Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

[Thermos aquaticus]

That's a very key distinction and the point at which Guy's analogy falls apart (btw, notice how Guy can only advocate for ID creationism by appealing to analogies). With the big bang and other hypotheses that were initially rejected only to later become accepted, their advocates did exactly as you described.....they continued to collect data, conduct analyses, publish their results in the relevant literature, and cite that work in convincing their peers.

None of them lobbied school boards and legislatures to teach their ideas; none of them went to court to get their ideas taught in public schools; none of them wrote "alternative textbooks"; none of them made movies. Conversely, ID creationists immediately did all of the above when their ideas were rejected by the scientific community.

And that's one of the main ways we know that ID creationism is a (failed) legal and political strategy rather than science.

Precisely.

It is also ironic that the biggest opponents of the BB theory in the modern age are creationists. Time and again the creationists label the BB theory as being atheistic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As in the OP, it's about personal beliefs in God /atheism and evolution, atheism and evolution go hand in hand for Dawkins,

I've read some of his works and I disagree with your assessment of his opinion. He acknowledges that many religious people accept the science of evolution.

not sure how we'd measure relative levels of 'interest' but I don't think any amount of pushing atheism or insulting skeptics exactly helps with the scientific method being rigorously followed..

If you're going to refer to someone's views on the evidences of evolution, you should probably cite the book(s) that person wrote in which they provided evidences for evolution, rather than a book on a different topic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If we didn't know that the complexity of life can be explained by natural processes, it would be logical to assume that its origins are supernatural.

Why would it be logical to turn to supernatural processes when there is no evidence that there is a "supernatural" anything to begin with?

 

[Axe Elf]

Let's cut to the chase shall we.

Yes, let's. I'm sorry that I haven't been around for a couple of days to finish your lesson, but I'm here now.

You have stated that my views are illogical, nonsensical and irrational.

Agreed. It was merely an observation on my part, but you've done a great job of supporting it through your ongoing insistence that anything whatsoever can be done if one can only bring enough power to bear upon it. All this power has yet to squeeze out a single one-sided coin, however.

What you have to understand is, I do not believe in a god or gods.

Gee, that's a pretty difficult concept to get my head around, but if it is ever relevant to anything in this discussion, I will certainly try to keep that in mind.

I was not the one who made up irrational words like omnipotent and omniscient and stated they were attributes of my god.

Me neither. But you do get to take credit for re-defining the word omnipotent to mean "able to do anything whatsoever, even irrational things" which (obviously) makes it a lot less rational than it was when it just meant "all-powerful."

What I have been doing is demonstrating that your version of god is illogical, nonsensical and irrational.

Trying, anyway... and failing... miserably. Simply redefining "omnipotent" to mean something nonsensical doesn't have anything to do with MY version of God.

You have stated that god is omnipotent and you stated what that means to you: "God has infinite, unlimited power".

Correct, that is the common, dictionary definition of the word "omnipotent."

Then you hedge

No, I don't. I unequivocally stand by that definition as it is written.

by saying that unlimited power isn't really unlimited power

Oh no, you have completely misunderstood something that I said. Unlimited power REALLY IS unlimited power.

because god cannot do some things like make a one sided coin. If god cannot make a one sided coin, then god does not have unlimited power.

Or, a one-sided coin cannot be made with any amount of power. If you would like to dispute that, please provide a measurement of work over time that would be required in order to create a one-sided coin. You may use any unit of measurement for power that you like, joules per second (watts), ergs per second, horsepower, foot-pounds per minute, whatever.

If you cannot meet your burden of proof by describing how much power it would take to create a one-sided coin (or at least a method of determining how much power it would take), then I am going to have to dismiss your claim that a one-sided coin could be made if one had access to infinite power as being wholly unsupported by evidence.

You fail to see how illogical and irrational your views are.

That's because it is impossible (or at least irrational) to see logic and reason as illogical or irrational.

You cannot reconcile your own interpretation of the word.

I'm good. Seems like the only one having problems with that is you.

No one can

Just because YOU can't, doesn't mean no one can. For proof, I present myself, who has.

because the word omnipotence is self contradictory as you, yourself have pointed out.

Oh dear, I'm afraid your reading comprehension skills have let you down again. I have said no such thing.

If you want to create a word semiomnipotence and declare it to be an attribute of your god , then by all means do so.

I think I'll pass. The word "omnipotence" works well enough for the rest of the world's population, and when it comes to you, we have agreed to use the definition of omnipotence instead--"all-powerful"--so everyone should be good now.

