Difference between "atheistic evolution" and "christian evolution?"

[steveandersen]

I asked this in another post, but I think it deserves a new thread.

What are the specific differences between “atheistic evolution” and “Christian evolutioin?”

Evolution has two parts the fact of evolution i.e. common descent and the theory of evolution i.e. the mechanism by which common descent happened.

Like the theory of gravity, germ theory, or meteorology; evolution is a naturalistic explanation of observed natural phenomenon. No Science can address the supernatural and all are thus atheistic by definition.

Christian evolution appears to come in a range of flavors. They hold to some or all of the scientific findings but believe in God’s direct intervention at some point.

I think one would be Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. That there is no guiding design, that there are random changes to DNA,

Biochemistry is a fairly deterministic process and not really random
While evolution does have some random elements they usually are tied to geologic, astronomic, or climatological events

and that the species unfit for their environment just die off. And so what are some other main differences? Do Christians provide any alternative explanations for how change is introduced in generations?

I’m seen some but either they are flawed naturalistic explanations or non naturalistic and thus can’t be answered by science.

And is there any actual evidense for rejecting Darwinian Evolution other than the reason that it is just incompatable with the faith?

Thanks.

Darwin lived and worked over 150 fifty years ago. While he happened to be the first to publish the theory, the science has advance dramatically since then. He knew nothing of genes, molecular biology, or geology as we now do. So calling it “Darwinian evolution” is a bit of a misnomer.

That being said there is no good naturalistic alternative to modern evolutionary theory.

And there are many who would reject the notion that it is incompatible with faith.

 

[Hubriss]

Alright… I know I havn’t posted in a while, I’m sorry, I’ve just been getting busier.

Evolution does nothing of the sort. Genesis points out that Light was created in the beginning. If you know anything at all about the BB, you would know this is strangely consistent with the BB. The early stage of the universe, about the first 400,000 years, was flooded with light, but not sunlight. How is it that scientists never figured this our until the 20th century? Genesis also points out that animal evolution commences in the ocean and moves to the land and the air. How is it that was not pointed out by science until modern times? Genesis also points out that the creation of man was saved for last. This certainly was not known by science until the time of Darwin. Why is that? So your statement is flatly false. Not all of the statements in Genesis are contradicted by science. In fact, the uauthor of Genesis got to some of these truths before science did. How do you explain that?

-Gilbert Keith

Read your bible. It says the earth, heavens were already there. There was water on the earth. It does not say, “let there be light” in the beginning.

Genesis says plants were first on land. Then life in the ocean and air. Then life on land. Genesis is in no way consistent with what we know today.

And besides, how can you draw such huge correlations when the story is really so vague?

Evolution shows nothing of the sort. You are trying to make science the exclusive route to knowledge of every kind. If there is a reality beyond the reality of this world, science could neither prove nor disprove it. Nor can science assume that such a world does not exist, since such a world does not operate according to the laws of science.

-Gilbert Keith

Then how do you know there is a reality beyond this world?

Answer me this. Do you think there would be more of a reason to believe in a omniscient omnipotent god if evolution is true, or if everything suddenly appeared 6,000 years ago?

There would be more of a reason to believe God exists if evolution is true. The vastness of the universe, and the length of time it has existed, suggest the vastness and eternity of God. The process of evolution would show the order of intellect at work, patiently creating wonders for us to enjoy and admire. The notion that the existence of God would be more believable if God had done all this in 6 days rather than 12 billions years holds no water except for shallow minds who think that God’s sense of time and power must be the same as a child’s … I want it … and I want it now!!! Waaaaa!

• Answered by Keith

If you really think this, there is absolutely no point in anyone every having any kind of logical discussion with you.

The materialists have hi-jaked the debate. They deem only their version of evolution to be evolution.

-Montalban

If our lives were so driven by materialism, do you really think we’d really give a **** to come talk to you guys on these forums?

I like the way you ignored the bulk of the post to concentrate on a single word in the title of one of the books I quoted. And then your sole criticism seems to be one that is itself unconnected with the argument. As if that addresses anything.

Take your time. There’s no obligation to reply when you have nothing to say.

Alright, back to that post then.

There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype… From being ‘isolated directors’ of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in “The Century of the Gene”

I don’t know of any biologist who thinks that DNA is not the blue print for life. Yes, it’s true DNA, RNA, and Ribosomes interact together to create the phenome, but DNA contains most of the information, and it’s just taken by the RNA to ribosomes

 

[Hubriss]

The folds present stunning evidence, perhaps the first clear evidence discovered in biology, that highly complex organic forms can be generated by natural law.

-Montalban… The scientist guy

Here is a set of forms that arise directly out of the basic properties of matter, confirming the inference I had previously drawn from reading Henderson, that life might be encoded in the basic properties of matter.”

-Montalban… The scientist guy

Says right there, You don’t need god.

Evolution is the atheist’s position in the same way that cancer is something atheists point at as proof there is no loving God. The Catholic response should not be to deny that cancer exists, but object to the erroneous twist of logic in the atheist’s argument.

-Nullasalus

That brings up another interesting question. Can you hold all of these things true:

God is all powerful.
God is good.
Bad things happen to good people.

Most Christians would say that the third is not true, but in the book of Jobe, we see that it is not the case. If I had to throw only one out, I’d say the first.

Mark my words: Atheists are far more disturbed at theistic evolution, even the basic philosophy behind ID (if not the science), than they are at creationist claims.

-Nullasalus

Duh… no one in their right mind takes creationism seriously. And yeah, I agree with ribosyme. ID doesn’t really threat atheists, we’re just frustrated by it because it just shows people are willing to remain so stubborn in their beliefs, no matter what.

The first tangible evidence of that laziness …?

The atheist gets to sleep in Sunday mornings for the rest of his life.

The second tangible evidence of that laziness …?

The atheist does not have to trouble himself about his actions having eternal consequences … especially for his immortal soul.

You know… I’d really like to have a better talk with you… despite what I said earlier. Maybe on an instant messenger or something.

 

[Nullasalus]

Read your bible. It says the earth, heavens were already there. There was water on the earth. It does not say, “let there be light” in the beginning.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

On the first day: The earth was without form and void. And then, let there be light. The light divided from the darkness - the light was day and the dark was night, etc etc.

You can argue about the signifigance of ‘formless and void’ in regards to earth. Did it really mean that there was the actual planet earth before anything else? But what does formless and void mean? As you say yourself, Genesis is rather vague - but what GK is saying isn’t without merit. Personally, I’d be tempted to interpret it as 'Earth was conceived, but did not exist - the passage implies that giving light and darkness meant that the earth was no longer ‘formless and void’.

Genesis says plants were first on land. Then life in the ocean and air. Then life on land. Genesis is in no way consistent with what we know today.

No, Genesis is only partly consistent with what we know today. There’s parts it seems to get wrong by our standards, and parts it seems to get right.

 

[Nullasalus]

That brings up another interesting question. Can you hold all of these things true:

God is all powerful.
God is good.
Bad things happen to good people.

Most Christians would say that the third is not true, but in the book of Jobe, we see that it is not the case. If I had to throw only one out, I’d say the first.

I do believe such, because I do not believe in a state of perfection.

Duh… no one in their right mind takes creationism seriously. And yeah, I agree with ribosyme. ID doesn’t really threat atheists, we’re just frustrated by it because it just shows people are willing to remain so stubborn in their beliefs, no matter what.

Well, that’s the same thing as ‘threaten’, really. Evolution was supposed to be the knockout blow to Genesis and, by extension, God. But it wasn’t - and for as long back as Augustine (and further), there have been prominent theologians advocating that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally anyway.

And when people find that Christianity lines up better with evolution than with YEC… well, why does it agitate people? Why is it important that people stop believing in Christianity - or any God at all, for that matter? Remember, the universe has no purpose by by the atheistic view, all meaning is subjective, and the foundations of rationality are thin if they exist at all. It’s not as if religious beliefs will lead to real evil - evil doesn’t exist under the worldview you align yourself with, except in a subjective sense.

 

[Nullasalus]

Since this whole thread keeps coming back to Genesis, I’m going to quote Genesis 1 in its entirety. So everyone can know what it says. KJ version:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

[Hubriss]

You can argue about the signifigance of ‘formless and void’ in regards to earth. Did it really mean that there was the actual planet earth before anything else? But what does formless and void mean? As you say yourself, Genesis is rather vague - but what GK is saying isn’t without merit. Personally, I’d be tempted to interpret it as 'Earth was conceived, but did not exist - the passage implies that giving light and darkness meant that the earth was no longer ‘formless and void’.

-Nullasalus

You can’t really say that the earth was conceived, but did not exist because it never says after “let there be light” the point that it was created. After the light, it goes right to the atmosphere lets say, or the dome. It does say later though that he gathered the water to one place (i guess we’d say the oceans) and earth appeared but was not created as it was already there and water was just shifted. When it says void, I think it means more that there was life or anything of interest on it.

No, Genesis is only partly consistent with what we know today. There’s parts it seems to get wrong by our standards, and parts it seems to get right.

-Nullasalus

Maybe, but I’m showing that what you guys think it got right, are actually not. I am attempting to diminish the significance of any minor thing that could be stretched to say, “look, that’s right!”

I do believe such, because I do not believe in a state of perfection.

-Nullasalus

Me neither.

Well, that’s the same thing as ‘threaten’, really. Evolution was supposed to be the knockout blow to Genesis and, by extension, God. But it wasn’t - and for as long back as Augustine (and further), there have been prominent theologians advocating that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally anyway.

-Nullasalus

A teacher can be frustrated with a kid who the teacher is constantly trying to teach times tables to, but the kid just can’t get it right. It doesn’t mean the teacher is threatened by the kid.

And when people find that Christianity lines up better with evolution than with YEC… well, why does it agitate people? Why is it important that people stop believing in Christianity - or any God at all, for that matter? Remember, the universe has no purpose by by the atheistic view, all meaning is subjective, and the foundations of rationality are thin if they exist at all. It’s not as if religious beliefs will lead to real evil - evil doesn’t exist under the worldview you align yourself with, except in a subjective sense.

-Nullasalus

What’s YEC?

Well… I want everyone to be more educated and logical or smarter. I don’t think you can define god. I don’t think god is personal. I don’t think people’s lives should be based on their religion or influenced by others’. I don’t think abortion is good, but I don’t think it needs to be injustified by religion. I think it’s sad that people need religion for a reason in order to lead a good life. I’m more focused on Christianity because I was raised in it and it is the one I know best. My dissent bore a little conflict with my parents and god-father. But don’t get me wrong, I dislike islam ten times more than Christianity. I think that if we are ever going to have a peaceful world, religion needs to be taken out. But I recognize that if religion is solely taken out, our societies would worsen even further. We need to couple it with mass education and respect for human and worldly nature, while still not being extreme in those regards (don’t think we should all be vegetarians).

Yes, the universe has no purpose in an ultimate sense that we know of. But life, as you said, has purpose to each and every individual. Purpose and meaning is subjective. Yes, I do not believe there is absoulte good and evil. In order for there to be there would necessarily have to be a personal god who created it. But I do believe a society can create a basis of morality based on subjective views, and ultimately, many of the things religions deem good and bad could be eventually realized by everyone by history and example. I know this perfect world is far off, and we shouldn’t rush it, especially when there are still very extreme views around the world. So my objective is education. Bring chaos into people’s worlds so they may question more deeply. Destroy their sense of security, force them to think. I know people here say they’ve questioned, but most of them really havn’t very sincerely. Like my god-father, he tells me to read the bible, read up on theologians, listen to tapes, when he on the other hand doesn’t research and study up on views opposing his. He works for catholic answers and got me into these forums more than a year ago.

I think these flimsy ideas people have trying to promote ID, drawing weak correlations from Genesis to what actually happened, and the such to be dishonest.

 

[Nullasalus]

You can’t really say that the earth was conceived, but did not exist because it never says after “let there be light” the point that it was created.

Sure I can. It’s a vague chapter - you may have a different take on ‘formless and void’, but it’s by no means the correct one. It’s an enjoyable chapter to discuss, even if the point of it was not to convey mechanism in any way.

Maybe, but I’m showing that what you guys think it got right, are actually not. I am attempting to diminish the significance of any minor thing that could be stretched to say, “look, that’s right!”

And the things it actually did get right, you ignore. Which is understandable - you’re hostile to the faith. But then again… you’re hostile to the faith. We both have our own biases, but the critical one isn’t automatically the one given more credence.

A teacher can be frustrated with a kid who the teacher is constantly trying to teach times tables to, but the kid just can’t get it right. It doesn’t mean the teacher is threatened by the kid.

And yet there’s no comparable frustration with the YEC crowd (Young earth creationist). But really, no point in getting into this - for obvious reasons, you’re going to reject my interpretations of what I’m seeing with that particular wing of the evolution community. And for my own reasons, I’m going to stick to it - I think it explains a lot.

