The supporters of the theory of evolution overtexted the creationists with rational arguments, as if they believed that the latter would actually be convinced by such arguments.
I think most rational skeptics understand that faith-based believers are immune to reason applied to evidence when it contradicts their faith-based beliefs (confirmation bias), and therefore understand that the creationist cannot be helped if he has cut himself off to those two.
So why do it? In my case, two reasons. I like to practice writing skills and formulating clear, cogent arguments. And I also like to write for those that do use reason and evidence to decide what is true about the world. To those already convinced of what the argument argues, perhaps they'll see a new way of presenting their position, a new phrase or manner of presenting the case. And to those less convinced, perhaps it will persuade.
Debating the righteousness or effectiveness of living in this condition is pretty much a pointless exercise because in many instances the people living in this condition can't just choose to stop doing it. And that being the case, trying to take their 'feel-good delusions' away from them seems selfish and cruel.
I don't know what you mean by debating the righteousness or efficacy of living in that condition means if it doesn't mean what it appears to mean, which is something I don't see done. What I see are rebuttals to misstatements. I've just posted an example of that on another RF thread, in which a creationist claimed that what we call biological evolution is not evolution but adaptation, a common statement from this contingent. I didn't discuss either his righteousness, although at the end, I did comment on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of trying to persuade scientifically literate critical thinkers that the science is wrong when you can't articulate it properly. I mentioned ethos in the philosophy of argumentation, which is distinct from the logos, or message. Ethos is the meta-message the speaker or writer sends about his qualifications and character. I pointed out that by getting the science wrong, he immediately loses credibility and is no longer taken seriously.
Was that selfish or cruel? I don't think so. I don't think he even understood what I wrote, which underscores what I just wrote, that these replies are not for the person named in the quote section introducing the reply even though they are addressed to them, but for others who might benefit from such a comment, and for me for reasons given. That's also the case with this post - practicing writing and in constructing better responses, and sharing way of looking at things for the benefit of those that can like to and are able to consider ideas dispassionately and unemotionally.
Incidentally, I also rebutted the idea that evolution and adaptation were mutually exclusive, and that evolution was a form of adaptation, one occurring in biological populations over generations as they adapt to their environment - not an alternative to it. Once again, I'm sure that the words were wasted on the apparent addressee, but I hope that the rebuttal gave others that do understand such things another response or another way to word the response to that frequent misstatement.
Like how did life begin ? How did the universe begin? Has the universe always existed ? Can life come from non life . To a Christian, who believes the bible this can be made sense of .
What the faith-based believer does isn't to make sense of these questions, but to allay any discomfort caused by having unanswered questions. That's not what I mean by making sense.
It's a learned skill to not chose one of two or more alternatives until one has a compelling reason to do so. If one can learn to be comfortable with an agnostic position when there is no rational way to progress beyond it, then that is what should be done.
My answer to your question? Life on earth arose either naturalistically (abiogenesis) or by supernatural intelligent design. I can't think of a third possibility, and I have no way to rule either of these in and the other out. We simply cannot pass beyond that point in our analysis, and therefore shouldn't. If we do, we have committed a non sequitur fallacy. If one drops either of those two possibilities from his list of candidate hypotheses, he has committed a leap of faith.
I believe that you have done that when you chose the God option, and I believe you did so because you want "answers" more than you want to be correct.
Likewise with the rest of your questions. None of them can be answered at this time, and perhaps some never will be. I'm content to stop there, since no further progress can be made with any of these questions without evidence that confirms one or disconfirms the other.
And Barry, I'll say it again. With all due respect, I don't expect these words to have any effect on you, and based on your replies to me in the past, I have concerns about whether you will understand what was said. Your responses tend to suggest you didn't, which is why I never comment on them. A discussion requires that both parties understand and acknowledge one another's claim, arguments, and questions. Many people can do that, and I can have a discussion with them, although they tend to be people I already agree with and have no comment to make other than an emoji.
But for those who can't or don't answer responsively, the conversation is already over. I made my point, it was ignored, and no further progress is possible if the other party doesn't engage.
Lastly, I hope you can see why many of us bristle at being mischaracterized by the theist who simply cannot understand the skeptic's agnosticism, and converts it into, "you say that there is no God." Nope. I said the opposite. There might be one. Or three. Or seventeen. I just have no reason to believe that a god exists, even if one does.
it's usually the believers who step over the line in their greed to rule all aspects of life, not just the religious. They have nothing to fear from me as long as they stay on their side of the fence but when they are the aggressors, I won't listen to their wailing that I am cruel and selfish.
Agreed. If somebody wants to post their opinions in the marketplace of ideas that includes those who disagree, he should either be prepared to receive criticism without having an emotional response or find a protected environment such as among fellow believers to share his ideas. It is not our responsibility to protect the feelings of those who see dissent as attack.
For those of you who have been religiously indoctrinated, accepting the theory of evolution may have been a real act of liberation, but keep in mind that this may not automatically apply to everyone.
