Why Evolution Utterly Destroys Christianity

[Jorge]

Your the one that has the reputation of hostility, denigration of others and unwarranted accusations.

********************************************************************

It's good to know that others besides myself have noticed ... I rest my case, Terror!

Jorge

[Adrift]

********************************************************************

It's good to know that others besides myself have noticed ... I rest my case, Terror!

Jorge

Jorge, I don't like the treatment you get on this forum. Even in the areas I disagree with you, I don't think anyone deserves to be treated like you have been. I've even spoken up for how you've been treated in the past. And I believe you should speak out against that treatment as well. But let me tell you as a fellow brother in Christ, this is a good opportunity to show that you're not like those who you feel have wronged you. Its a good opportunity to show you can be above the hostility you find in others, and live the love mentioned in the 1 Corinthians passage cited above.

You may also want to keep in mind Proverbs 24:17 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles...

Just some friendly advice from one believer to another.

[rogue06]

Hello, I would like to get back on topic, sort of. I have a question for theistic evolutionists among us.
If adam was not real, then how come luke traced Jesus' ancestry all the way back to adam?

Just wanted to note that not all TEs think that Adam was fictional.

[technomage]

Just wanted to note that not all TEs think that Adam was fictional.

Rogue, I know you don't mean "fictional" in our modern sense, but I despise seeing that word in a description of TE or OEC. Even as a complete and total non-believer, I refuse to term Adam as "fictional"--the narratives involving Adam are mythic, in that they provide an etiological account of modern-day (to the author) phenomena in the religious or cultural context of the author.

[phank]

Maybe the word we're looking for is "historical"?

[technomage]

Maybe the word we're looking for is "historical"?

With all due respect, Phank, it is difficult for me to accept the analysis of someone who is, by their own admission, hostile to the very concepts being discussed. I like you, and I respect you--but you are biased, and I cannot trust your analysis.

[phank]

With all due respect, Phank, it is difficult for me to accept the analysis of someone who is, by their own admission, hostile to the very concepts being discussed. I like you, and I respect you--but you are biased, and I cannot trust your analysis.

This seems harsh, considering that I was agreeing with you. I also do not regard Adam as "fictional" because that term has the wrong connotations. In any case, regarding all species as having evolved from ancestor species is something very different from "hostile to the concepts being discussed".

[technomage]

This seems harsh, considering that I was agreeing with you.

I know ... and please realize that the harshness is not malicious or intentional.

Phank, I see a lot of potential in you ... but you present very much as one who feels that it is right or moral to attempt to destroy the faith that individuals have in whatever "god" they believe in. You seem to be unaware of the emotional distress that almost invariably causes people.

I do not "oppose" Christianity, or any other religion, any more than I "oppose" atheism. I will enter debates, I will defend my own faith, and I will argue with the best of them ... but I will never willingly attempt to tear down another person's faith. I am all too aware of the emotional pain deconversion can bring.

You and I have previously discussed why I dislike using the term "delusion" in regards to religious faith, and you agreed that denotatively, the word is inappropriate. But there was a secondary argument that I had brought up at that time (or, at least, that I think I brought up)--even if we could accurately classify religious beliefs as delusion, they are most often formative delusions. They frequently help people mentally and emotionally as they deal with the stresses of life.

Why would I want to take away something that helps a person deal with their lives, even if it is (technically) false?

[phank]

I know ... and please realize that the harshness is not malicious or intentional.

Nor, necessarily, particularly apprpriate. For the reasons you give here.

Phank, I see a lot of potential in you

You understand, this is something one might say to a troublesome child. You MIGHT amount to something someday. Well, I suppose you have potential as well,

... but you present very much as one who feels that it is right or moral to attempt to destroy the faith that individuals have in whatever "god" they believe in. You seem to be unaware of the emotional distress that almost invariably causes people.

I try to present a viewpoint not often seen here, since this (as far as I can tell) is the forum devoted to people who (often?) struggle to accommodate natural science with religious faith. And the view I try to present is that one possible accommodation is to de-emphasize the faith. This is probably why I get compared to Jorge, whose solution is to reject the science.

I do not "oppose" Christianity, or any other religion, any more than I "oppose" atheism. I will enter debates, I will defend my own faith, and I will argue with the best of them ... but I will never willingly attempt to tear down another person's faith. I am all too aware of the emotional pain deconversion can bring.

OK, I've never been through that, and I probably cannot share this awareness. Hopefully by now you understand that in the world I live in, as an engineer, what one does must WORK. You might wish to sit through a code review, while everyone else points out all the errors, false assumptions, and dangerous shortcuts embedded in your code. The goal isn't to be sympathetic, it's to correct errors.

You and I have previously discussed why I dislike using the term "delusion" in regards to religious faith, and you agreed that denotatively, the word is inappropriate. But there was a secondary argument that I had brought up at that time (or, at least, that I think I brought up)--even if we could accurately classify religious beliefs as delusion, they are most often formative delusions. They frequently help people mentally and emotionally as they deal with the stresses of life.

Well, I think I see your point here (and maybe I'm missing it completely). Those who write code full of errors might be endangering others' lives, and certainly will inconvenience them in many ways. NOT having anyone point out the errors is certainly less stressful. But I suppose personal religious faith in general doesn't pose such external risks -- except when it does, of course!

Why would I want to take away something that helps a person deal with their lives, even if it is (technically) false?

To prevent them from flying airplanes into buildings? From burning people at stakes? From depriving others of civil rights? or of being exposed to a decent education? Now, I realize that the majority on this forum have a fairly neutral form of religion, which strikes me as harmless if a bit dotty. I do try, not always successfully, to separate this kind of "hobby faith" from the more virulent strains we see among the YEC crowd.

So I think I see this in practical terms - like the difference between a code bug that could cause a critical system to crash, and a code bug that results in "dead code", inaccessible from anywhere, that just takes up space that can be spared.

[technomage]

Those who write code full of errors might be endangering others' lives, and certainly will inconvenience them in many ways. NOT having anyone point out the errors is certainly less stressful. But I suppose personal religious faith in general doesn't pose such external risks -- except when it does, of course!

I used to do computer programming--I've sat through code reviews.

No, your analogies are not parallel. Code reviews point out substantive errors--"interpersonally verifiable," to use your term. Those who use religion to cause harm are a tiny minority compared to those who do not.

Correcting errors means attacking the actual problem, not the symptoms--especially if the symptoms are common to problematic and non-problematic examples.

[phank]

I used to do computer programming--I've sat through code reviews.

No, your analogies are not parallel. Code reviews point out substantive errors--"interpersonally verifiable," to use your term. Those who use religion to cause harm are a tiny minority compared to those who do not.

This opens up a whole new can of worms, but maybe I opened it. A lot depends on what you consider "harm", and a lot also depends on what you mean by "use religion". Let me give you an example: The day they are inaugurated, new Presidents of the US of a different party than the person being replaced, immediatly either restore (if Democrat) or cut off (if Republican) all foreign aid for health support to nations that permit abortion. Now, abortion may be rarely practiced in those nations, and the US aid may not support it in any case, but the simple fact of not outlawing abortion renders nations disqualified for aid from Republican administrations. This is a strictly religious matter.

Now, is cutting off support for medical care "harmful"? I would argue that it is. It certainly cuts off vaccinations, first aid, etc. Do those who cut it off "use religion" for the purpose? Only a blind idiot would argue otherwise. Do those who elect Republicans do so for religious reasons? Overwhelmingly so. They might represent a very large majority of Republican voters, and perhaps a plurality of all voters.

So I didn't mean to imply that those who fly airplanes into buildings somehow represent religious thought! That's why I included the battle to preserve the quality of US education, which genuinely suffers at the hands of those who vote against teaching good science for religious reasons. These people are NOT a small minority. Polls consistenly put them in the majority. Voting a religion-inspired agenda is intersubjectively verifiable. It's real. It matters.

Correcting errors means attacking the actual problem, not the symptoms--especially if the symptoms are common to problematic and non-problematic examples.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. The anti-science school boards being elected, the anti-health-care Federal administrations, strike me as being the symptom. The religious faith of their voters strikes me as the underlying problem.

[magellan004]

How can an atheist determine whether harm is wrong/bad ? By setting their own rule? By accepting someone else's rule?

Additionally, why should a Christian believe what an atheist tells them is harmful (therefore bad)?

Magellan

[phank]

How can an atheist determine whether harm is wrong/bad ? By setting their own rule? By accepting someone else's rule?

Additionally, why should a Christian believe what an atheist tells them is harmful (therefore bad)?

Magellan

You are confusing the labels with the actions. The golden rule is good. Follow it. Letting children sicken and die when you could prevent it is bad. Don't do it, unless you would want someone else to let YOU sicken and die when they could prevent it.

[rogue06]

How can an atheist determine whether harm is wrong/bad ? By setting their own rule? By accepting someone else's rule?

Additionally, why should a Christian believe what an atheist tells them is harmful (therefore bad)?

Magellan

So if someone told you not to leap off a tall building because it would be harmful are you saying you would ignore them if you found they were an atheist?

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm as human as anyone else, Pix. However, I do not make it a deliberate, pre-meditated strategy to engage in such behavior.

Nah, you just condemn it in some areas and engage in it when it becomes convenient to engage in the said behavior.