Well… I want everyone to be more educated and logical or smarter. I don’t think you can define god. I don’t think god is personal. I don’t think people’s lives should be based on their religion or influenced by others’. I don’t think abortion is good, but I don’t think it needs to be injustified by religion. I think it’s sad that people need religion for a reason in order to lead a good life.

Other people disagree on all points. It makes sense for them to be a bit intellectually aggressive - they believe it’s Very Important, they operate in a universe that is purposeful and meaningful. An atheist does not. And really, if the universe really is meaningless and without purpose… explanations for acts mean little.

Yes, the universe has no purpose in an ultimate sense that we know of. But life, as you said, has purpose to each and every individual. Purpose and meaning is subjective. Yes, I do not believe there is absoulte good and evil. In order for there to be there would necessarily have to be a personal god who created it. But I do believe a society can create a basis…

Again, people disagree. Some do believe the universe has a purpose in an ultimate sense, and do not believe all purpose is subjective (There’s certainly room for some subjectivity in life, even in the Christian/Catholic sense - There are simply areas thare are ultimately objective and purposeful.) Once you accept that all meaning is subjective, everything else is out the window. In a meaningless universe, societies can converge and create universal laws? Wonderful. They’re meaningless. In the universe you operate in, it really means nothing if the entire world unites under a Marxist banner, a Fascist ideaology, or - though it’s harder to accept intellectually - theocratic rule. No one is more right than the other, except perhaps on scientific specifics. And what a surprise - the validity of those don’t matter either.

As I said to ribo, the problem of evil is specifically a problem for theists. For most atheists, there is no problem of evil. There is no evil, period. There’s ‘things I personally dislike’, and sometimes these people form groups. By the atheistic standard, Stalin did not do evil things. He did unpopular things. Nothing more.

I think these flimsy ideas people have trying to promote ID, drawing weak correlations from Genesis to what actually happened, and the such to be dishonest.

ID is far more broad than that, and really, has very little to do with Genesis specifically - though I’m certain many, many proponents of ID enjoy pointing out the parts of Genesis that were accurate, even while admitting some parts were inaccurate. I’m also sure some ID proponents deny that any part of Genesis is inaccurate - and some don’t believe Christianity and God hinge on any part of Genesis’ accuracy regardless.

 

[Hubriss]

And the things it actually did get right, you ignore. Which is understandable - you’re hostile to the faith. But then again… you’re hostile to the faith. We both have our own biases, but the critical one isn’t automatically the one given more credence.

-Null

I don’t ignore anything it gets right. I just weigh the significance of it, and compare it with everything it got wrong. But I debate the points they have claimed to be right.

Quote:
A teacher can be frustrated with a kid who the teacher is constantly trying to teach times tables to, but the kid just can’t get it right. It doesn’t mean the teacher is threatened by the kid.

And yet there’s no comparable frustration with the YEC crowd (Young earth creationist).

-Null

By our viewpoint there is comparable frustration. People like Gilbert Keith just absolutely refuse to learn or take any other point into consideration. They like to stay in their little boxed and packaged faith. It’s like they just can’t or refuse to learn. They refuse knowledge in favor of that which they cannot know, which just frustrates us.

And really, if the universe really is meaningless and without purpose… explanations for acts mean little.

-Null

The universe is meaningless and without purpose only if it will eventually be gone, and no forms that had existed in the past survive in any way in the future. That does not mean there are still truths in the world. What is, is. Our lives have purpose to us, and we can recognize that other peoples’ lives have purpose to them.

Once you accept that all meaning is subjective, everything else is out the window. In a meaningless universe, societies can converge and create universal laws? Wonderful. They’re meaningless. In the universe you operate in, it really means nothing if the entire world unites under a Marxist banner, a Fascist ideaology, or - though it’s harder to accept intellectually - theocratic rule. No one is more right than the other, except perhaps on scientific specifics. And what a surprise - the validity of those don’t matter either.

-Null

You’re right, but their is still subjective meaning. But has religion stopped Marxism, Fascism? No. In fact, religion has even promoted fascism. If a religion contained an ultimate truth, I think it would be more evident. The greatest societies have been created by decentralizing religion. Communist China is quickly becoming a national powerhouse, and most people think this next century will be dominately theirs, just like the last century was ours. I probably wouldn’t want to live there but it does have its benefits. Even though it is communist, there are some freedoms the people have there which are largely unavailable to us here. For example, people can walk down busy city streets late at night without the fear of being attacked (robbed, raped, etc).

By the atheistic standard, Stalin did not do evil things. He did unpopular things. Nothing more.

-Null

Yes, but that does not mean he can’t face the same repercussions.

ID is far more broad than that, and really, has very little to do with Genesis specifically - though I’m certain many, many proponents of ID enjoy pointing out the parts of Genesis that were accurate, even while admitting some parts were inaccurate. I’m also sure some ID proponents deny that any part of Genesis is inaccurate - and some don’t believe Christianity and God hinge on any part of Genesis’ accuracy regardless.

-Null

Yes, but religion solely deals with supposed Truth. If it doesn’t hinge on accuracy, then what?

 

[Nullasalus]

-NullI don’t ignore anything it gets right. I just weigh the significance of it, and compare it with everything it got wrong. But I debate the points they have claimed to be right.

Right, but you’re biased. And so am I. So what do you expect to get done? Really, by all means, if someone’s claim is incorrect call them on it. But you know what this comes down to - an atheist will disregard anything correct in Genesis as luck and anything incorrect as proof it’s all made up. A theist will regard anything correct as indications of the divine, and anything incorrect as a minor issue, and perhaps spiritual.

By our viewpoint there is comparable frustration. People like Gilbert Keith just absolutely refuse to learn or take any other point into consideration. They like to stay in their little boxed and packaged faith. It’s like they just can’t or refuse to learn. They refuse knowledge in favor of that which they cannot know, which just frustrates us.

No, they just refuse to draw the conclusions you want them to. In fact, they usually don’t care what atheists think, because atheists have (in their opinion - and I agree with it) their own blinders on.

The universe is meaningless and without purpose only if it will eventually be gone, and no forms that had existed in the past survive in any way in the future. That does not mean there are still truths in the world. What is, is. Our lives have purpose to us, and we can recognize that other peoples’ lives have purpose to them.

Honestly, you are pulling standards out of thin air. It’s desperate. And it’s also the atheist’s last resort - imitating theism but relying on obstinance from within rather than certitude and faith from without. What really seperates a theist from an atheist? The atheists claim theists believe in things that do not exist. And atheists believe in things they just plain make up.

You’re right, but their is still subjective meaning. But has religion stopped Marxism, Fascism? No. In fact, religion has even promoted fascism. If a religion contained an ultimate truth, I think it would be more evident. The greatest societies have been created by decentralizing religion. Communist China is quickly becoming a national powerhouse, and most people think this next century will be dominately theirs, just like the last century was ours. I probably wouldn’t want to live there but it does have its benefits. Even though it is communist, there are some freedoms the people have there which are largely unavailable to us here. For example, people can walk down busy city streets late at night without the fear of being attacked (robbed, raped, etc).

Once again - to atheists, there is no evil. Millions dead by Communist China, but they may be a superpower some day. Small price to pay. Stalin? Hitler? Hey, whatever succeeds. Reminds me of an old poem by CS Lewis. ‘Progress = What comes next.’

And for the record, ‘religion’ - the Catholic Church in particular - has put up a hell of a fight against Marxism, and even against some fascists. All of them? No - Franco for example. Then again, Franco was fighting marxists.

Yes, but that does not mean he can’t face the same repercussions.

There’s just no reason he should, unless fate and savagery turn against him. There is no justice - only results.

Yes, but religion solely deals with supposed Truth. If it doesn’t hinge on accuracy, then what?

And here we get to the real heart of the matter. Religion believes there is a Truth to grasp, and sometimes individuals make mistakes about what it is. Atheism believes there is no real truth at all. So long as God is possible, I know what option I will prefer.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Hubriss

*Then how do you know there is a reality beyond this world?
*
I know it by faith … by answering the desire God planted in me at my creation.

And how do you know there is no reality beyond this world?

You don’t … because for some reason only you can know, you have denied in yourself that same desire.

 

[Hubriss]

Right, but you’re biased. And so am I. So what do you expect to get done? Really, by all means, if someone’s claim is incorrect call them on it. But you know what this comes down to - an atheist will disregard anything correct in Genesis as luck and anything incorrect as proof it’s all made up. A theist will regard anything correct as indications of the divine, and anything incorrect as a minor issue, and perhaps spiritual.

