Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Atheism and evolution are not the same, but you must believe in evolution if you want to be an atheist. Atheists can not believe in a Creator by definition. If you had noticed the post I replied to asked "what does it matter where we came from?" It certainly matters where we came from.
That's not what evolution says.
It seems that the definition of what evolution says changes based on what is being discussed. But ultimately evolution describes the process of undirected mutations being either retained or discarded based on their ability to help the species survive. While some will stand on the belief that the initial materials and the rules were created by G-d, the primary claim is that the initial materials and rules were uncaused.
Even this is silly and fallacious.
How so? It is, in fact, a guiding philosophy for many. It's the driving force behind the sexual revolution with all the destructive results that has wrought.
Shalom.
No. It seems a perfectly valid argument to me. However, since you disagree, I doubt we have enough of a common basis on which to "argue" the point. You'll probably consider my arguments stupid so let's just not bother.
Shalom.
Awesome.
I would definitely liked to be pinged to your post.
I am sorry if I mischaracterized your post, intent, or perspective.
I believe in open discourse, and that not being allowed is my real beef with all of the things involved in this subject.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
No you don't. There are atheists who don't. You should broaden your horizons.
Atheists can not believe in a Creator by definition.
That doesn't mean they have to pick evolution by default. There are many other origin beliefs, including considering it an unsolved mystery and remaining undecided on it. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 5, by William Shakespeare
If you had noticed the post I replied to asked "what does it matter where we came from?" It certainly matters where we came from.
Some folks disagree with you, and are more concerned about where we are and where we're headed, than in where we've been.
[That's not what evolution says.]
It seems that the definition of what evolution says changes based on what is being discussed.
It might look that way to people who aren't terribly familiar with it.
But ultimately evolution describes the process of undirected mutations being either retained or discarded based on their ability to help the species survive. While some will stand on the belief that the initial materials and the rules were created by G-d, the primary claim is that the initial materials and rules were uncaused.
No, sorry, evolutionary biology makes absolutely no statement, claim, or presumption on that matter. Evolutionary biology concerns how life changes once life exists, not how/where it came from, nor can it, since evolutionary processes require replication -- before the first living thing(s) were able to replicate, evolutionary processes were not and could not be involved. The origin of life is by definition outside of evolutionary biology, just as meteorology doesn't depend on, or make any statements on, where the atmosphere came from originally -- for that you have to switch to other fields of science.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of evolutiony biologists interested in (or have opinions on) the question of the origin of life also, of course there are, but that doesn't turn the origin of life into a part of evolutionary biology.
Nor does evolutionary biology claim that there's necessarily no "outside intervention" from time to time. The "undirected" part of evolution just means that the natural process of evolution (i.e., what happens when no one's fiddling with it) is undirected -- nature doesn't "plan ahead". Many people mistake the methodological naturalism in science for philosophical naturalism -- it isn't. Put in simple terms, science is the investigation of how nature behaves when no one's screwing with it. It's discovery of how nature behaves on its own. It makes no statement about whether nature can be or has been messed with from time to time, just as studying the flow patterns of a particular river doesn't mean it can't be dammed. But the first step in dealing with the river, and deciding whether/how to dam it or otherwise live with it or make use of it, is to study how it works currently when left to itself. In the same way, science (including evolutionary biology) works to learn how nature behaves when left to its own devices. And left to its own devices, life evolves, and has evolved during the past billion-plus years.
[[then what we do to them doesn't matter. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.]]
[Even this is silly and fallacious.]
How so? It is, in fact, a guiding philosophy for many.
Including many Christians. Such behavior is more due to innate human desires than on any particular philosophy. And last time I checked, atheists had sex drives (and other kinds of desires) no stronger or weaker than those of Christians.
It's the driving force behind the sexual revolution with all the destructive results that has wrought.
There's a lot more to the sexual revolution than that, but you're getting farther afield -- even if "eat drink and be merry" is a "driving force behind the sexual revolution" (and you trivialize it if you think that's the whole story), that still doesn't help your thesis that hedonism is somehow a necessary consequence of atheism and/or evolution. It isn't.
As I wrote a while back in response to a similar argument:
If we deny that we are created beings (a creation must have a Creator), we have no accountability and an excuse to behave badly.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Even absent a creator, we still have accountability to others in our society. Behave badly, and pretty soon you're going to get the crap kicked out of you (literally or figuratively) -- and excuses about "it's in my nature" aren't going to fly.
