Jump to content


Photo

Atheism/darwinism Leads Too...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#1 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:44 AM

Why would the world be a better place if everyone was a Darwinist? Please Darwinist/natural atheist explain first...

#2 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 September 2011 - 11:43 AM

The World Trade Center towers would still be standing.

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:01 PM

The World Trade Center towers would still be standing.


But the Czar Nicholas II & Alexandria and all their children plus about 48 million human beings would not have been murdered had it not been for atheist/evolutionist communists who practiced the political version of survival of the fittest.

#4 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 12 September 2011 - 06:45 PM

mao purges where i think 30 million were killed and that is real low ball i have heard its up to 80 million.

and the towers cost 3 grand lives verses well over 100 million, pol pot, che gueverra(the hero of american liberal proffessors) and fidel castro haven been totaled either.

#5 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 13 September 2011 - 10:41 AM

The World Trade Center towers would still be standing.

Are you without sin?

#6 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 September 2011 - 12:02 PM

I would like to make a few things clear, so please take the time to read this:

I don’t like the term Darwinism because it implies that evolution today is exactly as Darwin described it 150 years ago. In reality, it’s changed a lot thanks to modern research and new discoveries like DNA. Darwin is an important historical figure, but he is by no means the “leader” of modern evolution. Also, Darwinism is not always related to biological evolution. From Wikipedia:

Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or of evolution, including some ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin.


Evolutionism and atheism are not synonymous. There are many people who consider themselves theists or agnostics, yet accept evolution. There are also many people who consider themselves atheists, yet have a limited understanding of evolution.

Atheism is a world view. Evolution is not. Evolution is strictly a biological process, and as a theory it does not encompass abiogenesis or the big bang. Nor does evolution make any statement whatsoever regarding morality, ethics, values, human worth, etc. Evolution is obviously closely linked to an atheistic world view, but as I said the two are not synonymous.

Social Darwinism, on the other hand, could be considered a world view because it deals with society and human nature. Social Darwinism is not biological evolution. It is based on a completely different definition of “Survival of the Fittest”, one which suggests that eugenics is justified. Here is the definition of social Darwinism, from Google:

The theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.


I am not a social Darwinist. Most evolutionists are not social Darwinists. According to biological evolution, all the races have had the same amount of time to evolve and no race is superior to another. “Survival of the Fittest” refers to reproductive success which is largely based on the environment.

It was social Darwinism, not atheism or biological evolution, that was used to justify unfortunate events such as the Holocaust and Mao’s purges. If everyone in the world was a social Darwinist, things would probably be pretty awful. There would be a lot of racial and class-based discrimination. But anyone who supports biological evolution probably isn’t a social Darwinist, since social Darwin directly contradicts natural selection.

So, Rico, what are you specifically asking about in this thread? The benefits or atheism, evolution, or social Darwinism? I’ve already given you my opinion on the latter of the three.

#7 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 September 2011 - 12:14 PM

Are you without sin?


Well I suppose according to Christianity, being an atheist means I am perpetually living with sin, right? But in general I try to be a good person and treat those around me with respect.

#8 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 13 September 2011 - 12:24 PM

Well I suppose according to Christianity, being an atheist means I am perpetually living with sin, right? But in general I try to be a good person and treat those around me with respect.

You would be wrong, we've all sinned... Even Christians... Good works, cleaning your hands won't clean your heart. But God offers forgiveness of sins... He gives us all grace-- forgiveness - Jesus paid our fine, but we have to be willing to accept it... Trusting in Jesus as our savior - that He paid our fine. You can let Him know your sorry, and ask Him to forgive you, change you. It's a walk.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:09 PM

Well I suppose according to Christianity, being an atheist means I am perpetually living with sin, right? But in general I try to be a good person and treat those around me with respect.


Do you consider yourself above Christians, or on the same level (are we equals)?

#10 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:12 PM

Do you consider yourself above Christians, or on the same level (are we equals)?


We’re equals. I don’t believe in discriminating based on religion.

#11 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:12 PM

You would be wrong, we've all sinned... Even Christians... Good works, cleaning your hands won't clean your heart. But God offers forgiveness of sins... He gives us all grace-- forgiveness - Jesus paid our fine, but we have to be willing to accept it... Trusting in Jesus as our savior - that He paid our fine. You can let Him know your sorry, and ask Him to forgive you, change you. It's a walk.


Oh believe me, I know all about how we’re all sinners and we need constant forgiveness... I was raised as a Catholic. From discussions I’ve had with Christian friends of other denominations, Catholicism seems to be the most sin-obsessed of them all.

#12 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:46 PM

Oh believe me, I know all about how we’re all sinners and we need constant forgiveness... I was raised as a Catholic. From discussions I’ve had with Christian friends of other denominations, Catholicism seems to be the most sin-obsessed of them all.

We aren't saved by God's law, we're saved by his Grace... In a relationship context isn't trust(faith) without works unreal --and also visa versa?

#13 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 September 2011 - 03:48 PM

Oh believe me, I know all about how we’re all sinners and we need constant forgiveness... I was raised as a Catholic. From discussions I’ve had with Christian friends of other denominations, Catholicism seems to be the most sin-obsessed of them all.