-Nullasalus

Not really. No one is totally biased. It is not like we all have a pre-determined faith or belief, and the rest of our thought processes and decisions are based on it thereafter, even when determining the validity of our pre-determination. Hopefully we’ve each come to our conclusions by seriously studying and thinking about it. We have gotten ideas based on studies, experiences, logic, and reason. So, it is not as if our opinions can never change. We can always revert to the cause or basis of peoples’ conclusions and reason a different way. If each seriously takes the others’ into consideration, then we can change minds. It is not like I disregard true things in the Bible because they are harmful to my beliefs, but I seriously have thought about them, and don’t think they are significant in bases many other far fetched beliefs on them.

Like I’ve said before. Religion deals with supposed Truth, what is, and if it’s not accurate, why bother? Now, there may be some truths, that there is a god, that he is good. But Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim all have their rituals and specific beliefs that just shout “society developing religions,” and that they were originally not interested as much in telling truth from god, but rather were interested in shaping mindsets. That is what it seems like to me, so I try to show the reasons behind my thinking, and not just the end result. Hopefully, if I can get to other peoples’ roots, I might be able to change theirs.

No, they just refuse to draw the conclusions you want them to. In fact, they usually don’t care what atheists think, because atheists have (in their opinion - and I agree with it) their own blinders on.

-Null

Of course, most atheists and most theists do, but there is always a chance they can be removed.

And it’s not that they just don’t draw the same conclusions I do. Most just don’t research much at all themselves. I see Keith here, ranting about his absolute truth that he supposedly absolutely knows for sure, but where did he get it from? From God? Anyone can claim that, it has no substance. It seems to me that he hasn’t looked into it himself much at all. He’s just gotten the arguments from their religious leaders and his upbringing, and they get to the point that, like you said, they just don’t care what other people think. (But think think other people care what they think, it’s funny). And yes, I know I use the awful word “they,” because I know at times I am biased as well, but I’ve learned to notice it and stay away from it, and rethink and remember my reasoning.

The cause of many people’s biasedness I think is that people can’t rethink their whole argument or reasoning every time. They come to a point at one moment, then begin from there the next moment, and the conclusion they reached earlier is usually solidified in order to build upon it and gain further progress. So, it’s tough.

Honestly, you are pulling standards out of thin air. It’s desperate. And it’s also the atheist’s last resort - imitating theism but relying on obstinance from within rather than certitude and faith from without. What really seperates a theist from an atheist? The atheists claim theists believe in things that do not exist. And atheists believe in things they just plain make up.

-Null

This is philosophy buddy, it’s all made up. You don’t think Plato made up his idea about the world of forms? Or Augustine on his theories about the Trinity? Or Anselm’s or Kreeft’s proofs for God? But people usually don’t just take stuff out of thin air, they put thought into it. I’d say that the difference between atheists and theists is that atheists believe in stuff they make up, and theists believe in stuff other people have made up. But if you think about what I said, I’m sure you would agree. There is no ultimate purpose if what happens with us does not meaningfully affect the ultimate future in any place or form, including an afterlife.

 

[Hubriss]

And here we get to the real heart of the matter. Religion believes there is a Truth to grasp, and sometimes individuals make mistakes about what it is. Atheism believes there is no real truth at all. So long as God is possible, I know what option I will prefer.

-Null

Now, what is a Truth? You have to be very specific when talking about these things, because language often gets ideas mixed up. Atheism is not a rejection of truth. No one can reasonably deny truths. The statement, “There are no absolutes,” or no “truths” is itself a contradiction. You can look up truth on dictionary.com, and find that atheists don’t disagree with any of those statements. There are certain kinds of truths that we do deny though, like absolute moral truths and the such that would require a god to create them in order for them to exist. I don’t think there is one truth, or a Truth, but many truths. I don’t think the universe could exist if there was just one truth.

Hubriss

Then how do you know there is a reality beyond this world?

I know it by faith … by answering the desire God planted in me at my creation.

And how do you know there is no reality beyond this world?

You don’t … because for some reason only you can know, you have denied in yourself that same desire.

-Gilbert Keith

Which means nothing. Knowing by faith just means that’s what you think, or you think you know. Ah, or you “desire” to know. But, here we go again, what makes you think that desire came from God?

But that’s right, I don’t know whether or not there is reality beyond this world. There may be, there may not be. But I don’t claim to know, I question the claim to know.

