• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

Audie

Veteran Member
But they are trying to deny theists their faith in favor of their own. It's not any different.


If I were to stand back and look at the tone of my posts in general I'd say they may have a tone of authoritativeness in how I put things. And as part of that I probably show less tolerance for nonsense. That's the atheist inside of me, all rational, knowledgeable, articulate, etc. That can seem "cold" perhaps to some.


BS. I did not start the attack. You blurted out that my thoughts were about me "massaging my ego". That is a personal insult and attack. I did no such thing to you anywhere in what I have posted. I have no interest in attacking you and your personal motives whatever those might be. I couldn't know. That is just simply an ad hominem attack, and anyone who does that shows the world they don't hold any winning cards left in their hand. I did not attack you once, even after you attacked me. I did however report that, as I'm tired of you doing this with me. It's not the first time. But I trust it will be the last.


I don't know the context of this right now. If I said something like that, I'm trying to reframe it in a way that fits another way of looking at it, putting a different face on it than the one you may have been hoping will make your case for you. I don't know for sure here.


I am extremely knowledgeable about the ego. I understand the way it works, the stages of development it goes through, it's role in our basic functioning, and all that. I would surmise with some confidence, I probably know more about it as a subject of understanding than you do.

However, you saying me "massaging my ego", is not talking about any of that. That's a particular insulting phrase that anyone says to another when they want to dismiss what they are saying, by making it personal about them. You may as well say I'm just "jerking off" my ego. It's the exact same thing and meaning. I'm not stupid, and neither is everyone else.


Everything I said there was not about your argument. It was about your behavior in attacking me instead of presenting arguments. I was telling you how such tactics cannot and will not fly by me, and then someone turning around and attempting to claim it was me doing it? I'm suspecting a pattern of something I'm familiar with known as Gaslighting someone. It won't work with me.


Yeah, I don't know what you mean. Correct. It was not "hyperbole", which is an exaggeration. It was a metaphor. It's a common metaphor with a poker reference, "He's not holding many cards in his hand". It's commonly applied to debates where one person says to the other, "I can tell by the style of debate here, restorting to personal attacks instead of arguments, that you don't have many cards (of point count) in your hand". It's saying they are acting that way because they don't have any arguments left.

If you mean to say me pointing out that I don't believe you really can support your arguments as me "attempting to poison your ego", I honestly don't know what to say to that. I would hope you would instead show some integrity and admit you don't have good arguments, instead of trying to make it sounds like I'm trying to "poison" your self worth. Perhaps you'd do better avoiding online discussions if you think that's what others are trying to do to you? That would be something only you would be doing to yourself.


You started with a personal attack, and I responded to that behavior, when you denied it, as you are now. You then belittle that as me having a "diatribe", etc. All of that is what one sees in gaslighting behaviors, I'm seeing for myself.

Anyway, I'm not going to say anymore to this if you're not going to accept responsibility. I don't wish to waste my time with someone who habitually sinks to personal attacks, and turns all subsequent discussion away from the topic to talk about how I have victimized them. Again, avoiding the topic through introducing personal attack to begin with. Mission accomplished.

I am not attacking you personally, when I disagree with your thinking on these subjects. Saying to me I am just "massaging my ego" is attacking me personally.

You kids quit fighting!
 

Audie

Veteran Member
A magic man in the sky made everything happen 6000 years ago. Hm, let me think about that critically...
Let's weigh the evidence:
Pro:
The Scriptures were written 4000 years ago based on the knowledge, hopes and aspirations of a religious sect of Jews.​
Con:
None of the major events written about have any evidence to suggest they are true. All of the major events written about have a lot of evidence to show they are false.​

Shows you what that "Christian discernment" thing
does to what may have been an otherwise very normal
person.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco:
But I suppose if one believes in predestination it must be because he was predestined to believe in predestination.

Predestination you say? That's ironic you mention that considering that I am the one arguing for science, and you for mysterious "random" uncalculable phenomenas.

When you argue against randomness, which you have for several posts, you are arguing in support of predestination.

This all started when you stated that you couldn't believe in evolution because too much depended on randomness. Evolution is science. When you argue against evolution, you are arguing against science, not arguing for science.


What "random uncalculable phenomena" have I been arguing for; Your father impregnating your mother? I don't consider getting someone pregnant a "phenomena". However, which random sperm for six generations are going to be successful, well, yeah, that's pretty much incalculable. You've been arguing the opposite.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Slips, falls, headaches, timing and low odds you say..? All predictable, claculable chemical and physical actions and reactions on a mass scale...

It's just nobody, and no thing has the capacity to do all the math and realize all the variables involved. But that doesn’t make it impossible. Rather, it is possible, and could be done mathematically.





As I asked in another post...

How does supposing that someday a supercomputer the size of Jupiter can know everything in advance affect your daily life?



@Polymath257 suggests radioactive decay is uncalculable. I find that hard to believe.

