New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 05:22 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  As far as I understand evolution has three facets: 1 random mutation 2 natural selection 3 common descent

The third one is the most problematic for a theist.

As for random mutation and natural selection, they do not affect belief in a Creator. Common descent is problematic because it contradicts the story of the creation of Adam. Just a point.

The Bible is a myth. The priests who assembled it knew NOTHING about how the world came to be the way it is. Most Biblical scholars accept that. If you don't know that then you know nothing about the Bible, or mainline Biblical scholarship.

"On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...+Testament

Thank you for your input. But if the Bible is false it doesn't make evolution true. However if evolution is true the Bible is questionable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 05:40 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 05:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:34 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I'am not denying that the overwhelming scientific community is pro evolution. My point is regarding atheists, like Dawkins in my country, who use it as the main thrust in atheist vs theist debates.

Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist. It's your opinion that Evolution can be used as a "bedrock" for atheism. There are many religious people who don't even try to deny Evolution. As I said above, they are separate subjects. The fact that some religionists tend to conflate them is neither here nor there. The concept of a god, (especially the god of the Bible) is ludicrous all on it's own, for entirely separate reasons. Evolution can be a threat to religion, but not necessarily so. It IS a threat to Fundamentalism. What Dawkins says or does is of no interest to most atheists. Obviously it is of GREAT concern to you. I think for myself.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 05:34 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  I'am not denying that the overwhelming scientific community is pro evolution. My point is regarding atheists, like Dawkins in my country, who use it as the main thrust in atheist vs theist debates.

Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist. It's your opinion that Evolution can be used as a "bedrock" for atheism. There are many religious people who don't even try to deny Evolution. As I said above, they are separate subjects. The fact that some religionists tend to conflate them is neither here nor there. The concpet of a god, (especially the god of the Bible) is ludicrous all on it's own, for entirely separate reasons. Evolution can be a threat to religion, but not necessarily so. It IS a threat to Fundamentalism. What Dawkins says or does is of no interest to most atheists. Obviously it is of GREAT concern to you. I think for myself.

So the main form of debate should revolve around philosophical questions and natural theology? From amongst those theological questions is the implications of evolution on religious texts..

However it is possible for a person to remain a theis and not follow the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes objectivetheist's post
17-05-2015, 05:56 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 05:59 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 04:54 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 04:44 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Oh boy... So much for objectivity it seems...

No; reality is not dictated by fallacious appeals. Nor is it dictated fallacious misrepresentations, I might add.
We point out the fact of the scientific consensus on evolutionary theory because it is telling: it shows that the mountains of data we have at this time is enough to sway virtually the entire academic world. Not a particularly easy feat.

It is not consensus that makes a 'fact' in science, it is the data, and we have plenty of it.

So the overwhelming data makes it a scientific fact...and not the appeal. So in any discussion the only thing that would hold water are verifiable facts and data.

This leads to the application of these facts. Does scientific evolution bring abot complexity in organisms or does it have limitations?

I did partially address your updated post in my now-updated reply (just to put it out there).

As a totally pedantic starting point, 'scientific evolution' strikes me as a misnomer; it's not 'scientific gravity', so why give the extra word to the theory, right?

The answer to complexity is... 'Not necessarily'. Increasing complexity is often labelled as a consequence of evolution, but it's not necessarily the case, and can indeed be proven to be incorrect by our most basic model organism, the humble E. coli. which is often used as a model for antibiotic research, genetic manipulation work and evolution in bacteria (which often ties into antibiotics research) shows it not to be the case; the colonies adapt as per evolution, but to not 'grow more complex'.
However, over a great enough time-scale it is likely that the E. coli would evolve greater complexity.
In the larger scale of things, we have seen what may be considered as a gradual increase of complexity over time, from the single celled prokaryotes to unicellular eukaryotes, eventually to multicellular organisms as generations on generations of adaptation stack up. The increase in complexity is really just a by-product of change over time.

The idea of increasing complexity actually becomes quite amusing when you begin to consider further concepts such as specialisation; where species will adapt toward better survival in their current niche. It is amusing as it may cause a 'decrease in complexity'; humans for instance have all but lost our tails (we still have the remnants as the coccyx), and whales lost their limbs (they still have wrists and 'hands' in their flippers).

The greatest limitation to evolution is not even a limitation; it being that the theory only speaks to the change of organisms over time.
It's got nothing to say on anything else, like that of the universe or even the beginning of life.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
17-05-2015, 05:56 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 06:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:48 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  So the main form of debate should revolve around philosophical questions and natural theology? From amongst those theological questions is the implications of evolution on religious texts..

However it is possible for a person to remain a theist and not follow the Bible.

People can argue about whatever they want to. Whether Evolution is true or not, is no longer a question, (for anyone who knows what's actually going on in science these days).