If kin to apes, our primal desires to murder and breed are then instinctual.
...and so are our "primal desires" for cooperation, family and community bonds, love, caring for and protecting our children, defending our peers, etc. etc.
You really haven't thought this through at all, have you?
We are without guilt and free to roam and do as we please.
Horse manure. Even *apes* feel guilt, and fail to act as hedonistically and unrestrained as you ignorantly assume they "should". Get a clue.
Even apes understand that that sort of behavior is a recipe for disaster. And humans have even more of an ability to use their minds to understand why short-term selfish gains are *not* worthwhile or desirable strategies in the long run. Instead, cooperation, mutual altruism, "golden rule" ethics, and so on are vastly more effective ways to enhance even your *own* net benefits in a society, as well as the welfare of others. It's a win-win situation.
Duh. Even *apes* figure this out pretty fast as they grow up. What's *your* excuse?
Promiscuous sex, unwanted pregnancy, abortion (murder). The decline of the family... the decline of civilization.
Uh huh. Whatever you say.
Tell me, if it were somehow proven tomorrow that there wasn't a creator after all, would *you* suddenly start raping, killing, and pillaging? Yes or no? If Yes, shame on you, and you'd better have "fun" quick before you get shot or thrown in jail. If No, then realize you're not the only one with an actual brain and a conscience.
Methinks you don't have a decent rebuttal.
But I'll be sure to return the favor -- next time you're aggravated at Michael Moore's dishonesties, ping me so I can drop in and say, "Methinks thou dost protest too much"...
I'll add you to the ping list, and I'm sorry if I took your post the wrong way. Some folks are resistant to open discourse and I've gotten used to using a two-by-four to get their attention. ;-)
I don't have a problem with the part of the argument that says, "we can do nuclear power more safely than the Soviets did". The part I'm saying isn't valid is the "it could have been worse" part. You could make that irrelevant point about *anything*. "Well, Pearl Harbor could have been worse." "Well, 9/11 could have been worse." "Well, the Nazi genocide could have been worse." "Well, having your daughter raped and murdered and eaten could have been worse." Yeah, so? This adds absolutely nothing to any argument for or against nuclear power. The only thing it does is let her play sleight-of-hand and make the disaster seem "better" somehow, when thousands of dead is still thousands of dead, you can't sugar-coat that by chirping, "well, hey, we were worried there were going to be a lot more corpses!" That's about as vapid as it gets, and constitutes no kind of "argument" whatsoever -- if anything, it only reminds people of the possibility that the next one *could* be worse indeed, which strikes me as an odd kind of thing to bring up when you're arguing *for* nuclear power.
They're welcome to disagree. But if you don't know where you've been, you have no idea where you are.
As for the rest, based on the first few lines of your post I have read its like before. I am not interested in the discussion.
I recommend you decide I'm too stupid for the debate and allow me to be.
Shalom.
Id adds something to the method of arguing with the boy who cried wolf - if you can get him to listen.
Shalom.
When I was asked by some guy whether I believed that dogs evolved from wolves, I asked him whether he had ever been to the zoo. Then I said "did you see the wolves there?" "Yes" "I guess they haven't turned into dogs". He was well satistfied.
I just finished chapter 4, The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion. Ann provides so much, that no brief post can do justice to any of her chapters. Richard Kirk makes a good selection and comment in his article. Here's another. Ann quotes several pro-choice people as saying that "no one is for abortion." Ann responds to this in her own way. For myself, how can it be that we have 1.3 million abortions every year, when no one is for abortion? I understand that while no one is for slipping on the stairs, it happens. Slipping on stairs is normally an accident, not an act of volition. But few, if any, of the 1.3 million abortions are accidents. I imagine, pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion, please!) websites are posting volumes on Ann's supposed lies, errors, and stupidity. But volume and intensity do not alway impress.
Faith and proof are the extreme ends of a very long gradient. The theory of evolution is closer to the proof end. Just because overwhelming evidence is not absolute proof doesn't make it assumption based on faith.
Noted.
Still, can any reasonable person dispute the fact that assumptions abound, or that people adhere to their belief in evolution or creation or whatever because they espouse certain assumptions?
I mean, at some point, assume is the key word. You have to assume something in order to seriously hold a position.
It is syllogistic in nature.
Not true.
You apparently never heard of Buddha.
Again, that's BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.