I'm sorry Isabella. Some churches/preachers batter their people with rules without ever letting God's liberating Spirit be in their message. God is love first, and we know He is Holy--we are not. But that's why Jesus came. He let the prositute wash his feet with her tears, and ate with sinners. That's why he wants to eat with us. God be merciful to us!

But as far as your statement that evolution is not a worldview, let me just ask--how do you view yourself? Are you an animal? A descendent of apes? I think that Satan can play on this view, because evolution blinds the mind as to what we are, and our true need. What I mean is that when we see ourselves as mere advanced beasts, the lusts and carnal desires in our body are explained as biological normalcy, especially S@xual lusts. So there is no reason to feel shame or try to control it. The problem with that is that yes, without the Spirit of God, we ARE just like beasts. We are biological. But we are also made in God's image, though we are broken and fallen. There is a hole in our souls that only God can fill. When we reach in faith, His truth and glory is truly experienced, demonstrating that His word is not the word of mere man, but lifegiving grace!!

#14 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 September 2011 - 04:52 PM

But as far as your statement that evolution is not a worldview, let me just ask--how do you view yourself? Are you an animal? A descendent of apes? I think that Satan can play on this view, because evolution blinds the mind as to what we are, and our true need. What I mean is that when we see ourselves as mere advanced beasts, the lusts and carnal desires in our body are explained as biological normalcy, especially S@xual lusts. So there is no reason to feel shame or try to control it. The problem with that is that yes, without the Spirit of God, we ARE just like beasts.


Yes, evolution states that humans are animals. But is there a single definition of how an animal is supposed to behave? Barnacles are animals. A barnacle spends its adult life attached to a rock, feeding on particles that are brought in by the tide. Rabbits are animals. Does that mean we would expect to find rabbits attached to rocks at the beach? Obviously not! Animals behave in very different ways depending on their morphology, environment, and intelligence. Labelling humans as animals does not imply that we’re expected to behave in a certain way. Humans are intelligent enough to use self-control and not act on every impulse. Evolutionists recognize that, and believing in evolution does not mean that crimes like rape and murder are justified on the basis that other animals do it. Evolution is not an excuse for a lack of self-control.

#15 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 13 September 2011 - 06:51 PM

Yes, evolution states that humans are animals. But is there a single definition of how an animal is supposed to behave? Barnacles are animals. A barnacle spends its adult life attached to a rock, feeding on particles that are brought in by the tide. Rabbits are animals. Does that mean we would expect to find rabbits attached to rocks at the beach? Obviously not! Animals behave in very different ways depending on their morphology, environment, and intelligence. Labelling humans as animals does not imply that we’re expected to behave in a certain way. Humans are intelligent enough to use self-control and not act on every impulse. Evolutionists recognize that, and believing in evolution does not mean that crimes like rape and murder are justified on the basis that other animals do it. Evolution is not an excuse for a lack of self-control.

I don't consider a barnacle a "beast" and rabbits are one of the most s*xually active animals there are.

Albeit, I wouldn't lay all lack of self control at evolution's feet. Christians can suffer from the same condition. But I would say that believing one is an advanced beast fits fine in "civilized" but sensual and immoral society. Kind of like, "it's too bad I was unfaithful to my wife, but I need to be happy." Or, "I know violence is not good, but that guy desevrved a slug in the mouth." Or, "if I steal this pair of pants, who will know, and this big chain store won't be hurting."

Now, if you do this with a moral conscience of future judgement, you do it with alot of guilt and fear. But if you're like Richard Dawkins, evolution freed him to be a complete atheist. Now he claims he feels no guilt. I'm not saying evos feel no resposibility toward their fellow man. My point is it can be direct link (or visa versa) to atheism or agnosticism, just like creationism has a link to faith in God, or Christ.

#16 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:35 PM

I don't consider a barnacle a "beast" and rabbits are one of the most s*xually active animals there are.

Albeit, I wouldn't lay all lack of self control at evolution's feet. Christians can suffer from the same condition. But I would say that believing one is an advanced beast fits fine in "civilized" but sensual and immoral society. Kind of like, "it's too bad I was unfaithful to my wife, but I need to be happy." Or, "I know violence is not good, but that guy desevrved a slug in the mouth." Or, "if I steal this pair of pants, who will know, and this big chain store won't be hurting."

Now, if you do this with a moral conscience of future judgement, you do it with alot of guilt and fear. But if you're like Richard Dawkins, evolution freed him to be a complete atheist. Now he claims he feels no guilt. I'm not saying evos feel no resposibility toward their fellow man. My point is it can be direct link (or visa versa) to atheism or agnosticism, just like creationism has a link to faith in God, or Christ.


If atheists are significantly less moral than Christians, I would expect that we would begin to notice some measurable differences between the two groups. Do statistics show that atheist marriages are more likely to end in divorce compared to Christian marriages? Do statistics show that atheists are more likely to be involved in crime? Do statistics show that countries with a higher percentage of atheists have higher crime rates?