You could then go on by creating the word semiomniscient.

Why, are you having difficulties understanding THAT word as well? Are you sure theology is really an area you should be discussing?

If you did that you might have to reevaluate your views on free will.

Possibly, so I can't see any reason to do that, when the original "omniscience" works just fine.

 

[Axe Elf]

So God is locked into those choices?

That’s a different understanding of free will than the one I described, where the agent is free to make choices at the time they are apparently made, choices that even the agent might not have known he would make until he made them, and choices not imposed on the body by neural circuitry outside of consciousness.

Sorry I haven't been around for a couple of days; I didn't mean to leave you hanging.

Being "locked into those choices," and "being free to make choices at the time they are apparently made" implies that there exists a time OTHER than the time at which choices are made, and I do not believe that to be true of God. God exists outside of time in an eternal "now," so there is never a "time" other than the "time" at which He determined the spacial and temporal structure of the universe.

I call arguments that ask us to suspend reason to accept impossible logical contradictions as transcendently reasonable, and moral absurdities as actually moral in some sense beyond our understanding, puny mind arguments, a form of special pleading. That is, our minds are too puny to grasp these thing, so we should just accept them as true however much they offend our understanding and values even though we wouldn’t do so under any other circumstances.

"Transcendently reasonable" eh? That's certainly diplomatic. A "puny mind argument" might be more accurate, but at least it still skirts the forum rules against personal attacks.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Why would it be logical to turn to supernatural processes when there is no evidence that there is a "supernatural" anything to begin with?

Perhaps I didn't choose words carefully enough. I'd say it would not be illogical to believe in supernatural design prior to Darwin, though not necessarily logical either. Of course since Darwin it is now certainly illogical.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

I realized there was no God or anything supernatural, the minute the entire science class told me that there was no such thing as a stork delivering babies. But it was my Santa belief that drove in the final nail. So, accepting Evolution was a no-brainer.

 

[ecco]

You have stated that god is omnipotent and you stated what that means to you: "God has infinite, unlimited power".

... But you do get to take credit for re-defining the word omnipotent to mean "able to do anything whatsoever, even irrational things"
Correct, that is the common, dictionary definition of the word "omnipotent."
No, I don't. I unequivocally stand by that definition as it is written.

This is the first definition that comes up in Google

om·nip·o·tent
ˌämˈnipəd(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

​

You will notice that it says "able to do anything". It does not say able to do only things that Axe Elf believes are rational.

If your god cannot create a one sided coin, then your god is not able to do anything. Therefore your god, by the standard definition that you claim to accept, is not omniscient




But if you really want to be rational...

Omnipotent is a word that people made up solely for the purpose of attributing it to their gods. Hercules and Atlas were strong gods. But an omnipotent god would be even stronger. It's just a word created by man to define an attribute to man made gods.


Like with so many religious things, when you really look at the ramifications, you quickly find the BS. You find the internal self contradictions. Then believers like you hem and haw and hedge and make silly comments like omnipotent is omnipotent except when it isn't.

Bottom line, no god, no gods. Therefore, no omnipotence. Therefore no need to have silly discussions about what "omnipotence" REALLY means. It means nothing in a rational world. Likewise Omniscience and Omnipresence.

 

[Axe Elf]

This is the first definition that comes up in Google

om·nip·o·tent
ˌämˈnipəd(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

​

You will notice that it says "able to do anything". It does not say able to do only things that Axe Elf believes are rational.

If your god cannot create a one sided coin, then your god is not able to do anything. Therefore your god, by the standard definition that you claim to accept, is not omniscient




But if you really want to be rational...

Omnipotent is a word that people made up solely for the purpose of attributing it to their gods. Hercules and Atlas were strong gods. But an omnipotent god would be even stronger. It's just a word created by man to define an attribute to man made gods.


Like with so many religious things, when you really look at the ramifications, you quickly find the BS. You find the internal self contradictions. Then believers like you hem and haw and hedge and make silly comments like omnipotent is omnipotent except when it isn't.

Bottom line, no god, no gods. Therefore, no omnipotence. Therefore no need to have silly discussions about what "omnipotence" REALLY means. It means nothing in a rational world. Likewise Omniscience and Omnipresence.

Well, I do commend you on finding ONE source that kinda sorta makes your point, if you accept a colloquial secondary definition. But the word still comes from Latin roots meaning "all-powerful," and--as I have maintained all along--if you prefer, you can presume my use of "all-powerful" any time I use the word "omnipotent."

