Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
Pope Benedict, in reference to that statement, had this to add: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Click to expand...
True, but trivial, Ed. No scientific theory is completely proven.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Not all atheists believe there is no god, yes that group belongs to atheist’s but it is a subset…
Click to expand...
Yes – all atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics are not atheists – they simply believe there is not sufficient reason to compel belief either for or against the existence of God. They tend to get lumped in with atheists because neither believes in God, in contrast to theists. But they shouldn’t be so lumped, because neither theists nor agnostics positively disbelieve in God. Agnostics are neutral on the question of the divine existence.

StAnastasia
 
Charles_Darwin said:
An atheist is anyone without a theistic believe. I am an agnostic atheist, i lack a theistic believe dude to the fact there is zero evidence to support any theistic beliefs. In essence i reject your claim god exists because you have not provided sufficient evidence… how on earth is that a position of faith? I assert nothing…
Click to expand...
Are you confident that God does not exist? If so, you have faith that God does not exist.
 
StAnastasia said:
Are you confident that God does not exist? If so, you have faith that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Are you confident that your car will start when you turn the key? What about confident that there isn’t a monster under your bed? Or that the Earth won’t blow up in the next 5 minutes? Confidence is not faith. Again, I realize it’s easy for a religious person to equate or compare everything to faith as you see faith as a beautiful thing, but you’re going to have to look at it from a different perspective here. Making judgments based on experience and evidence is not faith even if there exists some degree of uncertainty.
 
edwest2 said:
You are incorrect. Do not rely on your memory since the information is easy to find. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. That is in the Library on this site.
Click to expand...
I am not incorrect:
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Click to expand...
Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins do not believe in two different theories of Evolution. They believe in the one and only theory of Evolution. But one interprets it in the light of his theistic beliefs, and one interprets it in the light of his atheistic beliefs.
 
liquidpele said:
I was talking about people “at one point” believed the Earth was flat, not that they did around Columbus’ time. And even that was just to make the point that popularity does not equate to truth.
Click to expand...
It’s not a good analogy and it’s a mistaken application of the charge of an argument from popularity.

The point I made was not that God exists because many people believe it. It was, that many people believe it, therefore some kind of explanation is needed for that fact (and none is given).

In the case of a flat earth – the explanation is easy. Some (not “all” as you falsely claimed) thought it looked flat and therefore was. This was disproven later so the opinions changed.

In the case of belief in God, billions today believe it. Many of them are more intelligent and more academically accomplished than you are. Many of the greatest minds in human history have believed it.

Atheists simply dismiss those facts. Often, no explanation is given for why these facts are true. In other cases, a very lame explanation is given: “they’re all deceived or lying”.

In any case, some positive assertion is required of atheists on this matter.

To say that there is “no evidence” for God’s existence is an obvious expression of faith. It says, “I have faith that I’ve looked at all the possible evidence and I have interpreted it correctly. I conclude, by faith, that my knowledge is sufficient to say that God does not exist.”

So, no, the question of God and the meaning of life is not something that can be ignored like stamp-collecting. A person who does not take the claims and teachings of Catholic theology seriously enough to sincerely investigate and explore them is in danger of taking a very superficial view of life itself.
 
edwest2 said:
Trivial? Can you explain the following statement which I see on a fairly regular basis here: Evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...
I can’t explain it; I don’t know why people say that, except that they are confused about the relationship between fact and theory.
 
edwest2 said:
Trivial? Can you explain the following statement which I see on a fairly regular basis here: Evolution is a fact./QUOTE]

Fact in this context means proven beyond reasonable doubt. What creationists try to make it mean is proven beyond all doubt. The latter only ever happens in mathematics; not in the physical sciences. But that does not mean that a scientific theory cannot be as certain as anything, other than a mathematical theorem, can be.
Click to expand...
 
mathematician said:
I am not incorrect:

Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins do not believe in two different theories of Evolution. They believe in the one and only theory of Evolution. But one interprets it in the light of his theistic beliefs, and one interprets it in the light of his atheistic beliefs.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II:

“And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

“one and only”? You are mistaken or mislead or both. Ken Miller does not reflect Church teaching in his writing regarding evolution. He is a source that I would not recommend to any Catholic.

The Church recognizes many theories of evolution and does not want Catholics believing any that denies to divine providence a truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

You are also using the insistence argument. What I have just written is the Church’s position.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Pope John Paul II:

“And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution.”
Click to expand...
Why didn’t you go on to read his further sentences which I highlighted?
 
liquidpele said:
Are you confident that your car will start when you turn the key? What about confident that there isn’t a monster under your bed? Or that the Earth won’t blow up in the next 5 minutes? Confidence is not faith.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to show me why confidence and faith are always different.
 
StAnastasia said:
I can’t explain it; I don’t know why people say that, except that they are confused about the relationship between fact and theory.
Click to expand...
Oh brother. Just google Pope Evolution and read how many people are jumping up and down about what the Church has to say. “Catholic Church (or the Pope) says Evolution is a fact!” Or run over to online newspapers that report things like: “Pope says Evolution cannot be proven,” and read the vitriol in the comments that follow the article.

It is very, very important to people if the Church says something for or against evolution. Why? Because it affects what they perceive as “the balance of power.” There’s over a billion Catholics out there. A big voting block. If they start believing their Pope when he says evolution cannot be proven then, to them, that’s a bad thing. Then they ramp up the propaganda: Theocracy! The Church is antiquated, out of touch, etc.

I think you should be aware that science is not currently as useful to some as ideology based on science interpreted to assist in the marketing of their worldview.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
You’ve got it all wrong. Your perception of what the Church thinks is distorted and inaccurate.
Click to expand...
So you tell me, but you still haven’t told me why the Pope used the word “interpretation” if he didn’t mean it.
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes – all atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics are not atheists – they simply believe there is not sufficient reason to compel belief either for or against the existence of God. They tend to get lumped in with atheists because neither believes in God, in contrast to theists. But they shouldn’t be so lumped, because neither theists nor agnostics positively disbelieve in God. Agnostics are neutral on the question of the divine existence.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Can i suggest you look up the real meaning of these words. Many theists are in fact agnostic.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief, or in the case of atheism lack of belief. So i am sorry to tell you, you are way off the mark when you claim an atheist cannot be an agnostic.
 
StAnastasia said:
Are you confident that God does not exist? If so, you have faith that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
We have no knowledge about the subject, so i make no claim regarding the existence of a god. I do however reject your claim (and every other humans) regarding a specific god.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Can i suggest you look up the real meaning of these words. Many theists are in fact agnostic.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, theism and atheism deal with belief, or in the case of atheism lack of belief. So i am sorry to tell you, you are way off the mark when you claim an atheist is cannot be an agnostic.
Click to expand...
I never have been able to figure out why atheists want to make “atheist” into a synonym for “agnostic”. Maybe it’s because they want to go on claiming that they don’t believe anything, thereby excusing themselves from the necessity of having to defend their beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top