Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

[_Morley]

I think your timeline is a little off. Sumer.

You're right. Considering some dates, I'm probably confusing 8000 years ago with 8000 BC.

Edit:

Or maybe not. Catal Hoyuk is dated around 7200 to 7500 B.C.

It would depend on how you wish to define civilization. Some would maintain it developed much earlier than that.

[_bcspace]

It would depend on how you wish to define civilization. Some would maintain it developed much earlier than that.

Sure. I just think Sumer is a good place to start thinking about it. As for my hypothesis, it doesn't matter what the actual date is.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Wow, it's amazing to see you presenting cogent arguments I can actually agree with for a change! Nevertheless, this whole evolution thing has made me uneasy over the last couple years or so. To my way of thinking macro-evolution from a single celled ancestor is incompatible with the Christian concept of "God" which is what Buffalo seems to be arguing. It seems to me that you are scoring some points but doing so while capitalizing on the idea that God is a mystery from the start. --as in whatever opinion critics had previously formulated about the biblical God that is incompatible with evolution, is, obviously, wrong.

As a life-long theist, that is becoming an increasingly difficult pill for me to swallow. In the end, unless I find some profound solution, I may be forced to radically alter my conception of "God." You seem to have already done that to a certain extent.

Your conceptual problem follows you into evolution as well. Evolution occurred for sure but the naturalistic and metaphysical consequences of that are still reasonably debated and not fully understood. For example, I am fascinated by Simon Conway Morris' idea of convergence. He provides a compelling case for convergence in, "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe". This isn't ID or creationism, it is decrying them as well as their equivalent fundamentalists like Dawkins. The idea is opposite Stephen Jay Gould's idea that evolution would show a different movie if you rewound the tape. Morris argues we are inevitable, that implies purposeful and your article doesn't disprove that, it is actually perfectly consistent with the idea. Of course I don't accept that as proof in a way analogous to how you utilize evolution against God but as an illustration of how feeble it is to say unicellular organisms combining and evolving through complex ways disprove a creator God, or the God or the Bible.

I am certainly with you on the notion that Dawkins is a "fundamentalist." Dawkins, and people like him, defend atheism with equal (or greater) zeal than many theists defend religion. To the point where a central tenant of the religion of atheism is the need to disprove the Christian God--as evidenced here by Buffalo's logic. Atheism, in that sense, becomes more than a casual disbelief (based on asserted lack of evidence) but instead a dogma to be defended at any and all costs and on multiple fronts.

This, however, is certainly an intriguing thought:

The idea is opposite Stephen Jay Gould's idea that evolution would show a different movie if you rewound the tape. Morris argues we are inevitable, that implies purposeful and your article doesn't disprove that, it is actually perfectly consistent with the idea.

This is where, as a lifelong theist, I have a hard time. I find it nearly incredible to think that God for inexplicable reasons purposefully chose to create me (and every other human) through a progression of evolution from trillions upon trillions of living creatures which necessarily includes multiple trillions of what appears to be painful deaths (as animals consume other animals), an equal number of mistakes (deformities) through many millenia just to get us to a point where he could apparently start implanting souls into a "human" frame. And the implication would be that at some point, some "human" let's say Adam, had a soul implanted whereas his parents were merely animals.

I am laying open one of the issues I am currently struggling with as I attempt to deal with the problem of evolution vs. my traditional view of the Biblical God. Quite honestly and candidly, I do not know how to resolve the issue.

Nevertheless, contrary to Buffalo, I could never see myself following a type of logic that says because I am unable to explain something, that must necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is no God. What it might lead to is the realization that my traditional concept of God is incomplete.

[_Buffalo]

I am certainly with you on the notion that Dawkins is a "fundamentalist." Dawkins, and people like him, defend atheism with equal (or greater) zeal than many theists defend religion. To the point where a central tenant of the religion of atheism is the need to disprove the Christian God--as evidenced here by Buffalo's logic. Atheism, in that sense, becomes more than a casual disbelief (based on asserted lack of evidence) but instead a dogma to be defended at any and all costs and on multiple fronts.

Please note that I never claimed that this information disproves any and all concepts of God. Just any God that claims to have created life on earth.

Who was it who made the observation that when theists want to discredit science or atheism, they call it a religion. When they want to dress up their religious beliefs with an air of credibility, the use scientific terms to describe it (like ID).

If Dawkins' atheism is a religion, what does that make American partisan politics? Is any passionate advocacy of an opinion a religion now?

[_Roger]

Please note that I never claimed that this information disproves any and all concepts of God. Just any God that claims to have created life on earth.

In a crazy sort of way I am agreeing with you in that I tend to view the Biblical God as being incompatible with evolution which leaves me with either rejecting evolution or my traditional view of God. Mikwut seems to have harmonized the two and I'm not quite sure how.

Who was it who made the observation that when theists want to discredit science or atheism, they call it a religion. When they want to dress up their religious beliefs with an air of credibility, the use scientific terms to describe it (like ID).

There may be some truth to that. But the fact remains that many atheists (not all) do indeed defend the very concept of disbelief in God with equal or greater fervor than that displayed by many religionists.

If Dawkins' atheism is a religion, what does that make American partisan politics? Is any passionate advocacy of an opinion a religion now?

Possibly so, at least given the connotations that popularly go along with the term. I am not saying atheism is an organized religion, with bylaws and a hierarchy, I'm merely saying that some atheists defend disbelief in God as passionately (and dogmatically) as religionists defend religion. To my way of thinking, what does it matter to you if someone believes in God? Especially if such belief compels him or her to care for the poor, sick and hungry?

I can certainly understand an atheistic apprehension of a particular religion that advocates killing or torturing infidels, but I don't see that coming from mainstream Christian groups.