I don't tell people what they should argue about. If some want to talk about Evolution ... great. It's a waste of time these days. It's a fact. People seem to want to debate the "proofs" for a god. Theology says faith is a gift of god. There are no "proofs" (if one actually believes what Paul and Jesus say about faith in the NT). So that's nonsense, theologically. There is no "following" the Bible. Everyone cherry-picks what they want to, from it. If you can cook up a coherent definition for "natural theology" and want to argue about it, knock yourself out. That has no bearing on, or relationship to science or the Theory of Evolution.

In the history of human ideas, most theists don't and didn't "follow the Bible". So I guess they can, if it makes sense to them. The question is, "What do you mean by *follow the Bible* ?" .... which is why I mentioned that most mainline Biblical scholars don't take it literally.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-05-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 05:48 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  So the main form of debate should revolve around philosophical questions and natural theology? From amongst those theological questions is the implications of evolution on religious texts..

However it is possible for a person to remain a theist and not follow the Bible.

People can argue about whatever they want to. Whether Evolution is true or not, is no longer a question, (for anyone who knows what's actually going on in science these days).

I don't tell people what they should argue about. If some want to talk about Evolution ... great. It's a waste of time these days. It's a fact. People seem to want to debate the "proofs" for a god. Theology says faith is a gift of god. There are no "proofs" (if one actually believes what Paul and Jesus say about faith in the NT). So that's nonsense, theologically. There is no "following" the Bible. Everyone cherry-picks what they want to, from it. If you can cook up a coherent definition for "natural theology" and want to argue about it, knock yourself out. That has no bearing on, or relationship to science or the Theory of Evolution.

You stating it to be a fact is equivalent to the Bible lover saying God is a fact. The similarity is that both of you follow a body of authority. Majority of people cannot verify these facts but must conform to the scientific clergy. Reminds of the Church.
No one can believe in something without verification. A theist must believe in God based on proof and belief in evolution must be on proof. So how do these groups verify proof?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:08 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  And as a believer of traditional Ashari theology I do not ascribe to blind faith.

Could you give us one or two examples of your belief and the evidence for them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: New To Forum
Oh, forgot to ask....

if you're really sick, do you go to a doctor?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 06:05 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 05:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  People can argue about whatever they want to. Whether Evolution is true or not, is no longer a question, (for anyone who knows what's actually going on in science these days).

I don't tell people what they should argue about. If some want to talk about Evolution ... great. It's a waste of time these days. It's a fact. People seem to want to debate the "proofs" for a god. Theology says faith is a gift of god. There are no "proofs" (if one actually believes what Paul and Jesus say about faith in the NT). So that's nonsense, theologically. There is no "following" the Bible. Everyone cherry-picks what they want to, from it. If you can cook up a coherent definition for "natural theology" and want to argue about it, knock yourself out. That has no bearing on, or relationship to science or the Theory of Evolution.

You stating it to be a fact is equivalent to the Bible lover saying God is a fact. The similarity is that both of you follow a body of authority. Majority of people cannot verify these facts but must conform to the scientific clergy. Reminds of the Church.
No one can believe in something without verification. A theist must believe in God based on proof and belief in evolution must be on proof. So how do these groups verify proof?

Theists don't believe in god based on proof, as there is none. That is the foundation of religion, it requires faith.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

It requires faith, because it lacks evidence, if it had evidence it wouldnt require faith, as it would just be fact. Theists believe in a transcendental world, where magical creatures and world creating super genies exist. Here, in the real world, science doesn't require faith. The tired ol "science is atheists religion"...or.."You have faith in science" is an ignorant and uneducated opinion.

Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falisify the claim that the norse god Loki was able ot assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works...unlike the religious leaders who base it on a superstitious fictional book put together and sold to the masses.

To argue that people need faith is to abandon hope, and to condescend and accuse the faithful of being incapable of understanding the importance of reason and rationality. There are better and worse ways to come to terms with death, to find strength during times of personal crisis, to make meaning and purpose in our lives, to interpret our sense of awe and wonder, and to contribute to human well-being...and the faithful are completely capable of understanding and achieving this..if they would only try.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
17-05-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 06:05 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  You stating it to be a fact is equivalent to the Bible lover saying God is a fact. The similarity is that both of you follow a body of authority. Majority of people cannot verify these facts but must conform to the scientific clergy. Reminds of the Church.
No one can believe in something without verification. A theist must believe in God based on proof and belief in evolution must be on proof. So how do these groups verify proof?

No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the Bible being true. The fact you would say that demonstrates you have absolutely no education in science, or Biblical Studies. You're attempting to create a dichotomy where there is none. There is no "scientific clergy" The fact that you would say that just shows where you come from, and how you were indoctrinated. Jesus said "he chose you", (not you him). So I see you know nothing about both science and religion. Clearly you're a newbie in both subjects. Christianity teaches faith is a "gift". It's not about "proofs". What ? You never read the Bible ?
Evolution is supported by evidence. There is no evidence for any religious claim. Faith is the suspension of reason. Sounds like you need a course in BOTH science and religion. How old are you ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: