares about those people. Fine, but for most who hear the term Intelligent Design that is what they would automatically think. That is where there is deception in the movement. The term sounds innocuous.Prior to finding this forum I assumed that's all it meant. (There was the odd person here who was more than happy to straighten me out. ) However when they try to sell ID as an alternative to evolution it then is making a scientific statement which is something else altogether. So I go back to my original statement. I think that most people, (this forum not being representative of most people), would say that they agree with ID in the pure sense of the term and not understand that there was an underlying agenda. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Ringo writes: And I'll go back to my original dtatement: It doesn't matter what you think. When you're on this forum, you should use terminology as it's used on this forum. If you use the "pure sense of the term" instead of the accepted sense, you're just contributing to the confusion. I don't dsiagree with that, but my point is when we talk about the general population believing things then we have to realize that the general population might have a different idea of what the terms mean which makes statistics meanigless. If I were to say that X% of people accept the premise of ID, it matters a great deal of what people think ID means. My view is that most people don't understand ID the way people on this forum do. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: Why on earth would you do that? I am Theistic. Simply put it makes far more sense to me than Atheism. If evolution meant embracing Atheism then I would have to reject it. Fortunately that isn't the case. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
nator writes: Then that would make you willfully ignorant. That would mean you would reject reality in favor of religious belief. That would mean that your thought processes and reasoning, in that scenario, are no better than Hovind, or LindaLou. I guess, when it comes right down to it, you would rather deny reality than give up your susperstition. Wow. All I can say is, wow. And we wonder how people could think that flying planes into buildings would get them a ticket to heaven. Right. Flying airplanes into buildings eh. If evolution meant accepting Atheism then it would no longer be scientific. Science is agnostic. Period. Dawkins says that "evolution leads to Atheism". You may call it willfull ignorance if you like but when Dawkins trys to make science atheistic he is no longer talking science and I have no problem rejecting his distortion of evolution for Theism. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
crashfrog writes: Only if you think it's self-evident that God is beyond gross scientific analysis. I don't see any reason to believe that's true. I don't think the believers even really believe it. They certainly champion the results of any scientific study that seems to indicate God's existence, or the power of prayer, or whathaveyou; Can you explain to me how you think a study on prayer can be done scientifically? They are utter nonsense. Scientific results can be used to indicate either position. For example, Dawkins thinks evolution leads to Atheism whereas Collins calls it "The Language of God".
crashfrog writes: it's only in the face of all the disconfirming evidence that God suddenly, somehow, becomes beyond all reach of rational inquiry. What disconfirming evidence? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
crashfrog writes: Either one group will recover statistically significantly faster than the other, or they won't. Do you really think that prayer done as part of a test like that really counts as prayer. Let's all get together and manipulate God. Prayer is not about trying to beg God into doing our will, although I suppose that is the common perception.
crashfrog writes: One of them has better arguments than the other. We agree there. Collins is very convincing isn't he?
crashfrog writes: For instance, all the stuff that goes on that's inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent, powerful, interested deity. All the stuff that fails to happen. If this is a universe created by God to house the only living creatures he's really interested in, why is that universe so resolutely hostile to us, to life in general? If this world is such a terrible place then why isn't everyone committing suicide? It seems to me that the good far outweighs the bad. Also as a Christian I believe in the recreation of this world at the time of new creation. This isn't all there is. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
NJ writes: While I would agree that one can be, such as yourself, a theistic evolutionist, Dawkins is at least right that the underlying implication concerning evolution is atheism. Have you read Francis Collin's book, "The Language of God"? I disagree with the last part of your sentence completely. Evolution is just a widely supported theory of the history of physical life today. It does not have anything to say, in spite of what Dawkins and others would have us believe, about the underlying cause of the history itself. Even if they can show how the first cell came to be it still will not demonstrate why it occured. Evolution does not imply anything either philosophically or theologically.
NJ writes: Think about it. If there is no need for God to accomplish evolution, then why not take a step further to say that there is God?, Dawkins might argue. Dawkins, though, is not unique in this aspect. Darwin himself in some of his letters expressed similar beliefs. But Dawkins is different in that he has an unmistakable agenda that is less than virtuous. Dawkins despises the notion of God. (I assume you meant "that there is no God".) Who says that there is no need for God to accomplish evolution? Dawkins? Do you really think that if science had found that humans were instantly created 6000 years ago that some of them like Dawkins wouldn't have come up with a naturalist answer to it?
NJ writes: As much as he complains about the dangers of faith infiltrating science he is, hypocritcally, one of its worst offenders, as his version of science is precariously intertwined with a deep philosophy of science. Dawkins is very much a philosopher; more so than he is a scientist. His primary interest is in philosophy, despite what he says. We have quite a few of them here at EvC who would argue that their place is with science, when really their deepest interest is in bolstering a philosophy of science. I agree completely with this. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