[_Buffalo]

Possibly so, at least given the connotations that popularly go along with the term. I am not saying atheism is an organized religion, with bylaws and a hierarchy, I'm merely saying that some atheists defend disbelief in God as passionately (and dogmatically) as religionists defend religion. To my way of thinking, what does it matter to you if someone believes in God? Especially if such belief compels him or her to care for the poor, sick and hungry?

I can certainly understand an atheistic apprehension of a particular religion that advocates killing or torturing infidels, but I don't see that coming from mainstream Christian groups.

An atheist defending his position is very much like a capitalist defending capitalism, or a socialist defending socialism, or a libertarian defending libertarianism.

I'm not aware of any definition of religion that would start and stop with strong advocacy of a position. Atheism is more like a political position - and a very narrow one, since atheism starts and stops with "no belief in gods."

It doesn't bother me if people choose to be religious. That doesn't mean I'm going to refrain from expressing my viewpoint, however. I'd like to see humanity wake up from that sort of thing, which is why I advocate for atheism. I think that religion can have benefits, but it comes with a lot of baggage, and we can get the benefits without the baggage in other, healthier ways.

[_DrW]

I would venture to guess that both Roger and BCSPace were atheistic with regard to Zeus, the sky god of the Greeks and "father of gods and men". They are most likely also atheistic infidels when it comes to Allah.

BCSpace and Roger are certainly atheists when it come to hundreds (if not thousands) of deities (most of whom they have never heard of) - and rightly so.

After all, as Sigmund Freud asked,

"Am I to believe every absurdity? If not, why this one in particular?"

Some of us just add one more absurdity to the list.

And believe me, those who do are much the better for it.

[_Roger]

An atheist defending his position is very much like a capitalist defending capitalism, or a socialist defending socialism, or a libertarian defending libertarianism.

I can agree with that, but "a capitalist defending capitalism, or a socialist defending socialism" etc. implies a defense against an opposing point of view. That's where the dogmatism comes to the fore. Capitalism is better than socialism because... (insert negative characteristics for socialism here). That's what you're doing on this thread. You're advocating for atheism by dogmatically denouncing a preconceived notion (of yours) that competes with the tenants of atheism. This goes beyond the mere belief you hold (and it is a belief because you cannot empirically disprove "God") that there is no such thing as "God" to the advocacy of the doctrine that there is no God over the doctrine that there is. My point is that both positions are religious/philosophical in nature in that neither one can be empirically established and that advocacy of either position can be done with an equal amount of zealotry.

I'm not aware of any definition of religion that would start and stop with strong advocacy of a position. Atheism is more like a political position - and a very narrow one, since atheism starts and stops with "no belief in gods."

But you've already gone beyond that on this thread. You are not merely stopping with "no belief in gods" you are advocating for that dogma as being superior to a competing dogma and claiming a made-up scoreboard backs up that dogmatic claim!

It doesn't bother me if people choose to be religious.

It appears otherwise.

That doesn't mean I'm going to refrain from expressing my viewpoint, however.

No one is asking you to.

I'd like to see humanity wake up from that sort of thing, which is why I advocate for atheism.

So there we go. At least now you've acknowledged what you are doing. And I am not saying there's anything wrong with advocating for atheism if you really believe in it.

I think that religion can have benefits, but it comes with a lot of baggage, and we can get the benefits without the baggage in other, healthier ways.

Although that is a rather sweeping, broad statement, I tend to agree with you on that in principle. I am not advocating for religion. I think religion, in general, has a lot of flaws.

I am, however, saying that at least to me, the fact that we exist and are even having this discussion implies some sort of design to it all. That inanimate matter could somehow progress to a state where individuals like you and I can actually reason in the first place, and then, using that ability that seemingly came from nowhere, come to the conclusion that we are independent, free moral agents simply sounds absurd on its face... God or no God.

But that is different than advocating for "religion." Although I certainly think if religion produces people like Mother Teresa, then it can't be all bad.

[_Themis]

The church does not appear to be inconsistent at all. The individual opinions of the Bretheren are indeed inconsistent. But that is of no import seeing as how the Church freely admits it has no doctrine on the details of the creation.

The statment which represents the position of the church has to do with the origin of Man which certainly is in conflict with evoltionary science, but you seem to lack reading comprenshion when it suits you.

...It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from the lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34),

I realise that some leaders may have different opionons but this statemnt does represent the church's positon at that time, and it shows that i was correct

God and science are not in opposition, God being the ultimate scientist. God has certainly not come out against Evolution, even in LDS doctrine.

God may not have but the church certainly has. They tend to keep more quiet about it now though.

This does not even take into account the scriptures which Dr W has been going over.

[_Roger]

I would venture to guess that both Roger and BCSPace were atheistic with regard to Zeus, the sky god of the Greeks and "father of gods and men". They are most likely also atheistic infidels when it comes to Allah.

To the believers in those gods, while we may not be "atheistic" we are certainly infidels. Although, we are also infidels to each other since I don't accept Bscpace's god since I think his version is a serious corruption of the Biblical God and he thinks my understanding is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, an abomination.

BCSpace and Roger are certainly atheists when it come to hundreds (if not thousands) of deities (most of whom they have never heard of) - and rightly so.

How can you confidently assert "and rightly so"?

After all, as Sigmund Freud asked,

"Am I to believe every absurdity? If not, why this one in particular?"

I think that's a reasonable question. C.S. Lewis has some good responses to those types of questions. For me, it comes down to how I define myself.

Let me ask you, Dr W.... are you a free moral agent? Do your thoughts come from an independent thinker? Are you free to make moral choices? Free to love who you choose? Free to sacrifice for those you love? Or is all that merely an illusion brought about by the simple cause and effect of the functioning of trillions of selfish-genes?