Evolution was supposed to select for the better survival ability, so humans survive better than primitive human types. Was that going to be the very best that you are speaking of? So do the righteous survive better than the evil, how would that work? Certainly the wicked take more risks in a lot of things. Drugs would kill a few. Speed and recklessness has its danger. Gang wars, fighting, accidents, illness, and alcoholism; yes quite a few have moved on. They lived for a good time rather than a long time. That was their motto, "we are here for a good time not a long time". Whereas I was looking for eternity. I didn't fit in with guys I knew in my younger years. I'm still here and lot of them have gone.
You misunderstand the distinction between atheism and agnosticism: atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of God (note that it does not require one to actually believe that God does not exist); agnosticism is the position where either one has no knowledge of something, or considers the knowledge of something unobtainable. But agnosticism says nothing about the existence or not of that thing. Many atheists on this site are agnostic atheists - our agnosticism leads to us being atheism: why believe in the existence of something for which there is no knowledge that we think can be rationally attributed to it. But we do not go as far to believe in the non-existence of that thing, for the same reason. Although from a practical point of view we live our lives as though God does not exist.
From a theistic perspective, yes. The problem is, rather, that atheists tend to implicitly define themselves/their stance in relation to theism. So for all practical and philosophical intents and purposes, atheism stands and falls with theism. "True atheism," for lack of a better term, would be the atheism of chairs and tables: ie. having absolutely no notion of God whatsoever, one way or another. But for humans, it is practically impossible to be that kind of atheists (except perhaps for newborns and the mentally ill, although with newborns and the mentally ill, we cannot check what their notions of "God" may be, so that line of investigation is pointless).
I meant it actually, in simpler terms. I believe that God has a plan if you will, for the whole of the universe. We are a piece of that whole, but a big piece. There is much in the way of chaos and destruction in our present world, but in the midst of it all, I believe in humanity. Believing in a deity, doesn't usurp the importance of humanity's role in the whole of the universe.
Really? Where exactly? Are you talking about a small minority of people and events or mankind as a whole? Obviously, mankind as a whole is not experiencing chaos and destruction, so you must be referring to the minorities?
I'm referring to the fact that there is a lot of chaos and destruction in our present world. Look at the middle east. Look at human trafficking in the U.S., and elsewhere in the world. Look at the big business of ''blood diamonds.'' Look at children being forced to marry men twice their age, in the name of their ''religion.'' Look at the crime rate in the U.S., and elsewhere in the world. Look at the AIDS epidemic. Look at the persecution and murders of religious people throughout the world. Plunder and war continue to grip Africa. What is this minority you speak of?
You are indeed talking about a minority of events and people, considering there are over seven billion people, where the vast majority are not affected by any of that stuff. Is there human trafficking in your neighborhood? Are children being forced to marry men twice their age? Are you being persecuted? Is there war and plunder where you live? Do all these things happen every day of the week all day long? Seriously. You're just watching too much tv.
I don't watch much tv; this stuff has been going on for a very long time. I don't take the approach that if it's not happening in my back yard, it doesn't matter to my life. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This Thread is anything but enlightening! How can anyone possibly know, with absolute certainty, what any animal, vegetable or mineral possesses as far as comprehension or the ability to understand its own existence or the apparent existence of anything else in the universe in which it exists? The only "communication" between myself and my houseplants has been their continued apparently healthy status when I maintain a diligent routine of maintenance of them. Also, I was under the impression that most Theists and Theologies were basically predicated on, and in, the "Belief" of a "Higher Deity or God(s) creating human beings" - and not the "evolution of human beings from simpler(!?) life forms"! Numerous re-readings of this Thread only tend to lessen any hope of "enlightenment" or gaining anything at all from it. Honestly, is it just me? Any help in my understanding, by anyone, would be welcomed and deeply appreciated !
One can be a ''theist,'' and also believe in the theory of evolution. One belief doesn't negate the other. But, there are many theists who don't believe in the theory of evolution, as they may base their ideas with respect to the origin of man, from Genesis/Bible.
wegs, I do not suffer that one belief Negate(s) the other, but are they not opposing or at least conflicting beliefs? As a metaphor or analogy, I will ask - how could an individual completely and truly believe in FIDELITY in a marriage or relationship and at the same time, completely and truly believe in INFIDELITY in the same marriage or relationship? wegs, again, is it just me?
They're not conflicting beliefs. The Bible introduced the origin of man, the Bible was written by men. The conflicting belief you speak of, must have to do with the Bible's assertion that God created man out of dust, some 6200 years ago. Are you saying I'm ''betraying God,'' by believing in the theory of evolution? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your analogy doesn't make sense, because a theist who believes in evolution, isn't 'betraying' God. The Bible isn't God. It's not just you, there are others I'm sure, who have the same assumptions about theists.
So what? It doesn't go on in your neighborhood, does it? It's not going on with the vast majority of people on the planet, it is only small pockets with a small minority of people. No one is saying these things don't matter, however we also don't paint the entire planet with a doom and gloom brush so as to fall into the trap of assuming we all need Jesus to save us.
Not really, I'm naming things that are global and large scale in nature, but there are things happening in our neighborhoods, every day. Anywhere USA has its fair share of violent crimes, and problems. It just might not make headline news, like a George Zimmerman/Treyvon Martin case, etc... True. I'm not meaning to broad brush ...which is why I also stated that ''I believe in humanity,''in the same sentence, meaning that the spirit of mankind will prevail against these atrocities. I visited a holocaust museum last summer, and one of the comments of the concentration camp survivors posted in the exhibit, I took particular notice of...''...No matter how bad things got in the camps, I still believed that the world was a good place.'' One should always hold onto hope, no matter how bleak things may seem. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Speaking of broad brushing, not everyone who is a theist follows Christianity, thus not everyone sees themselves or anyone else as needing to be 'saved.' The 'definition' of theism does encompass however, the three Abrahamic faiths. (not exclusive to those three though) True.
Dawkin's Spectrum of Theistic Probability: 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one." Dawkins declared himself as 6, or probably 6.9. So, being an agnostic doesn't necessarily mean that you are in the middle or leaning toward a 'belief'. I haven't seen anyone here declaring himself as 7, that is, that anyone for sure knows that God doesn't exist. Many here seems to posses the attitude that it is unreasonable to believe in something one can't possibly know and of which there are no evidences of existence.
wegs, I do not know where the - ''betraying God,'' - came from. I only said conflicting or opposing. I believe my analogy is sound - one cannot "completely and truly believe" in any two "conflicting or opposing" beliefs of anything! Is it possible to "completely and truly believe" that the circle is "round" - and at the same time "completely and truly believe" that the circle is "square"? wegs, I am not completely stupid(only partially) - I do know the true and complete definitions of Theist, Atheist, Theology, Atheism, Theism, Creation, Evolution, Belief and even Delusion. I also know full well that all theologies and gods were indeed created by man - and not vice-versa! wegs, that is why, I dmoe, also know that any individual cannot - "completely and truly" believe in - any two "conflicting or opposing" beliefs of anything...without a delusion of some kind being involved. wegs, any individual may be able to say that they give "conflicting or opposing" views equal credence. However, fully, completely and truly believing in either one of two "conflicting or opposing" views is nigh' near impossible. Also, wegs, do I constantly have to remind everyone that I, dmoe, DO NOT assume or presume anything! That is WHY I, dmoe, Post questions asking for clarification or further information - because I DO NOT allow my myself to presume or assume. That is part of my ingrained grace and discipline - I have no option in that respect!
ok, fair enough. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! let's start over then. in your statements here, why do you feel that way? what are the two conflicting views, in your eyes?