For someone who asserts he supports science, you seem to have a problem believing in understanding some very basic science.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
As I asked in another post...
Let's, for the sake of discussion, say that you are correct. How does that help you to know when I am going to respond to your next post?

How does supposing that someday a supercomputer the size of Jupiter can know everything in advance affect your daily life?

While it would have no direct effect on my life, learning new things tends to offer a feeling accomplishment. Such as with all scientific discovery.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
But they are trying to deny theists their faith in favor of their own. It's not any different.


If I were to stand back and look at the tone of my posts in general I'd say they may have a tone of authoritativeness in how I put things. And as part of that I probably show less tolerance for nonsense. That's the atheist inside of me, all rational, knowledgeable, articulate, etc. That can seem "cold" perhaps to some.


BS. I did not start the attack. You blurted out that my thoughts were about me "massaging my ego". That is a personal insult and attack. I did no such thing to you anywhere in what I have posted. I have no interest in attacking you and your personal motives whatever those might be. I couldn't know. That is just simply an ad hominem attack, and anyone who does that shows the world they don't hold any winning cards left in their hand. I did not attack you once, even after you attacked me. I did however report that, as I'm tired of you doing this with me. It's not the first time. But I trust it will be the last.


I don't know the context of this right now. If I said something like that, I'm trying to reframe it in a way that fits another way of looking at it, putting a different face on it than the one you may have been hoping will make your case for you. I don't know for sure here.


I am extremely knowledgeable about the ego. I understand the way it works, the stages of development it goes through, it's role in our basic functioning, and all that. I would surmise with some confidence, I probably know more about it as a subject of understanding than you do.

However, you saying me "massaging my ego", is not talking about any of that. That's a particular insulting phrase that anyone says to another when they want to dismiss what they are saying, by making it personal about them. You may as well say I'm just "jerking off" my ego. It's the exact same thing and meaning. I'm not stupid, and neither is everyone else.


Everything I said there was not about your argument. It was about your behavior in attacking me instead of presenting arguments. I was telling you how such tactics cannot and will not fly by me, and then someone turning around and attempting to claim it was me doing it? I'm suspecting a pattern of something I'm familiar with known as Gaslighting someone. It won't work with me.


Yeah, I don't know what you mean. Correct. It was not "hyperbole", which is an exaggeration. It was a metaphor. It's a common metaphor with a poker reference, "He's not holding many cards in his hand". It's commonly applied to debates where one person says to the other, "I can tell by the style of debate here, restorting to personal attacks instead of arguments, that you don't have many cards (of point count) in your hand". It's saying they are acting that way because they don't have any arguments left.

If you mean to say me pointing out that I don't believe you really can support your arguments as me "attempting to poison your ego", I honestly don't know what to say to that. I would hope you would instead show some integrity and admit you don't have good arguments, instead of trying to make it sounds like I'm trying to "poison" your self worth. Perhaps you'd do better avoiding online discussions if you think that's what others are trying to do to you? That would be something only you would be doing to yourself.


You started with a personal attack, and I responded to that behavior, when you denied it, as you are now. You then belittle that as me having a "diatribe", etc. All of that is what one sees in gaslighting behaviors, I'm seeing for myself.

Anyway, I'm not going to say anymore to this if you're not going to accept responsibility. I don't wish to waste my time with someone who habitually sinks to personal attacks, and turns all subsequent discussion away from the topic to talk about how I have victimized them. Again, avoiding the topic through introducing personal attack to begin with. Mission accomplished.

I am not attacking you personally, when I disagree with your thinking on these subjects. Saying to me I am just "massaging my ego" is attacking me personally.


Methinks thou protest muchly
Ignore
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Don't forget that people died from war and plagues, too in the old days. But that doesn't mean, no one who died from those wars and illness hadn't given any testimony.

A bit of a tangent, but I strongly suspect that this exacerbation of displays of faith is indeed a very recent phenomenon.

People did not often have much idle time in past centuries.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Christians are not the only ones who do that. The atheists I've encountered take great joy in doing that with theists. They write entire books to that end, with such titles as "The God Delusion". You've heard of it, I assume?

You seem not to have realize how necessary they are, from your posts in this thread.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
On the second to the last page of "Origin of the Species," Charles Darwin writes,

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Sounds a little like the series 'Cosmos' by Carl Sagan. If it was consistent it should have been titled 'Chaos' Cosmos is a theistic term for an orderly design

In the end Carl Sagan used the theistic term Cosmos but was pretty strongly atheistic.

As far as Darwin, his only degree was in Bible
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
FYI, the God that is actually referred to in Theistic Evolution, is the Abrahamic God.
Many scientists who believe in theistic evolution, are Christians.
Thanks, but that doesn't solve the problem, which is this.

Is [in this case, the Abrahamic] God real or imaginary?

If imaginary, no problem ─ God exists as a thing imagined in individual brains, each version unique to its imaginer.

If real, then God has objective existence and exists in nature, the realm of the physical sciences. In that case God has a physical description, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God or not. And we'd have a concept of real "godness", the quality that a real God has that makes [him] God and no one and nothing else has, eg that a superscientist or my typing keyboard lacks.

But ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ there are no such definitions of God or "godness" appropriate to a real being, only to imaginary ones.
Many scientists also have their day-age theories (and guess what - they're using The Book of Genesis!)
In that case they'd be Old Earth Creationists and they'd be using Genesis by definition, but whether they'd be scientists (and not just "creation scientists") is a whole nother question.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
On the second to the last page of "Origin of the Species," Charles Darwin writes,

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
There are problems with your prevention of this passage. First the word creator was not in the first publication of the book in 1859 and added to the later printings. The addition was to soften his presentation to an overwhelming Christ society of England at that time. The second problem is you do not reference his objections. Dr. Ernst Mayr in his book, "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought" points out that Darwin’s references to a Creator were to appease both the public and his wife. And you also do not include that he was very opposed Alfred Wallace’s suggestion of a “divine will” behind the evolution of man which created final division between the two on the concept of evolution. Using this to suggest that Darwin promoted a creator to be what started life on earth is inaccurate.
 

tosca1

Member
Thanks, but that doesn't solve the problem, which is this.

Is [in this case, the Abrahamic] God real or imaginary?

That's irrelevant.

I'm simply giving the views of the NAS regarding Theistic Evolution - which, boils down to creation.
And I'm saying, it's the Abrahamic God that's referred to.

The members of the National Academy of Sciences, are the cream of the crop!
These are not mediocre scientists, by any means!


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

The National Academy of Sciences charter commits the Academy to provide scientific advice to the government “whenever called upon” by any government department. The Academy receives no compensation from the government for its services.
Overview: NAS Mission




In that case they'd be Old Earth Creationists and they'd be using Genesis by definition, but whether they'd be scientists (and not just "creation scientists") is a whole nother question.

Atheists and Agnostics can only rely on science as the "voice of authority" on natural matters.

If you don't trust the members of the NAS - especially those along the calibre of Francis Collins - many of whom are Nobel recipients - - who among other scientists, especially the ones that aren't members of the NAS (like Richard Dawkins - who was accused of peddling pseudo-science by another scientist), can you rely on?



Speaking of Francis Collins -

Francis Sellers Collins
(born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan.[1] He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.
Francis Collins - Wikipedia


The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins
 
Last edited:

tosca1

Member
A magic man in the sky made everything happen 6000 years ago. Hm, let me think about that critically...
Let's weigh the evidence:
Pro:
The Scriptures were written 4000 years ago based on the knowledge, hopes and aspirations of a religious sect of Jews.​
Con:
None of the major events written about have any evidence to suggest they are true. All of the major events written about have a lot of evidence to show they are false.​


You have not presented anything other than your own views.
Furthermore, you seem to ignore the points and arguments I've presented - like as if, nothing was given at all!

"Magic man in the sky?" :D Your post is too juvenile, to boot!

Sorry, I don't debate personal views. You're entitled to them - but I'll have to ignore you for now.....until you've got something worth responding to.

I don't have a lot of time to waste - so, I have to qualify.
I'm not here to shoot the breeze.

Ciao.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That's irrelevant.

I'm simply giving the views of the NAS regarding Theistic Evolution - which, boils down to creation.
And I'm saying, it's the Abrahamic God that's referred to.
Care to provide a source?

If you don't trust the members of the NAS - especially those along the calibre of Francis Collins - many of whom are Nobel recipients - - who among other scientists, especially the ones that aren't members of the NAS (like Richard Dawkins - who was accused of peddling pseudo-science by another scientist), can you rely on?
Don't you think it's a bit silly to imply Professor Dawkins has less merit because he isn't a member of the NAS when the NAS is the NATIONAL Academy of Scientists for the USA, and professor Dawkins is British? They do elect foreign associates, but only elected at a rate of 25 voted in per year based on applications.

Professor Dawkins is, however, a member of the Royal Society, which is essentially the UK equivalent of the NAS. So your sly dig here is doubly misplaced.
SOURCE: Richard Dawkins | Royal Society
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Let's weigh the evidence:
Pro:
The Scriptures were written 4000 years ago based on the knowledge, hopes and aspirations of a religious sect of Jews.Con:
None of the major events written about have any evidence to suggest they are true. All of the major events written about have a lot of evidence to show they are false.
You have not presented anything other than your own views.
Pro:
The Scriptures were written 4000 years ago

Do you deny that the OT was written about 4000 years ago?

Con:
None of the major events written about have any evidence to suggest they are true. All of the major events written about have a lot of evidence to show they are false.

What are some of the major events?
  1. Humanity began with just two people. There is no evidence to support that contention. There is abundant evidence found in nature that humanity did not begin with just two individuals.
  2. There was a worldwide flood about 4000 years ago. There is no evidence that this ever happened. Geologists have shown this to be impossible.
 
Top