Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 12:01 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 09:41 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  Do I still need to show you he was in fact religious and even considered going into the clergy, or since you admitted to mentioning him are you also acquiescing the point of his religious struggle?
I looked into it myself, and found this from his autobiography: "Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

That doesn't prove he wasn't worried about the religious ramifications, only that he had no doubt he was correct, which he was.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 12:24 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 12:31 PM by alpha male.)
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 12:08 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 12:01 PM)alpha male Wrote:  That doesn't prove he wasn't worried about the religious ramifications, only that he had no doubt he was correct, which he was.
You said previously that "Darwin had extreme internal struggle." Darwin himself said he "felt no distress."

Regarding Darwin and an agenda, he has a common one - not wanting to think that unbelieving loved ones would go to hell:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
From James Moore: Darwin's Personal Struggles:

To cast Darwin as an atheist revolutionary bent on toppling the authority of God, as creationists often do, is to miss the complexity in his own internal struggles over the role of God in the universe.

Darwin was, after all, christened in the Anglican Church and, after eschewing medical school, trained as a parson. When he married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood, he committed to sharing his life and innermost thoughts with a devout Christian believer. It would turn out that his gradually ebbing faith would be a source of disagreement between them.

The death of his daughter Annie in 1851 at age 10 proved a severe challenge to Darwin's faith; he could not ascribe such tragedies to the will of a Christian God. Eventually, he called himself an agnostic.

Thus, even though Darwin had sympathy with a religious view of life, he struggled to reconcile both his theory and the reality of human suffering with the theology of his day.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
I'll take Darwin's autobiography over a commentator myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Again, you are equating him not having stress of letting go of god with the ramifications his theory would have on religion, his family, etc. not the same. It was not an agenda.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Interesting that you left this preceding paragraph out, Alpha: But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 01:11 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Interesting that you left this preceding paragraph out, Alpha: But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels.
Here's a link to the entire section:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 02:15 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Another criterion is extraordinary evidence. When someone makes the extraordinary claim that they're speaking for god, it's reasonable to expect extraordinary evidence to back it up. The earliest Christian writings include the extraordinary. John even has Jesus using the principle himself - if you don't believe my arguments, at least believe the signs I do. However, with Islam, when Mohamed was asked for extraordinary evidence, he merely presented the Koran - completely circular.

The only claims of these extraordinary powers of Jesus are contained in the Bible. What exactly will you point to as evidence of these signs? The Bible? It sounds equally circular.

Why should we take the Bible any more seriously than we should take the Koran?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
07-01-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 10:57 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  The only claims of these extraordinary powers of Jesus are contained in the Bible. What exactly will you point to as evidence of these signs? The Bible? It sounds equally circular.
You miss the point - the Koran doesn't even claim miracles done by Mohammed. Miracles attributed to him grew up later, as we would expect myth to develop. Many critics assume that the gospels were based on a non-miraculous sayings source(s) predating the NT, but such haven't been found. With Islam, we have it - the Koran itself.
Quote:What does this have to do with anything? Christianity is based on Judaism.
So are Islam and Mormonism. To the extent that one better reconciles with Judaism, it's better supported.
Quote:Do we have evidence that Jesus was crucified or that Paul suffered other than from the Bible?
Here's materialist bias. Why must something be outside the Bible to count as evidence? The Bible is a collection, you know. Luke verifies that Paul suffered, unless you reject anything in the Bible out of hand.
Quote:All of the differences you point out between the religions are taken from you assuming the accounts of the Bible are accurate.
What reason do I have to think that they're invented? I have that with Islam, but not so much with the NT.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 01:11 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Interesting that you left this preceding paragraph out, Alpha: But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels.

The next question is, did alpha deliberately quote mine it himself? Or is he a lazy patsy that simply copy-pasted that mined tripe from some fundy propagandist website? Also, I'm not sure which case would be worse; stupidity and ignorance or purposeful deception?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: