The greatest argument of all time... (moved from "Christians" thread)

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

There has been an effect of religion on the earth, religion which is man-made and all of its effects have been mediated by men. God has never made a single clearly identifiable mark on the world.

Yes he has: atheism.

toiletduck

2can wrote: »

I dont know too much about science but if I'm correct the Big Bang Theory has something to do with gases coming together and creating and explosion here we are. Well how did the gases get there?

You're not correct. At least do a simple search on what it actually is, it doesn't require that much effort!

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

Yes he has: atheism.

*wonders whether if you highlighted all the atheists on the planet in a satellite photograph it would spell out 'God Woz Ere' in giant letters*

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

*wonders whether if you highlighted all the atheists on the planet in a satellite photograph it would spell out 'God Woz Ere' in giant letters*

lol

pinksoir

Jakkass,

The best thing you could do, if you are really seeking understanding of evolution, is to read a book on it. I know you said before that you would like to ask questions and get a dialogue going, and that is well and good, but perhaps it would be better for you to get acquainted with the literature and then come back here and ask questions.

You are in the unfortunate position of having sought out religion first, and now are trying to reconcile scientific understanding of the world with it. You quite possibly will always be at a disadvantage in this respect as you will never be in a position to ask a question (about science) genuinely, without regard for what sort of impact it will have on your idea of God. It truly is a burden.

You say that you now believe in theistic evolution, or evolution that is guided by the hand of God. Again this is trying to reconcile your idea of God with reality. There are some things in this world that you just cannot attach God to. Evolution is one of those things. Again I urge you to read a book about the subject, if you really are intellectually genuine about wanting to understand it. It will answer your questions better than anyone on this board (no offence Wicknight, Jammy-Dodger etc! Your posts are very good illustrations of evolution in action).

A good book to start with would be either the Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene. Both by aul Richard Dawkins. Whatever your views of him as a person, as a scientist he is second to none. He has dedicated his life to neo-Darwinian evolution and he is a great writer and extremely easy to understand. Think of it in the same vain as separating Tom Cruise the person from Tom Cruise the actor... but someone better than Tom Cruise... who's also insane... erm... I dunno. But I digress.

I don't mean to go on, but I really think you should read a book on the subject.

Finally, and please Jakkass don't take this as a jab at you as it isn't meant to be, it is meant in general, but wilful ignorance is often painful to read. I drop by this board less and less for a good old lurk as I see the same questions put again and again about evolution, and indeed other areas of science, and always because the people asking them haven't read ANYTHING about the subject. Evolution really is something you have to read in order to fully understand. Once you understand it you'll stop trying to reconcile it with God. All the literature is out there. You'll read a book on it in a couple of days. It'll be done. Same goes for other areas of science. I don't know how the regulars do it!

Once more for good luck, read a book!

Húrin

pinksoir wrote: »

You are in the unfortunate position of having sought out religion first, and now are trying to reconcile scientific understanding of the world with it. You quite possibly will always be at a disadvantage in this respect as you will never be in a position to ask a question (about science) genuinely, without regard for what sort of impact it will have on your idea of God. It truly is a burden.

You say that you now believe in theistic evolution, or evolution that is guided by the hand of God. Again this is trying to reconcile your idea of God with reality.

Your position is just as ridiculous as Jakkass' because it presupposes that atheism is true. You create a God/reality dualism.

Why recommend Dawkins? This again shows your bias in favour of atheism. I think that he would be better off reading Darwin's The Origin of Species (being the book that kicked off the rest) or Stephen Jay Gould's Ever Since Darwin.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Your position is just as ridiculous as Jakkass' because it presupposes that atheism is true.

Some what missing the point. There are no consequences in relation to science to believing atheism is true. It isn't going to hinder scientific learning.

There are HUGE consequences to believing Christianity is true. It is a brick wall that scientific study slams straight into.

Húrin wrote: »

Why recommend Dawkins? This again shows your bias in favour of atheism.

Actually you show your religious bias, the idea that despite Dawkins being famous for writing very good and clear books explaining evolution for the general public (much more so that Darwin or Gould), we should ignore him because he is a dirty atheist.

pinksoir

Húrin wrote: »

Your position is just as ridiculous as Jakkass' because it presupposes that atheism is true. You create a God/reality dualism.

Why recommend Dawkins? This again shows your bias in favour of atheism. I think that he would be better off reading Darwin's The Origin of Species (being the book that kicked off the rest) or Stephen Jay Gould's Ever Since Darwin.

Wrong.

I never said anything about myself believing or not believing in God. Whether God exists or not has no bearing on the validity of evolution. BUT, believing in theistic evolution is just trying to fit reality into a God centred world view. There is absolutely no evidence for theistic evolution being true, but all the evidence points to evolution by natural selection being true.

I recommended Dawkins because he is, in my view, the best evolutionary scientist the world has. His books explain the neo-dawinian theory in very easy-to-understand language. They are very accessible. The origin of species, while revolutionary, is by no means exhaustive, nor does it include ANY OF THE NEW SCIENCE that has been worked on since it's writing, the very science that can demonstrate it's validity beyond any reasonable doubt.

