Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the central question regarding religion, in these modern times, is:
Does matter create mind, or does mind create matter?
To me, it's obvious that mind creates matter. And that idea is generally compatible with all religion (not the specific details, but the underlying ideas).
The idea that matter creates mind (materialist philosophy) was never very popular until recently. The discovery of DNA in mid 20th century led biologists to think Darwin's theory can entirely explain evolution. This became the inspiration for the New Atheists.
Richard Dawkins has been a devout crusader for atheism, and against religion.
The beliefs of the New Atheists are actually illogical and unscientific. But of course they don't think so.
no, that is not the central question. Its a question, but not the main one. There are a lot of questions.
Thinking that is the central question will lead us into all kinds of weird stuff.
For now, the main question is, using what we do know ...
See this is this typical condescending and insulting post we theists experience here. I know of no one who is "wanting very badly to believe in the supernatural". We are quite relaxed about the issue, but believe what you want. Your right. Calling us delusional, well that is an insult. But I am thick skinned and have no plans to wad up my panties and report this post.
And atheists fancy themselves as being open minded I am sure many are.
Fishbrains was responding to a poster who made unsubstantiated claims and was using statements which are provable lies to back his claim. And then claimed he knew more about biology than almost all biologists and also claimed that he knew more about what atheists thought than we do ourselves.
I hope that fishbrains was in fact addressing the delusions of this one poster rather than the belief system of religion. If I am wrong than your comment would be fair. But note that many of the statements made by Good4Nothin were false regardless of one's stance on the topic. If I came out an said that Noah and the Flood occurred after Jesus and insisted that as being the fact one would not need be a Christian or even religious to show me my error however if I kept insisting that and claimed everyone else was confused you would be able to say that I was delusional.
Yes some atheists call theists delusional as do some theists atheists. Sometimes based on what a poster actually states the label is correct and not an insult. Personally I believe that fishbrains was responding to a poster who is intentionally posting whatever simply to rile others up as a game.
Thanks badlander. You are correct, I was talking specifically to one poster, not making a blanket statement about religion or theists in general. Good4nothin is making such wild unsupportable assertions I deem him not worthy of responding to. Plus, the conversation seems to be going in a direction that might violate the new rules prohibiting discussions of evolution.
Thanks badlander. You are correct, I was talking specifically to one poster, not making a blanket statement about religion or theists in general. Good4nothin is making such wild unsupportable assertions I deem him not worthy of responding to. Plus, the conversation seems to be going in a direction that might violate the new rules prohibiting discussions of evolution.
Yes he seems to be just playing a game with no regard to how many lies he uses or how he twists things up just to rile others up. Nothing you learn from him because of that.
Yes he seems to be just playing a game with no regard to how many lies he uses or how he twists things up just to rile others up. Nothing you learn from him because of that.
yeAH. FUNDY/MILLI MENTALIST-THINK is a real problem. Some theist are fundy's and some atheists are milli's. some theists and some atheists deny any observation that doesn't suit their world view. We can often track the reason for denying observations to maintain a literal theist or literal atheist claim back to some gut-wrenching event that altered their world. abuse, addiction, injury, or just plain born OCD answer a lot of bewildered looks of us in the middle.
yeAH. FUNDY/MILLI MENTALIST-THINK is a real problem. Some theist are fundy's and some atheists are milli's. some theists and some atheists deny any observation that doesn't suit their world view. We can often track the reason for denying observations to maintain a literal theist or literal atheist claim back to some gut-wrenching event that altered their world. abuse, addiction, injury, or just plain born OCD answer a lot of bewildered looks of us in the middle.
That I can understand. What about the comment that Darwin's theory is not a theory but an hypothesis and was not the dominant idea of evolution unto the mid 20 century however Lamark idea was? Any search into a book on biology or history of science or a Google of Darwin, evolution or Lamark contradicts his proclamations therefore that with other parts of his post I infer that his posts have more to do with taunts than debate. That is much more than a case of confirmation bias or being stuck on ideology as those can be discussed and debated. In another forum where evolution can be debated a discussion about it versus system might be interesting, but only with a person interested in being honest in their discussion. I had ended up putting Eusebius on my ignore list and if I had know that he was an atheist I would have put him on that list immediately. My ignore list consists of those who I consider dishonest in their discussion or deliberate in aiming their posts as either insults or to anger their opponents. There are few on that list. I would much rather converse with a fundamentalist who is honest than an atheist who chooses to be dishonest.
Darwin thought Lamarck's theory accounted for some aspects of evolution.
Recent research in epigenetics has shown Lamarckian inheritance. Lamarck was never discredited scientifically, it was an ideological decision that Darwin was right and Lamarck was wrong.
Darwin's and Lamarck's ideas both have some role in evolution. But most of it is not understood.
It is NOT biblical creationism to accept the fact that evolution has not been explained.
no, that is not the central question. Its a question, but not the main one. There are a lot of questions.
Thinking that is the central question will lead us into all kinds of weird stuff.
For now, the main question is, using what we do know ...
"what the heck is going on around us?"
Of course there are a lot of questions. But the central question in our time, related to theism and atheism, is whether the universe is alive or dead.
If the universe is alive, we would naturally expect life to evolve in it. If the universe is dead, it would require a long series of impossible accidents to generate life.
Darwin thought Lamarck's theory accounted for some aspects of evolution.
Recent research in epigenetics has shown Lamarckian inheritance. Lamarck was never discredited scientifically, it was an ideological decision that Darwin was right and Lamarck was wrong.
Darwin's and Lamarck's ideas both have some role in evolution. But most of it is not understood.
It is NOT biblical creationism to accept the fact that evolution has not been explained.
The 'fact' that evolution has not been explained?
The ToE is a THEORY.
That means it has been pretty well explained.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
