|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I need to define some terms for the purposes of this thread:
Christian = One who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Creationist = One who believe that the universe is the product of creation from a higher power. Biblical/Genesis Creationist = One who believe that the creation story as it is told in the book of Genesis is literally true. Not to be confused with Creationists. Atheist = One who believe there is no god. Evolutionist = One who accept the Theory of Evolution. I had some reservations at first about starting this topic but I was feeling that this needed to be said. (or re-said) Below are quotes from some of our most vocal self proclaimed Biblical Creationists both active and not. I did a casual survey of the archives after reading some of the things being said in the Who's Held To Higher Standards at EvC thread because I got really tired of reading this implied connection with atheism, religion, and evolution.
Maestro232 writes: And the reason I do is because I am fairly convinced that they are enslaved by science in such a way that it has become a god to them; a very, very narrow god. And, I don't think that god will let them think outside its box. It is the nature of enslavement to the natural. mike the wiz writes: Even if it doesn't meet the "scientific method" we need to show that that is not necessarily important, because we don't put science on a pedestal and worship it like others do. mike the wiz writes: Exactly. All the evidence you look at is atheist. You support atheists. I won't judge you - but blimey Jar - you seem to be heavily in favour of atheism. mike the wiz writes: It just seems to me, that you seldom post a defense of theism. You say we blow smoke - like you almost consider yourself an atheist. mike the wiz writes: I'm not particularly a fan of this site anymore to be honest Jar. More opinions fly around rather than true objective endeavours, as can be seen with atheists in my objective Hypothesis of consciousness. The Bootcamp is an example of the power hungry Adminites that want to rule over any creationist fish that wanders up the stream, hence this farsicle approach to confining anyone whos opinion wanders from the mainstream atheist/evo train of thought. Thus this site is dead to activity it seems. I like a few people here but they're still heavily opinionated and think they aren't sinners, and that there's no God, which is obviously a wrongful mindset. mike the wiz writes: So, I'm not ignorant - I've seen the picture and I still am for God, as evolution supports mindless Godless chance deludants and random silliness. Therefore I cut myself off from this Godless theory which atheist's love as it supports their negative, which is unacceptable as you then convince yourselves you are sinless and don't answer to God. I urge you to all stop this confusion. d_yankee writes: Creation is not only obvious...which is why you atheist find yourselves saying things like "creation" and "created" so often without even noticing it. LOL!!! But Creationism and the Bible has, not everchanging assumptions, like evolution does...but obvious scientific and historic explanations to everything that scientists have discovered. JAD writes: As usual you completely misunderstand. I am delighted with your "Groupthink." It is the best evidence imaginable for the failure of the atheist, chance worshipping, neoDarwinian foolishness. It is the only reason I bother with any of you. EvC has proven to be very instructive. WILLOWTREE writes: Welcome to the atheist indoctrination camp for christians. JAD writes: EvC is nothing but a homogeneous collection of atheist Darwinian mystics who, never having had an original idea of their own, find it necessary to inflate their egos with arrogant pontifications and personal degradation of anyone, creationist or theist or dissenter of any other any stripe, who had the ordinary common sense to realize the total failure of the neoDarwinian fairy tale. WILLOWTREE writes: The three great atheist liars who could not tolerate the truth about evo dating nonsense.... Percy, Ned, and Jar are the most stereotypical God-hating/and/or lip service to God evos one could point to. WILLOWTREE writes: All of you atheo-evos are enraged and beside yourself. This is why you shifted the debate to a Forum you knew I would not participate in. You get to comfort yourself with the appearance of continuing while knowing the floor wiping will not continue. Fear of the truth and good old fashion atheist dishonesty has insulated yourselves from my irrefutable evidence. Servant2thecause writes: Honestly, neither Biblical creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism can be proven by science ("Science" = knowledge through demonstrated evidence and observation). Therefore, if any evolutionist, atheist, or otherwise anti-creationist has an ounce of honesty and integrity, he would freely admit that BOTH viewpoints have to be taken by faith. 6days writes: That many people are religious who believe in evolution is certainly true, but I deny that they are mature Christians, if believer*s in Jesus Christ at all. The new-born believer can be swayed by evolution, etc, but a person in whom the Holy Spirit is actually residing will not be able to deny the Bible for long without internal opposition from God peter borger writes: The atheistic religion is called evolutionism. As mentioned "There are many good reasons to be an atheist, but the theory of evolution is not one of them. peter borger writes: Apparently you didn*t understand the above sentence. It means that since evolutionism can be demonstrated to be false, atheists do not have a religion anymore. whatever writes: I feel TOE is just a small part of the religion of secular humanism, to increase their following however they are using the state to place their godless religion over and above the other religions of the world, how is this fair to buddhists that too are a godless based religion. P.S. Is not buddaisms more of a philosophy of self, than a belief in a god, yet this sect according to Thomas Jefferson was to be extended separation protection from the state, truely the athiest too are a godless based religion / sect, its called secular humanisms. If the buddists