As for me having a bias towards atheism? Stop being so obtuse. If I have any bias at all it is towards evolution by natural selection, which has overwhelming evidence, over theistic, or God guided evolution which has absolutely no evidence and is just a desperate attempt, by those who don't understand evolution, to try and fit God into the equation where He doesn't need to be.

However, as I said before, this has absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not. In fact I know plenty of people who accept evolution by natural selection, have read Dawkins' books on it, understand it fully, and still believe in God. Indeed, I was one of them for a long time. It was a multitude of things that convinced me of God's non-existence. All of them science-based, admittedly. Cosmology, really. But again, I digress.

Húrin

pinksoir wrote: »

I never said anything about myself believing or not believing in God. Whether God exists or not has no bearing on the validity of evolution. BUT, believing in theistic evolution is just trying to fit reality into a God centred world view. There is absolutely no evidence for theistic evolution being true, but all the evidence points to evolution by natural selection being true.

Phrases like that bolded imply that the theist does not view their God centred world view as being the definition of reality. It's a dodgy dualism.

I see that you mean that God, if he exists, had no direct involvement with the process of evolution (i.e. he didn't personally select which traits would become dominant). I would be inclined to agree, as there was no need to.

I don't see how there is a conflict between theistic evolution and natural selection. Theists believe that God is the author of the laws of nature which natural selection works within.

I recommended Dawkins because he is, in my view, the best evolutionary scientist the world has.

That's fair enough. Given that IMO the recent major evolutionary biologist one would think of reading first would be Gould, I thought that Dawkins was a rather tactical recommendation. Paranoia on my part perhaps, sorry.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Some what missing the point. There are no consequences in relation to science to believing atheism is true. It isn't going to hinder scientific learning.

There are HUGE consequences to believing Christianity is true. It is a brick wall that scientific study slams straight into.

I wonder what Isaac Newton or Francis Collins would think of that opinion.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder what Isaac Newton or Francis Collins would think of that opinion.

Ya atheism really got in there way. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I wonder what Isaac Newton or Francis Collins would think of that opinion.

I could not have thought of better examples myself to be honest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

pinksoir

Húrin wrote: »

I don't see how there is a conflict between theistic evolution and natural selection. Theists believe that God is the author of the laws of nature which natural selection works within.

Perhaps we mean something different when we speak about theistic evolution. Earlier, Jakkass said that he believes that evolution is guided by God. If you are saying that Evolution is not guided by God, but rather takes place within a universe that God created, including all it's laws and constants, then this is not the same thing at all, and it was not what I was arguing against. In fact, I would be in complete agreement. Well, obviously apart from the God part, I would contend that it merely takes place within a universe that has laws and constants and would be happy to leave it at that.

What I mean when I speak about theistic evolution would be that which Jakkass says he believes, ie evolution occurs, but it is supervised and directed by the hand of God. There is no reason to believe this, as there is absolutely no evidence for it, quite the contrary in fact in so much as, if it were true, it would negate natural selection for which there is so much evidence.

What I get from you is that you accept that evolution by natural selection occurs, within the natural world, which, as you said, God authored the laws for. Essentially, just plain old evolution by natural selection. It isn't necessary to include God in the equation. Isn't it a given that He created the world and it's laws? It's just accepting evolution by natural selection while at the same time believing in God.

As an aside. Doesn't the acceptance of evolution by natural selection raise many questions as a theist? It just seems so complicated to me. Natural selection occurs, which is essentially a blind process with no end goal, yet God created the world for humans. We had to evolve over billions of years from the earliest life, which presumably God knew would eventually end up as humans. So there was an end goal. But we are not even remotely 'fit' enough to survive in most of the environments in earth, so we are essentially an imperfect creation. So God did a pretty lousy job. Or maybe since there are no end goals in blind natural selection, God had no idea what He would end up with. But then He had to know, you know, omniscience and all... So why even bother with the process? Billions of years? So much death and pain for all those creatures competing for survival.

And what about poor old Homo Neanderthalus? They died out. But apparently they were almost indistinguishable from us. Probably very intelligent, and certainly self-aware. Were they a side project He got bored with? Why allow for them within the parameters He set up for natural selection to take place?

When humans eventually become extinct, or else evolve further into a completely different species, what then? And what about the questions about us being made in the likeness of God? Do you believe we will evolve further? To a likeness unlike that of God?

Sorry to go on but the mind does boggle...

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

I could not have thought of better examples myself to be honest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

Is your rationale, that if Newton had not "wasted" his time with this theological stuff, then he would have achieved more scientific research?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Is your rationale, that if Newton had not "wasted" his time with this theological stuff, then he would have achieved more scientific research?

Certainly.

Newton is often described as not one of the first great scientists but the last great magicians.

He believed some really crazy stuff, though possibly this is more forgiving given the era he lived in, but even by the standards of the day he was way out there on some of the supernatural stuff he believed in.

A great mind is a terrible thing to waste. But I guess if it made him happy ...