“Those who know, do not tell. Those who tell, do not know.” -Lao Tzu

I think if anyone could possibly know there is an afterlife, they would never be able to explain it to someone else. The nature of god, heaven and hell. The reason is because it is other worldly, and our expressional ability is limited by ideas in this world. We can convey abstract ideas, but we must in a way that someone is able to reconstruct it, and picture it in their own mind. The only way we could know an all-powerful god exists would be to experience all his power, which would be unfathomable to us.

And if you desire ideas about God or spirituality or whatever, why deny desires of this world? We’re in it at the present after all.

 

[Nullasalus]

We can always revert to the cause or basis of peoples’ conclusions and reason a different way. If each seriously takes the others’ into consideration, then we can change minds. It is not like I disregard true things in the Bible because they are harmful to my beliefs, but I seriously have thought about them, and don’t think they are significant in bases many other far fetched beliefs on them.

But if you’re biased, how do you know that? That’s part of the problem. Yes, people can change - and people can take others’ ideas into consideration, biased or no. My point is that, really - you do reach a point where that simply is that. We’ve both read Genesis, we both have our preferences. So do many. When you’re getting into, say… ‘You can’t interpret Genesis that way!’ - that’s pretty much the end of it.

Like I’ve said before. Religion deals with supposed Truth, what is, and if it’s not accurate, why bother? Now, there may be some truths, that there is a god, that he is good. But Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim all have their rituals and specific beliefs that just shout “society developing religions,” and that they were originally not interested as much in telling truth from god, but rather were interested in shaping mindsets. That is what it seems like to me, so I try to show the reasons behind my thinking, and not just the end result. Hopefully, if I can get to other peoples’ roots, I might be able to change theirs.

‘Society developing religions’? How can it be done any other way? Human beings are social creatures - if God honestly did come down and speak to us, it would have social effects and realizations. The people would be interested in shaping mindsets. Are some specifics of religion obviously cultural? Sure - the kind of art used, for example. The entire presence of religion only ‘shouts society developing religions’ if you’re assuming that answer to begin with. Christians would look at all the various religions and say that it ‘shouts the natural awareness of God/the supernatural in man’. You’re both as justified as you can get on the level you’re thinking.

He’s just gotten the arguments from their religious leaders and his upbringing, and they get to the point that, like you said, they just don’t care what other people think. (But think think other people care what they think, it’s funny).

Well, you obviously care what other people think - you’ve admitted as much. And just because an argument is gotten from religious leaders and upbringing doesn’t mean it’s invalid. I think GK’s take on Genesis has been largely reasonable. I’ve disagreed with yours on many counts, and really, you’ve had unreasonable moments as well - telling me that I can’t draw certain conclusions from Genesis. For no other reason than, really - ‘I don’t like where you’re going with that.’

This is philosophy buddy, it’s all made up. You don’t think Plato made up his idea about the world of forms? Or Augustine on his theories about the Trinity? Or Anselm’s or Kreeft’s proofs for God? But people usually don’t just take stuff out of thin air, they put thought into it. I’d say that the difference between atheists and theists is that atheists believe in stuff they make up, and theists believe in stuff other people have made up. But if you think about what I said, I’m sure you would agree. There is no ultimate purpose if what happens with us does not meaningfully affect the ultimate future in any place or form, including an afterlife.

They take stuff out of thin air - and then they put thought into it.

Really, I think what you just said pretty much sums up the glaring problem with atheism - and in particular, atheists. Believing that nothing matters, that nothing is truly meaningful, the only destiny is oblivion and void - and then acting as if the exact opposite were true. You admit that the difference between a theist and an atheist, if atheism is right, is minimal at best - almost semantics alone. And yet it’s very important that you change people’s minds. Why? Well, that’s just the delusion you’ve chosen for yourself. Which is the reason I ultimately side with the theists: Because atheism, taken to its logical conclusion, is irrational both by nature (The nature it admits to has no meaning) and irrational (the way serious, ‘hard’ atheists act, defies their own beliefs).

But anyway - we’re off the talk of atheistic evolution v christian evolution. As ever, it comes down to interpretation. Nothing about the scientific world truly conflicts with religion. You can rally interpretations of scientific reality against religious belief, or in favor of religious belief. So I’ll kindly bow out of this thread; maybe I’ll start another one about what atheists actually believe in, or what they can believe in given a ground in strong atheism.