is not to be empowered by the government, then neither should the atheistic religion and their dogma side shoots dogma's be given government sanction powers to preach for more converts using state moneys, using the federal public school system to the gaining of converts, into their godless based belief in respect to origin, etc... jazzlover_PR writes: If you dont want to talk about God in schools well thats fine but the problem that i see is that your "well supported and robust scientific theory" is a religion of its own. Jet writes: I would not care to believe in such a world of lawlessness where there is no true consequence of action. That is why I must ultimately reject and totally deny any acceptance of such an inhumane concept as the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is the way I was raised, though I seriously doubt that is the reason I feel this way. In fact, despite my upbringing, I have far too much empathy in my being to ever pay homage to such a barbaric concept as the Godless theory of evolution. There is a reason some people refer to this concept as "EVILUTION"! whatever writes: TOE should be banned based on the separation freedom violations of the government supporting the atheists religion and their dogma of the origin of life, in respect to the Bill of Right. Syamsu writes: My argument that evolutionists have historically suppressed scientific, common, and religious knowledge of creation, and that this suppression facillitates their promotion of atheism / materialism / social darwinism, is as far as I can tell the only credible alternative to saying the creation vs evolution controversy is about religion repudiating anything contrary to it's teachings. Robert Byers writes: The reason evolutionists don't want evolution questioned or discussed in schools is because they have a higher agenda of fighting Christianity and its influence in society. They are still in combat with the Protestant origins of the country. Jasonb writes: So let me define terms. I define an evolutionist as someone who does not believe in a Creator and accepts the theories of evolution as to the origin of life. Syamsu writes: The prejudice to have natural selection as the fundament is sustained because evolution tends to deny creation by God, and the moral sort of language gives Darwinists a substitute pseudoscientific religion. It is sustained by atheism and scientism, rather then scientific merit. DarkStar writes: 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.... Definition #3 could be perceived by some to apply to Darwin as the spiritual leader of all those who are adherents of the theory of evolution. funkman writes: The Bible teaches that there is no way to get to heaven apart from faith in the salvation work of Christ on the cross. Evolution undermines that. So if the pope believes in evolution, he has undermined the cross of Christ and is not a Christian. Now I know that some of these are older but unfortunatly the sentiment is being repeated today. For these people there seems to be an automatic equivalence relationship between Evolutionists and Atheists or Evolution and Religion that I feel is a massive barrier to productive discussion in the larger EvC arena. Also, born from this equivalence there is this concept of Science vs Religion as if the two concepts were diametrically opposed. There are stakes to all of this or else there would be no controversy. The stakes are education and how we choose, as a society, to educate our children. Certainly there are also stakes for those who make this automatic connection between Evolution and Atheism for the salvation of those who they feel are in this combined group. In order to further both rational discussion about education and a possible atmosphere for sharing religion in a positive way I feel we need to identify and destroy these ridiculous equivalencies. I hope that if/when ever this barrier is broken down that people will generally realize that science and religion are discrete things such that when you mix them you only get poor science and worse religion. You can be both an Atheist and an Evolutionist.You can be both a Creationist and an Evolutionist. You can be a Christian, a Creationist, and an Evolutionist. You can be both a Christian and a Biblical/Genesis Creationist. All of which are valid positions to take based on faith, reason, authority, or however else you come to decisions in your life about what you believe is true. I would prefer not to get bogged down on the "is atheism a religion" path because I am beginning to think that you can flounder around with evidence that pretty much anything is a religion. Watching too much reality TV could be a religion based on a lot of the arguments I have seen for what is and what is not a religion. I want to focus a discussion on why some Biblical Creationists feel the need to make this assumption that Evolution = Atheism, why to some is being a Christian Evolutionist invalid, and what this has anything to do with what is at stake for the EvC debate. This should probably go in the Misc Topics in EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Yea. I noticed it and it really made me mad. I think we share a lot of the same philosophy so I feel attacked by proxy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
OK, I'm going to be picky. An atheist is not one who believes there is no god. Instead, an atheist is one who has no belief in god. Belief in non-existence is not the same as non-existence of belief. Atheists do not go around contemplating the non-existence of god just as you do not go around contemplating the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns. It never enters your head unless somebody else makes you think about it. Fair enough to be picky. From dictionary.com: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Lets go with this as a working definition? In the minds of the people we are talking about it might be better to use atheist rather than other words we could choose to mean "not believing what they believe". Heathen, infidel, come to mind...lets stick with atheist since it dosen't carry the negative connotation. Agnostics could also be grouped into this category even though the exact terminology really isn't fair. Just trying to keep in simple.