And until you can show that an all-powerful ANYTHING (forget "God" if that word bothers you too) can do things that are impossible with ANY amount of power, you really haven't changed anything about the real world just by deciding that some word is meaningless to you.

 

[Audie]

Well, I do commend you on finding ONE source that kinda sorta makes your point, if you accept a colloquial secondary definition. But the word still comes from Latin roots meaning "all-powerful," and--as I have maintained all along--if you prefer, you can presume my use of "all-powerful" any time I use the word "omnipotent."

And until you can show that an all-powerful ANYTHING (forget "God" if that word bothers you too) can do things that are impossible with ANY amount of power, you really haven't changed anything about the real world just by deciding that some word is meaningless to you.

You are confident that the real world includes
supernatural monsters?

 

[ecco]

Well, I do commend you on finding ONE source that kinda sorta makes your point, if you accept a colloquial secondary definition. But the word still comes from Latin roots meaning "all-powerful," and--as I have maintained all along--if you prefer, you can presume my use of "all-powerful" any time I use the word "omnipotent."

As I have said, repeatedly, I'm OK with the commonly accepted definition and fully accept all-powerful.

And until you can show that an all-powerful ANYTHING (forget "God" if that word bothers you too) can do things that are impossible with ANY amount of power, you really haven't changed anything about the real world just by deciding that some word is meaningless to you.

The word god doesn't bother me at all. Without the concept of god(s) there would be no OMNI words. I thought I made that clear in my previous post.


You say you accept the meaning of a word and then hedge by saying it means something less.

• With your comparatively puny human mind you arrive at conclusions about your god's abilities and contradictorily insist that your god's abilities are less than you say they are.
• With your comparatively puny human mind you decide what is and what is not impossible for an omni-all entity.

Only an omniscient entity can know the capabilities of an omni-all entity.

Do you consider yourself to be an omniscient entity?

If not, then you should stop pretending you have any way of knowing the capabilities of an omni-all entity.

 

[syo]

For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

god created the natural pocess.

 

[Audie]

god created the natural pocess.

Hm. Sounds like hearsay. You sure?

 

[syo]

Hm. Sounds like hearsay. You sure?

yes. a complex mechanism needs a creator.

 

[Audie]

yes. a complex mechanism needs a creator.

Ok, one hearsay, one fact not in evidence.

 

[1137]

Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

Actually it's because I accept evolution that I'm a theist, at least in part. This is because our consciousness and how it arose doesn't fit with darwinian evolution in the slightest. Neither does religious beliefs actually. Wasting time with stories, being distracted by the stars at night, wasting resources for things like art, it's all completely against how evolution normally works. So it's very easy for me to be a theist and accept the evidence for evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

our consciousness and how it arose doesn't fit with darwinian evolution in the slightest

Disagree.

Darwin's theory predicts that if consciousness is possible, and if naturalistic genetic variation subjected to natural selection can produce, it will be selected for if it confers a competitive advantage in conscious agents

• “We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary, it is spectacularly unparsimonious.” – Dawkins

Things are the way they are because they can be and happen to be.

Did you want to argue that God created consciousness? If so, was He conscious while doing it?

 

[Axe Elf]

You are confident that the real world includes supernatural monsters?

Well, that's a new topic, but I suppose we can talk about it if you like. I'm not sure where your supposition comes from, but no, I'm pretty confident of just the opposite, actually. I'm pretty confident that zombies, werewolves and vampires do not exist in the real world.

 

[1137]

Disagree.

Darwin's theory predicts that if consciousness is possible, and if naturalistic genetic variation subjected to natural selection can produce, it will be selected for if it confers a competitive advantage in conscious agents

• “We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary, it is spectacularly unparsimonious.” – Dawkins

Things are the way they are because they can be and happen to be.

Did you want to argue that God created consciousness? If so, was He conscious while doing it?

Nothing in that quote "predicts consciousness." It just presumes that if something exists it's explainable by darwinian evolution, fallacious reasoning. I don't believe Set or whatever form we use created consciousness, consciousness was always separate from material world, and Set added consciosness to matter. This is why we call it the gift of Set.

 

[Audie]

Well, that's a new topic, but I suppose we can talk about it if you like. I'm not sure where your supposition comes from, but no, I'm pretty confident of just the opposite, actually. I'm pretty confident that zombies, werewolves and vampires do not exist in the real world.

You know what I meant