Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:(How did you DO that, though?)

How did I edit my quote, or is there something strange appearing? All looks normal from my PC!

No, I'm asking how you edit your own post. But I think Zoe is about to tell me. it freaked me out when your all-over-the-place post suddenly changed to being perfect. Apoart from the content

If you look at your own posts (assuming you're logged in) then there's an edit button next to the quote button that is by other user's posts

touchingcloth wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: Making a general statement that the French Revolution is an example of atheistic philosophy at work, may have some validity, but it's grossly overstated and effectively loses the point by failing to recognize these other factors (and I've mentioned just a few) and also failing to recognize that governments under more theist understandings have had some pretty bloody and overwhelming incidents in history and if you're going to be consistent in your interpretting those instances then you have to equally conclude that Theism historically has not been a panacea to eliminate all oppression, all violence and all brutality and injustice.

Again, I see the common denominator in all of this as the nature of man, and perhaps you can make a case in terms of degrees, but attempting to make it to the degree I see many trying to do, isn't particularly consistent, in my opinion.

Thanks Canuckster - that's a much more eloquent way of putting what I've been struggling to say

I'm glad it helped. Understand however, that I'm not defending atheism. Far from it. I think there's ample reason for eschewing atheism without overstating some of those arguments.

Yep,

Danny, there is an edit button on the upper right...once you post you can go back and edit. I've often times lost track of the quote and parentheses and such....

Your post will appear jsut as if you were writing it the first time...edit and then post...

zoegirl wrote:Yep,

Danny, there is an edit button on the upper right...once you post you can go back and edit. I've often times lost track of the quote and parentheses and such....

Your post will appear jsut as if you were writing it the first time...edit and then post...

Thanks Zoe. Oh my how I wish I knew about this before...Thank you very much.

Thanks TC.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm glad it helped. Understand however, that I'm not defending atheism. Far from it. I think there's ample reason for eschewing atheism without overstating some of those arguments.

Yes, I got that - my own posts have been decrying the egregious statements rather than a defence of atheism.

Danny, you can always preview your post as well....it will show up looking like the form it will post as....then you can see if things like crazy and correct before you actually post....I have found that helpful for longer posts...

zoegirl wrote:It's so hard to bring historical events into play because there *are* so many variables.

So here's a thought....we can look at many regimes in the past and say "it was an abuse of power" and in many cases, we can look toward the religion of that region and see that the people and that culture did not espouse that abuse.

But let's look at a hypothetical atheist regime in an atheist population....there is no validity to the idea of "abuse of power" because how would you establish that the display of power was, in fact, an abuse? What could you point to to say "you shouldn't be doing that?!" You might be looking at them in dismay because of their cruelty, but if they didn't share your view, how could you say their way isn't right? or wrong?


As Bart said, atheist worldview does lead to nihilism.

Atheist countries:

China: Mao Tse-Tung

Approx 70 million people killed

USSR
Joseph Stalin

Starved an estimated 20 to 30 million people to death in the Unkraine

Estimated his brand of Atheism killed approx 50 to 60 million people

Therefore, these two recent modern regimes killed around 110 million people

Add in Cuba and other Atheistic based political/governmental systems at least 2 million more died…

Note the world Populations:

During the 5000 BCE time frame there was an estimated world population of approx 5 million people

During the 1000 BCE time frame there was an estimated world population of approx 50 million people

In 1 AD an estimated world population of approx 170 million people

Next during the 600 AD time frame there was an estimated world population of approx 200 million people

Next during the 1000 AD time frame there was an estimated world population of approx 260 million people…

Point:

Add in the approx 112 million killed by Atheistic founded political systems and notice that more were killed than during any Crusade or wars caused by religion combined. Note also that the majority of religion based wars were caused by Islam.

Atheism in known by its fruit it produces — it produced Marxism…and 112 million people 'is' a low estimate of total people these regimes killed to say the least.

Factor in abortion and the numbers grow higher…
-
-
-

wow, good post BW...

and in the moral vacuum, how can the atheist worldview condemn these?

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Gman wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: As far as evolution goes, I'm sorry, it IS atheism. That's been recognized by both theistic and atheistic philosophers.

Jac, you know where I stand on Darwinism and atheism... You know that I'm not a friend to either thoughts. Probably the most on this board. I would just have a hard time labeling Darwinism as atheism or equal to atheism. I agree that there are many similarities but I just wouldn't go that far....

I would say however that they fuel each other....

I would agree with Jac here.

In my discussions with atheists, I used to be surprised at how few of them have ever read Darwin. Here is an interesting quote from The Descent of Man where Darwin suggests that animals may also be self-deluded when it comes to spirits:

I know what you mean bro... I wrote numerous posts on this too such as Darwin a racist?

I believe the fact of the matter however is that you can't equate evolution or Darwinian evolution to atheism. Why? Because evolution itself is soaked in theology/philosophy. Again Darwin on various occasions posed theological and philosophical questions on evolution (or to a creator) in his book, “The Origin of Species.” We even have theistic evolution where God is the catalyst behind evolution.

I believe there is a way to equate Darwinism to atheism however. Just as we have theistic evolution, I also believe we have atheistic evolution. If you look at it this way, then yes, I would say it's atheistic. So how do we get atheistic evolution? By omitting God out of all the processes of evolution. If you do that, then you have atheism or the outlook of atheism projected out into our environment.

Atheistic evolution is taught everywhere in that respect. Particularly in public science books (no mention of God here). In every science book that talks about evolution and omits God out of the process, you are creating for yourself an atheistic world. In every lecture on evolution... If you omit God, you get atheistic evolution. By default, however, you really can't omit God out of naturalistic explanations. You only could if you could empirically shape, mold, and create life via naturalistic methods (without any human intervention). Something that has never been accomplished. Therefore we cannot touch it without touching the philosophical or theological realm...

Makes sense?

Out of interest Gman - in what way would you like to see god mentioned/not omitted from the description of evolution in text books/science courses?

touchingcloth wrote:Out of interest Gman - in what way would you like to see god mentioned/not omitted from the description of evolution in text books/science courses?

Well in a public setting I can see that the use of the name "God" should be omitted from text books for the separation of Church and State. But if we use the name ID or Intelligent Design that would work. The person could therefore "fill in the blanks" as to the designer whether it be supernatural or other...

Off topic, Gman, and there is lots in this thread I want to reply to later, but in the meantime, since you mention sep. of Church and State, how would you feel about the federal government giving money to missionaries to spread the Gospel of Christ among some people group? Or how would you feel about passing laws allowing students to attend religious services? Or, again, how would you feel if, say, Massachusetts (or any other state) were to establish a state-religion?

Would those violate the First Amendment? Before you answer, are you aware that the FFs--the ones who WROTE the First Amendment--did all of those things and many others?

Anyway, will get to more of the substance in the thread later. It's very good to get other people's views on this, even those that disagree with me.

edit: One more thing, let me quote from the 1888 Supreme Court opinion, Vidal v. Girard's Executors: "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament . . . be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from he New Testament?" Yeah. So I don't see how mentioning God in the classroom violates the First Amendment . . .

Jac3510 wrote:Off topic, Gman, and there is lots in this thread I want to reply to later, but in the meantime, since you mention sep. of Church and State, how would you feel about the federal government giving money to missionaries to spread the Gospel of Christ among some people group? Or how would you feel about passing laws allowing students to attend religious services? Or, again, how would you feel if, say, Massachusetts (or any other state) were to establish a state-religion?

Believe me... I would love for our country to go back to it's Biblical roots. Based on the Blackstone volumes that really was how the U.S. operated back then. But since the separation of Church and State, that is now in the past. The problem being is that America is made up of so many faiths now. So many different views that the basic principles of the Bible have been somewhat squelched. These different faiths all pay taxes and all have a voice in our judicial systems. Therefore they cannot be denied a voice under an open democracy.. Of course the better word for it is called open secularism.

I know it sucks but that is the way it is... Therefore, under a democracy, the federal government should not be giving money to missionaries to spread the Gospel of Christ. I know it sounds harsh, but that we have to be fair to all faiths and not just Christianity..

Jac3510 wrote:Or how would you feel about passing laws allowing students to attend religious services?

Religious services funded by the state?

Jac3510 wrote:Or, again, how would you feel if, say, Massachusetts (or any other state) were to establish a state-religion?

Sure, but I doubt if they would. If they got the vote or majority. Then yes...

Jac3510 wrote:Would those violate the First Amendment? Before you answer, are you aware that the FFs--the ones who WROTE the First Amendment--did all of those things and many others?

Yes, I'm actually pretty familiar with it. In a way the First Amendment was not trying to stifle the effectiveness of Christianity within it's rank but actually pointed to the various Christian "groups" within Christianity. Basically a freedom of religion within the various Christian denominations, not the separation of Church and State...

I hear you..

Jac3510 wrote:Anyway, will get to more of the substance in the thread later. It's very good to get other people's views on this, even those that disagree with me.

I'm not really disagreeing with you champ... Just clarifying it.

Jac3510 wrote:edit: One more thing, let me quote from the 1888 Supreme Court opinion, Vidal v. Girard's Executors: "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament . . . be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from he New Testament?" Yeah. So I don't see how mentioning God in the classroom violates the First Amendment . . .

True, but now we are secular... My belief is that if we practiced Christianity to it's fullest there would be no more wars, hatred, violence, etc... But man has other plans...

Gman wrote:I know what you mean bro... I wrote numerous posts on this too such as Darwin a racist?

I'll read the 4 pages of posts on that thread before answering this question:

Gman wrote:Makes sense?

FL

I'm just thinking out loud for myself.... Sorry.. I know this is off topic.

Evolution or Darwinian evolution is a mixture of a lot of different beliefs or philosophies.. I see faith in God in it (theistic evolution) or no belief in God in it (atheistic evolution). There are probably others but I just want to focus on these two for now.. Oh yes, and there is some science (but not much) in there too.

What happens here is people going into it with their preconceived ideas of what it is and pull their philosophy out of it either consciously or even unconsciously. Like a big bowl of Mexican food. All the ingredients are there, one guy pulls the ingredients out of it and makes a burrito, another guys comes along, dips his hand into the same bowl and makes a taco. All the same ingredients, just a different way he built or folded the tortilla. Same with evolution, one guys dips his hand into the evolutionary bowl and pulls out his beliefs, in this case atheistic, another guys comes along and pulls out his theistic beliefs.

So if I dip my hand into the evolutionary bowl and start pulling out my atheistic beliefs out of it, I have turned it into an atheistic philosophy (the by product). How? By not mentioning God in any of my evolutionary processes. If I leave out the creative properties of an intelligent designer in my evolutionary processes, by default, I'm creating my atheistic evolution. I could either do this unconsciously too, meaning not intentionally. In other words, if I write a book, or teach evolutionary processes without an intelligent designer, I'm creating for myself my atheistic world. I'm literally pulling my atheistic philosophy out of a mixture of beliefs (in this case evolution). Same with theistic evolution. If I see God in the process, then I will pull my theistic beliefs out of it..

Ok now I'm hungry for Mexican food...

Thoughts?