I know, but that is an important point. If you water down the word "religion" so much that anything is a religion, then you rob the word of any usefulness. Atheism stands apart from religion in that it has no tenets, no doctrine, no commandments, no pronouncements. It is defined by absence, not presence. Right. That is exactly what I don't want to do. Take the recent quote from Maestro for example. He is giving the characteristics of a religion to the practice of science where it really dosen't fit. I don't want to get into a battle of "this is a religion because you do it a lot or it is a major component in your life" garbage. Watered down enough anything can be called a religion and I don't want to go there. If this thread goes down that road I really want to tell people to take it to another thread. I really just want to know why acceptance of evolution automatically denies ownership of other beliefs, namely Christianity, in the eyes of most Biblical Creationists. The rest of your post pretty much is totally on par with what I think. I believe that if more people realized that, "Science doesn't declare there is no god." That we could get rid of this nonsense that you are not really a Christian/Moslem/LDS/Whatever if you believe in Evolution. The whole point I want to make is Evolution != (whatever it is you want to call not believing in the Biblical Creationist's God) This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-21-2004 12:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
The above might have been a better title to the thread. What you said is correct. I don't want to get into semantics of what is a religion and what is an atheist if at all possible. A good enough definition of these is all I am asking for an agreement on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I want to expanding on what you said a little bit while trying to steer things back on topic.
Do you think that the more basic problem is really that deep down your average fundamentalist Biblical Creationist feels that all science goes against theism? I mean, I kind of gathered some of that from your post but it seems like it would be rare for one of them to admit it. Even though they may even say that they are "science friendly" it appears by their actions that they truly do reject some of the most basic principles behind modern science. My favorite example of this is a quote from one of Hovind's "sermons":
If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour." Which displays an obvious dire ignorance about physics and relativity. In this case all of realativity is rejected and therefore if you believe in it you might be going against Hovind's idea of what a Godly scientist would believe. The more I think about it, other than our most basic/trivial principles of science, Biblical Creationists must reject most of the modern advances of nearly all realms of science and therefore it becomes a Scientist == Atheist issue for them from the core. I really hope we can get some Biblical Creationists in here to see what they think about this opinion. How much of science must be rejected to get the Biblical Creation account to even be possible under current knowledge? How much then is left and how many centuries of time have we "wasted" cooking up all these "ungodly lies"? I think these questions are not too far off topic since it is investigating into a potential reason for the often automatic association between evolution and atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Take a step back for a moment. Using my definitions in my OP, I was never trying to say that it was possible for someone to be both a Biblical/Genesis Creationist and an Evolutionist. That just dosen't make any sense. I mean, I am sure there might be someone who does but in my opinion they would be crazy.
What I am asking is why would it be invalid to be Theistic and still believe in Evolution. My claim is that one can still be a Christian, believe that the bible has truth despite its errancy, and accept the TOE. I still believe that we are a product of creation, just not the creation myth spelled out in Genesis. Why do some consider this an invalid position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
We are actually going over this a bit in the 'Can Death be "Very Good"' thread in the Faith and Belief forum. If you want to specifically talk about this I will respond to you there since it is the topic of that thread.
As for this thread, if I DO think that the death we recieved during the fall is spiritual then why can't I still be a Christian and accept Evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I don't follow your logic. I believe there is a "human mind" and it is more than the sum of cells and pathways in my brain.
Are you trying to say that if you believe in Evolution that you must believe that we are all souless animals? If so where does it say this? Even if you do come up with some kind of 'tenent' of evolution that requires this I personally reject it. I can believe in the biological evolution of species and still believe that I have a "mind" and a "soul" and believe that there is a greater power through Christ that caused all this to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Trying to prove the non-existence of God just might be a bit more than we can chew in this thread. Granted if you could do it then a lot of what is talked about in at this whole site would be moot.