#17 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 13 September 2011 - 11:22 PM

I would like to make a few things clear, so please take the time to read this:

I don’t like the term Darwinism because it implies that evolution today is exactly as Darwin described it 150 years ago. In reality, it’s changed a lot thanks to modern research and new discoveries like DNA. Darwin is an important historical figure, but he is by no means the “leader” of modern evolution. Also, Darwinism is not always related to biological evolution. From Wikipedia:



Evolutionism and atheism are not synonymous. There are many people who consider themselves theists or agnostics, yet accept evolution. There are also many people who consider themselves atheists, yet have a limited understanding of evolution.

Atheism is a world view. Evolution is not. Evolution is strictly a biological process, and as a theory it does not encompass abiogenesis or the big bang. Nor does evolution make any statement whatsoever regarding morality, ethics, values, human worth, etc. Evolution is obviously closely linked to an atheistic world view, but as I said the two are not synonymous.

Social Darwinism, on the other hand, could be considered a world view because it deals with society and human nature. Social Darwinism is not biological evolution. It is based on a completely different definition of “Survival of the Fittest”, one which suggests that eugenics is justified. Here is the definition of social Darwinism, from Google:



I am not a social Darwinist. Most evolutionists are not social Darwinists. According to biological evolution, all the races have had the same amount of time to evolve and no race is superior to another. “Survival of the Fittest” refers to reproductive success which is largely based on the environment.

It was social Darwinism, not atheism or biological evolution, that was used to justify unfortunate events such as the Holocaust and Mao’s purges. If everyone in the world was a social Darwinist, things would probably be pretty awful. There would be a lot of racial and class-based discrimination. But anyone who supports biological evolution probably isn’t a social Darwinist, since social Darwin directly contradicts natural selection.

So, Rico, what are you specifically asking about in this thread? The benefits or atheism, evolution, or social Darwinism? I’ve already given you my opinion on the latter of the three.


Good post. Social Darwinism was never founded upon good science and should not be confused with the study of evolution of lifeforms. I agree with you that scientists do not tend to have held to Social Darwinism. As a concept it was rejected by most people long ago. The terms Darwinism or Darwinist seem to only be used by "creationists" with the usual intent of them being pejoratives.

I am a Christian (therefore a theist) who accepts evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life both past and present.

#18 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 14 September 2011 - 08:52 AM

I would like to make a few things clear, so please take the time to read this:
....


I am not a social Darwinist. Most evolutionists are not social Darwinists. According to biological evolution, all the races have had the same amount of time to evolve and no race is superior to another. “Survival of the Fittest” refers to reproductive success which is largely based on the environment.

It was social Darwinism, not atheism or biological evolution, that was used to justify unfortunate events such as the Holocaust and Mao’s purges. If everyone in the world was a social Darwinist, things would probably be pretty awful. There would be a lot of racial and class-based discrimination. But anyone who supports biological evolution probably isn’t a social Darwinist, since social Darwin directly contradicts natural selection.

So, Rico, what are you specifically asking about in this thread? The benefits or atheism, evolution, or social Darwinism? I’ve already given you my opinion on the latter of the three.

Isabella, I was looking at trying to look at atheism, but then how would you get real statistics? Moral and society laws aren't the same. If the police are their own law, then they could control what crimes get reported. A saying said: without laws there can be no freedom.

I was actually hoping you might show what 'good' atheism has brought us. I also wanted to see where you stand. Thank you for clarifying the differences, between atheism, Biological Evolution (general), and social darwinism.
I have another question then (for Isabella or atheist/darwinist) -- what's your philosophy on self worth?-- Where do you believe a persons value comes from? --this is why I get confused, between the three you discussed.

#19 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:40 PM

Isabella, I was looking at trying to look at atheism, but then how would you get real statistics? Moral and society laws aren't the same. If the police are there own law, then they could control what crimes get reported. A saying said: without laws there can be no freedom.

Sometimes moral laws and government laws overlap, like the law that murder is wrong.

I was actually hoping you might show what 'good' atheism has brought us. I also wanted to see where you stand. Thank you for clarifying the differences, between atheism, Biological Evolution (general), and social darwinism.

Atheism is less discriminatory, in my opinion. There are no denominations of atheism, so there is no conflict amongst us regarding the nature of our belief (or lack of belief) in God. The same cannot be said for theism. Even within Christianity, there is an ongoing disagreement over which denomination is the “right” one. Atheism also promotes equality in terms of gender and S@xual orientation. Many religions do not treat females as equals. And most religions are strongly against H*mos*xual relationships, even though we now know that S@xual orientation is something we are born with, just like skin color.

I have another question then (for Isabella or atheist/darwinist) -- what's your philosophy on self worth?-- Where do you believe a persons value comes from? --this is why I get confused, between the three you discussed.

I believe my self worth comes from the relationships I have formed in my lifetime, and also from learning to accept myself for who I am. Knowing that I am important to the people who are close to me gives me a sense of value. So does setting goals for myself and taking pride in my accomplishments.

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:12 AM

We’re equals. I don’t believe in discriminating based on religion.


Then you also would say that our ideas on origins have the same merit as what you believe?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users