|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The war of atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Theistic evolutionists do not believe the Bible is Holy and thus deny the logical law of identity by contradicting what the Bible says God says. The Bible does not teach evolution (Gen.1:1) and is a Book of Creation. God is the Infinite spirit of life that c I'm sorry but that is simply nonsense. Christians who understand that Evolution is a FACT and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have found so far, also see the Bible as a Holy Book.
Here is a link to a Pastoral letter from the Rt. Rev. Sims, Bishop of Atlanta. and
the Clergy Project which over 10,000 US Christian Clergy have signed and endorsed supporting the Theory of Evolution and condemning Biblical Creationism. As said in the Clergy Project Letter:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. While I doubt that those Christians who believe the nonsense of a Young Earth and Biblical Creationism are damned, I am pretty sure that they will have to take Remedial Christianity and Science before being admitted to Heaven 101.
Theistic evolution just tries to combine the two; but in the compromising game, evolution always wins. Thank GOD! Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I find it highly two-faced for an atheist to assert and maintain that religious people are doctrinaire or subjective about their believes when in matter of fact atheists are just as passionate about defending their conclusions, and moreover one almost never encounters any constructive appraisal of God or of other faith issues by any atheist when visiting websites like EvC or talkorigins.org, or one will hardly find a critical review of atheism by any atheist. What you are sure to stumble upon is the slandering of religion and the veneration of atheism; if you call this behavior objective then this word has lost its meaning. from Message 302 I don't think it makes sense to give a criticial review of 'atheism' since atheism isn't a thing. However, I think this thread should serve as evidence of disagreement within the 'atheist camp' of the actions of each other. What is the appropriate response? Anti-theism, pure atheism, pragmatic theistic alliances? etc.
The simple fact that many atheist are in the business of actively crusading against any reflection of God even by children and being unattractively intolerant towards the idea of a god in their day to day lives while deifying atheism at the same time is proof that they are not objective at all but in fact are highly prejudiced. Some atheists are concerned with the taboo surrounding criticising religion and work to alleviate that taboo, with mixed successes. Some atheists don't care about what other people think about God. Some atheists think that we should be forging alliances with certain believers to fight the common enemy of fanatics, fundamentalists, and enemies of science. Maybe some of the arguments, in the words of some of the more famous proponents of some of the more easily defined groupings of thought within the 'atheist community' will help you re-evaluate your understanding of atheism. Unless, of course, you are simply 'highly prejudiced'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Modulous writes: I think that critical thought has helped me much more than if I had spent the past three years hanging out at a "Christian" Forum. BTW which type of atheist do you consider yourself to be?
Some atheists are concerned with the taboo surrounding criticizing religion and work to alleviate that taboo, with mixed successes. Some atheists don't care about what other people think about God. Some atheists think that we should be forging alliances with certain believers to fight the common enemy of fanatics, fundamentalists, and enemies of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
BTW which type of atheist do you consider yourself to be? I guess I'm a cross between the Dawkinsian and Tysonian, as I've simplified it in the OP. That is to say, we should criticize religious ideas with as much fervour as any other influential and unfounded social idea. However, we should also be conscious that if we want people to move from 'there' to 'here' in their beliefs - it might be wise to understand where 'there' is, and what 'here' looks like from 'there'...and use that knowledge with kindness to educate people about what 'here' is really like and why it shouldn't be as frightening as they might think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SammyJean Member (Idle past 4073 days) Posts: 87 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes: So there you go. How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared? I think the latter. If more focus were placed on science education and it was assured that every teenager graduating high school was at least science literate, religion would fade away on its own; a new age of the scientifically enlightened public. The people would start to realize on their own that there is as much, if not more, beauty, awe and reverence to be had in understanding nature and laws that govern the natural world then there is to be found in the Abrahamic religions. It might also helpful to have alternate religion such as pantheism (what Dawkin's called 'sexed up atheism') to replace the need to belong to a religious organization. Although, I do know that Dawkin’s would not agree with this last point. You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path thats clear, I will choose free will. - Neil Peart "Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein "I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."~ Gerry Spence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
quote: Yes, I think that is the best way. But I do not believe that I have to treat religious people with any more respect than they treat me as an atheist. In other words, I treat others as I am treated no matter what your beliefs, but if your disrespectful of my beliefs I will attack yours. Edited by Theodoric, : Additional thought Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
modulous writes: Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? We need not attack dogmatic beliefs, but neither can we tolerate them. There clearly exist a wide range of gradations of religious conviction, ranging from unembodied spirituality to fundamentalism, so our opposition should be scaled to the level of dogmatism. So yes, we need to cut theistic evolutionists some slack, because they represent an improvement over literal dogmatists. They provide a stepping stone between the extremes that might encourage some to (fearfully) cross over to the fully rational world. For this reason they are often more demonized by the dogmatists than are atheistic evolutionists. That said, I am definitely of Dawkins' camp and opposed to any form of appeasement for purposes of political gain. But we won't make progress in winning minds from the other side if we don't show some tolerance toward those who want to try and walk along the fence. Let them struggle with that balancing act on their own. At least they are not denying science - only clinging to residual superstitions. Those who cling to dogma and deny science cannot be reasoned with or convinced, so should probably be ignored. EZ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared? I have never liked or advocated the tactics utilized by individuals such as Dawkins and Harris, which are every bit as dogmatic as the ones they preach against. That is the hypocritical irony of the situation for the hardliner's. Tyson has pointed this out and publicly addressed this to Dawkins. I think Tyson's position is the most effective. If you provide mounds of unbiased evidence refuting creationism (unbiased being the key) slowly they may turn in the other direction. The problem with many creationists and evolutionists is that the only ones speaking on the matter are truly passionate about the subject. And that's great insofar as they care enough about science. BUT, it has turned in to one gigantic game for both of them, so that no headway is being gained. In fact, all the hardline tactics make it so that it is not safe to concede the others points. Each make it seem as if believing in their version will save your mortal soul, each offers salvation in its own way. Science, though, cannot have an agenda. The reality, however, is that the philosophy of science has taken the forefront. I think if evolutionists saw creationists more as victims rather than enemies, a true outreach would be available and many would turn from fables. "An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hello, Hyro, and welcome to EvC!
