Why can't some people understand that Evolution is not Atheism.

[E. Nato Difficile]

Oh, my: 'bleak' no less! And yet you have such provisional deists as E.O. Wilson somehow managing to make do.

If you'd read what I've said twice now, you might realize that I never maintained that scientifically informed people can't be religious. What I said is that scientific inquiry doesn't operate to validate religious belief. One can certainly use one's faith to rationalize an evidently indifferent universe, but he can't use the uncertainty of quantum mechanics to validate his faith.

-Nato

 

[FearGod]

..........What??

i meant to say that an atheist is to deny god existance,whereas
the believer is to believe that god do exist,there is nothing in
between,if there is one,then that case is aberrant ,such to say
i am christian but i dont have evidence that god do exist,
so there is no faith,like a man without a faith that he is a man,
then he is a gay,and that is aberrant case.

 

[secret2]

i meant to say that an atheist is to deny god existance,whereas
the believer is to believe that god do exist,there is nothing in
between,if there is one,then that case is aberrant ,such to say
i am christian but i dont have evidence that god do exist,
so there is no faith,like a man without a faith that he is a man,
then he is a gay,and that is aberrant case.

Actually there are things in-between. For example, I am a misotheist.

 

[camanintx]

Actually there are things in-between. For example, I am a misotheist.

How is that in-between? Don't you have to acknowledge somethings existence in order to hate it?

 

[secret2]

How is that in-between? Don't you have to acknowledge somethings existence in order to hate it?

I am just trying to make no sense like what the guy above did :sorry1:

 

[Serenity7855]

I am just trying to make no sense like what the guy above did :sorry1:

Surely that is right. How can you hate God if you do not believe he exists, seriously. How do you hate anything let alone something that is non-existent. I could hate the pink fairy but if i have not met her/him and experienced their character what do I base my hatred on.

 

[Koldo]

Surely that is right. How can you hate God if you do not believe he exists, seriously. How do you hate anything let alone something that is non-existent. I could hate the pink fairy but if i have not met her/him and experienced their character what do I base my hatred on.

On the concept of the pink fairy.

 

[FearGod]

I am just trying to make no sense like what the guy above did :sorry1:

you are the one saying nonsense not me,
i said to you there is aberrant cases,but seems you dont understand my point even

 

[rusra02]

I think you don't understand what the term "special pleading" means. Evolution is no more Atheistic than any other scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. All scientific theories explain observed phenomena in purely naturalistic terms without reference to the supernatural. That is what science does. To single out one theory as being particularly odious for doing what science does, what science is suppose to do, that is an example of special pleading.

If "science" presupposes that an intelligent Maker is 'unnecessary' for life's diversity, I would argue that is not science, since it ignores the facts to which the evidence points. The quote in my previous post shows belief in evolution leads naturally (and is helped along by evolutionists) to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Trying to separate the two is misleading, whether you call it special pleading or something else.

 

[Serenity7855]

you are the one saying nonsense not me,
i said to you there is aberrant cases,but seems you dont understand my point even

Oh I know my beliefs do not comply with the accepted standard but that is fine. History has proven that the abstract can lead to a change in accepted standards. So how can you hate something that you do not know?

Serenity

 

[FearGod]

Oh I know my beliefs do not comply with the accepted standard but that is fine. History has proven that the abstract can lead to a change in accepted standards. So how can you hate something that you do not know?

Serenity

exactly ,thats why i pointed to it as aberrant cases,but i didnt deny that it exist,
and thank you for explaining it even in a better way than mine.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

If "science" presupposes that an intelligent Maker is 'unnecessary' for life's diversity, I would argue that is not science, since it ignores the facts to which the evidence points.

Um, which facts and evidence are you talking about?

The quote in my previous post shows belief in evolution leads naturally (and is helped along by evolutionists) to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Trying to separate the two is misleading, whether you call it special pleading or something else.

Well, the conclusion that God isn't necessary to explain the diversity of species isn't necessarily a valid basis for claiming there's no God. But it's a powerful proof-of-concept demonstration that even staggeringly complex natural phenomena can be explained without recourse to deliberate supernatural or divine intervention. As a consequence, we don't need to believe that Goddidit is a necessary explanation for anything, since it doesn't seem to be a particularly meaningful explanation in the first place.

-Nato

 

[beerisit]

If "science" presupposes that an intelligent Maker is 'unnecessary' for life's diversity, I would argue that is not science, since it ignores the facts to which the evidence points. The quote in my previous post shows belief in evolution leads naturally (and is helped along by evolutionists) to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Trying to separate the two is misleading, whether you call it special pleading or something else.

Your right that's not science. Science doesn't "presuppose" anything. You got something right.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Your right that's not science. Science doesn't "presuppose" anything. You got something right.

Scientific research certainly does presuppose that if something lacks empirical value, it's of no use to scientific inquiry. And in practice, it presupposes that natural phenomena are the products of natural causes.

-Nato

 

[beerisit]

Scientific research certainly does presuppose that if something lacks empirical value, it's of no use to scientific inquiry. And in practice, it presupposes that natural phenomena are the products of natural causes.

-Nato

What a strange definition for presupposition.

 

[fantome profane]

Scientific research certainly does presuppose that if something lacks empirical value, it's of no use to scientific inquiry. And in practice, it presupposes that natural phenomena are the products of natural causes.

-Nato

For the purpose of scientific analysis, yes. Science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations. It does not conclude that only naturalistic explanations exist, but it does limit itself to them.

This is why religious people can still do science. If you are for example a Christian who is a scientist you may believe that there are supernatural divine causes in effect, but if you are a good scientist you know that there are methodologies that must be followed. You cannot summit a scientific research paper that claims that a chemical reaction was caused by the Archangel Gabriel.

 

[fschmidt]

I very much agree with the original post in this thread. In fact I wrote an article explaining how religion has a positive effect on human evolution.

 

[shawn001]

I very much agree with the original post in this thread. In fact I wrote an article explaining how religion has a positive effect on human evolution.

I am going to go back and read the whole article and glad you belive in the fact of evolution.

I did notice this however

"Humans are truly unique among animals because when we form communities, we can agree on a set of rules. This ability to agree on rules to define a society is what separates people from animals."

Other animals form communities and agree on a set of rules.

"This ability to agree on rules to define a society is what separates people from animals."

So the above statement is really untrue.

Nor how are we seperated from the animals if we are animals? We have just evolved more. Some animals might even be as smart as us possibly. Dolphins for example actually have a language and share knowledge with each other.

 

[fschmidt]

Other animals form communities and agree on a set of rules.

Other animals may form communities and SHARE a set of rules, but these rules are instinctual, not the result of an AGREEMENT which requires conscious consideration and discussion.

 

[shawn001]

Other animals may form communities and SHARE a set of rules, but these rules are instinctual, not the result of an AGREEMENT which requires conscious consideration and discussion.

That is wrong. There are not all "instinctual" and there are a ton of examples of them. One is certain animals learning new things in their enviroments and then teaching others and there young new behaviors that they have learned.

There are also anaimals that do all AGREE "which requires conscious consideration and discussion."


There are other mammals like whales and dolphins that have complex communication, even language and have conscious discussions and make decisions based on those.