I think your position is interesting though because you are arguing the opposite of what I was trying to discover. I was wanting to get feedback from Biblical Creationists about why the think being a Theistic Evolutionist is wrong and here we have you seemingly arguing the same thing from the opposite camp. How is your Atheism plus acceptance of evolution valid while my liberal Christianity plus acceptance of evolution not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Well, the details of all that belong in your thread about the mind. This thread should be about why my belief that we do have a "mind" because/in spite of evolution is or is not invalid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I totally agree with everything you are saying Rrhain. I wish I could find a better word but that is the one that they are using to describe me and in the context they use the word it means the equivalent of heathen. Lets use heathen then shall we? Since they often put the negative connotation in what they say anyway it might only make sense to use it how they mean it.
So by the same token, you cannot water down atheism so that it is useless. If you define atheism as "anything that isn't quite like the particular brand of theism we're looking at," then it doesn't really mean anything. I am not trying to pidgeon hole atheism into a single global definition. All I am looking for is a reasonable definition of the type of "not believing in our god" person that they also are, I think, precariously assigning to people who DO believe in their god. When I am talking about their accusations, I am talking about how they percieve the words as part of their communication. I don't believe that any one person or group of people should be able to give you a definition of what you believe. I just used atheist because it was what they used and I though everyone would understand the bigger picture of the accusations and condemnation.
The short answer, given my experience, is that evolution, since it is a science, does not invoke god. Exactly. I am just arguing that outside of the acceptance of the TOE one can still be a Christian/Moslem/Etc. They don't seem to agree by their behavior and I just want to figure out why and how we might possibly, if at all, reduce this kind of behavior and begin meaningful discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life just as chemistry does not concern itself with the origin of atoms. Excellent analogy. Purple's argument seemed to suggest that God must be the cause of each individual existence. I didn't really see it until you pointed it out. I have an interesting perspective on God in this sense. I don't think that God can create us individually because we are all products of the decisions of our ancestors and God gave us free will to make those decisions. Free will really puts God in an interesting light because without it all our lives are deterministic and that would make the universe no better than a movie with God as the film director. Hopefully we won't decend off topic into that too much. Anyway, good counter to Purple's point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
So I said "liberal Christianity" because there seemed to be a need to make a distinction from the "literalist Christianity" that you seem to have only been exposed to. Let me try to explain what I believe in a nutshell.
I believe that the bible is a collection of accounts and mythologies that do contain a measure of truth. In particular, I believe that the accounts given to us of Christ in the Gospels are true and that the only way to be with God is through Christ. I also believe that as you get into the old testament what you have is a bunch of mythologies borrowed from other cultures and some religious justification for imperalism and/or war worshiping. Mixed in with this is some good scripture and knowledge. The important point here is that I reject parts of the bible that are historically shown to be borrowed/false (i.e. Genesis) but still believe that Christ is the son of God and saviour of mankind. I also think that you are unjustifiably forcing the Christian God to be omnipotent. If God is omnipotent that seems to induce some interesting contradictions like the ability for God to sin. In particular, God is actually limitied by his own nature and the gift to us of our free will. God cannot make me love him without first destroying my free will and in turn my ability to love which is a paradox. So there you have it. Bible is mostly true and a pretty good guide to God. God is not omnipotent. That is what I believe. Why is that and the acceptance of evolution invalid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Please see my recent response to Purple for a summary of what I believe. I do not take the Bible to be literal. I still believe in Christ.
I am saying that I am not an atheist. I am also saying that I accept the theory of evolution. Why must you or others like you continue to call me an atheist or to say that evolution is my religion? Why instead of calling me misguided or calling me wayward because I don't follow the specific tenants of your flavor of Christianity must I be labeled a secularist/humanist/atheist/whatever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I understood that the entire point of God was to be omnipotent. He would certainly have had to design every last little peice of Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. And he would need to understand all of the forces of nature everywhere in a way that would make him indistinguishable from omnipotent. Extremely powerfull beyond our imagination and omnipotent are two different things. I believe God is the former. My previous example about the paradox in free will I felt showed the difference pretty well. Omnipotent means "all powerfull" and I do not believe that God has the power to forcibly make me love Him.
I respect your right to believe in any way that you feel is right for you, but I will never understand the logic that allows you to do so. Thanks. My purpose though was not to explain my logic though. Faith in God defies logic and that is okay for most everyone that does believe in God. I believe in God and I will be the first to admit that that belief is not founded in logic. Overall I think we really do agree on most of this issue. I just got the feeling that you are arguing from a very narrow perspective of God and Christianity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024