I think you have a pretty accurate view of the situation there. Here in Texas, even hinting that you support evolution causes a pretty large segment of the population to immediately decide you are an atheist or at best not a True Christian, and they then shut down any attempt at dialog. Entangling atheism and biology doesn't help this situation at all. I'm pretty passionate about real science education, and not particularly passionate about my (unrelated) atheism, but I do get them entangled on boards like this one. And that isn't helpful in winning over fundy minds....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Entangling atheism and biology doesn't help this situation at all. I'm pretty passionate about real science education, and not particularly passionate about my (unrelated) atheism, but I do get them entangled on boards like this one. And that isn't helpful in winning over fundy minds. Yeah, the problem is one is so enmeshed with the other that few can separate the two. As much as either side might want to disassociate themselves with their philosophies to focus on the science (or feign as if doing so in some cases), it almost always comes up anyhow. "An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
But one really is related to the other. Evolution doesn't say anything about god, and neither does atheism. It doesn't take that much of a leap of imagination to see the connection between two train of thoughts that lack the same thing. Yeah, the problem is one is so enmeshed with the other that few can separate the two. As much as either side might want to disassociate themselves with their philosophies to focus on the science (or feign as if doing so in some cases), it almost always comes up anyhow.
This is why I maintain that christians are automatically islamic terrorists. They both don't believe in the Buddha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
But one really is related to the other. Evolution doesn't say anything about god, and neither does atheism. Evolution is a biological theory that should no more indicate the arrival or absence of God than gravity. In theory God could have caused evolution, but God could also cause the clouds to rain. But what the hell good does that do for the field of meteorology? There's no need for it to either be synonymous with God or opposing God. Whether or not god is the ultimate cause, or the First Cause, seems almost irrelevant to the natural reason why something occurs. That tells me that the only reason creationists are so against the theory is that it contradicts the Bible. And if the Bible ain't infallible, then they are left with nothing. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
Religion is a set of beliefs about God. Hinduism is a religion that states there are many Gods. Islam is a religion that states there is one God. Atheism is a religion that states there is no God. All try to convert people to their religion. When you set about trying to convert people to your set of beliefs, how are you any different or less dangerous? There are two issues here. One is the science of evolution. When a group attacks science there is a problem. The other issue is Atheism. You don't have to be an atheist to truly believe in the science of evolution. I will happily debate an athiest about his set of beliefs,respect but in the end, I'll treat your beliefs with respect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3830 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
Atheism is a belief? Is the nonbelief in unicorns a belief too? The difference is that religion has sets of beliefs and rules, it tells for example how the world has been created and other stuffs, it describes people, events gods ,etc....
Atheism doesn't say anything at all, just that you don't believe in any religion not because their beliefs contradict it, but because they don't find them convicing. Usually, you don't believe in things that have no evidences and no reasons to exist. That's why atheism has nothing in common with a religion. For example, in a group of atheist, you will never see them talking about their "belief in atheism" the way christians talk about God and other stuffs because there is nothing to talk about with atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Religion is a set of beliefs about God. Hinduism is a religion that states there are many Gods. Islam is a religion that states there is one God. Atheism is a religion that states there is no God. All try to convert people to their religion. When you set about trying to convert people to your set of beliefs, how are you any different or less dangerous? The difference is this: Christianity - "God says go murder these people because they are bad."Atheism - "There's not God, so you don't have any justification that those people are 'bad'". Atheism is LESS dangerous than Christianity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024