 

[steveandersen]

……… I think that if we are ever going to have a peaceful world, religion needs to be taken out. But I recognize that if religion is solely taken out, our societies would worsen even further. We need to couple it with mass education and respect for human and worldly nature, while still not being extreme in those regards (don’t think we should all be vegetarians). …….

not to go off topic or but-in on this conversation
BUT
This statement intrigues me.

You want to get rid of religions (which among other things generally include some sort of guide for personal behavior and a system of values) and then replace it with a mass education program with some sort of guide for personal behavior and a system of values.

What would be the basis of your mass education system? And how would getting everyone to buy into that system differ from getting everyone to agree on a single religious based value system?

(as an aside, when I hear “mass education” shades of “new Soviet men” or Mao’s “great leaps” rise up before my eyes.)

Sorry for the interruption
Carry on.

 

[mich2]

-Null

Now, what is a Truth? You have to be very specific when talking about these things, because language often gets ideas mixed up. Atheism is not a rejection of truth. No one can reasonably deny truths. The statement, “There are no absolutes,” or no “truths” is itself a contradiction. You can look up truth on dictionary.com, and find that atheists don’t disagree with any of those statements. There are certain kinds of truths that we do deny though, like absolute moral truths and the such that would require a god to create them in order for them to exist. I don’t think there is one truth, or a Truth, but many truths. I don’t think the universe could exist if there was just one truth.

I agree that we, as observers, can speak of “scientific truths” ( small “t”). However, would you agree with the idea that the universe is “much”, “much” more than that which we can observe? Take, for instance, the gift of sight; if nature hadn’t developped this sense, the universe as we know it would be much more limited and closed than the one we presently know. The moon, the stars, and galaxies light years away would not exist in terms of what we would identify as “scientific truth”. Now if one human, by chance would be born with the gift of sight, and such a one would try to explain to us the truth about the immensity of our universe, we, personally, “could not” accept his/her claim as a witness to what we would call scientific truth, but could indeed still “believe”, in terms of faith, in what he/she is saying as being a truth above that which we could accept due to our limits as observers.
Also, if you accept the theory of Relativity as a scientific truth, and,since you have not yourself performed any of the experiments which suggests the invariant speed of light, then, you simply are personally “accepting” the words of others who claim to having witnessed such laws of nature, and so, cannot be said to be a scientific truth relative to “your” personal history of observations .So, personal truth, and scientific truth can be said to differ in that,personal truth is extended to “accepting the words of others(scientists,for example)” who have claimed to witnessed a scientific truth…Therefore, returning to our first example, what would differenciate in accepting the person who has the potential to observe a greater universe due to his/her gift of sight, and accepting the words of a scientist, as truth?In both cases, we cannot “personally” have proof of neither truth.

Which means nothing. Knowing by faith just means that’s what you think, or you think you know. Ah, or you “desire” to know. But, here we go again, what makes you think that desire came from God?

…Or that the universe has started as a point of singularity where
spacetime existed in one single dimention.Such a truth, is a personal truth, and there is no guarantee that such a theory is correct. However, notice that atheists find nothing wrong in accepting such a theory as a personal truth, while, at the same time, accepting the witness of the risen Christ is seen as being illogical…such a form of reasoning, in my opinion, is illogical.

But that’s right, I don’t know whether or not there is reality beyond this world. There may be, there may not be. But I don’t claim to know, I question the claim to know.

But, you still calim to “believe” in the realities existing behind the implication of Qunatum Mechanics, or Relativity, I’m sure. While you may also claim that such hypotheses might still be erronious, I believe that this is the position of most Christians as well…our beliefs “might” be erronious", “but”, we “believe” it to be Truth…Truth, above that which we can observe and understand.

“Those who know, do not tell. Those who tell, do not know.” -Lao Tzu

I think if anyone could possibly know there is an afterlife, they would never be able to explain it to someone else. The nature of god, heaven and hell. The reason is because it is other worldly, and our expressional ability is limited by ideas in this world. We can convey abstract ideas, but we must in a way that someone is able to reconstruct it, and picture it in their own mind. The only way we could know an all-powerful god exists would be to experience all his power, which would be unfathomable to us.

And if you desire ideas about God or spirituality or whatever, why deny desires of this world? We’re in it at the present after all.

I think that you’re right on with this one, being the reason why, within the scriptures, are found many symbolisms.

Andre