Question for evolutionists

[kudzu]

Atheism and Religion

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.


Belief in Supernatural Beings

Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.


Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times

Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.

continued

https://www.thoughtco.com/is-atheism-a-religion-248056

 

[kudzu]

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins

Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.

 

[DarthPedant]

Not my definitions. You can't just deny philosophy.

I doubt I’d agree with your definition of ‘philosophy’ any more than I’d agree with your definition of ‘science’ or your definition of ‘religion’. There are remarkably few settled questions in philosophy, so I don’t know what you’re imagining I can’t deny anyway.

In my experience, people who just makes up definitions and then demand everyone accept theirs are more interested in rhetoric than conversation anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kudzu]

I doubt I’d agree with your definition of ‘philosophy’ any more than I’d agree with your definition of ‘science’ or your definition of ‘religion’. There are remarkably few settled questions in philosophy, so I don’t know what you’re imagining I can’t deny anyway.

In my experience, people who just makes up definitions and then demand everyone accept theirs are more interested in rhetoric than conversation anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.thoughtco.com/is-atheism-a-religion-248056

Some Christians like to claim atheism is a religion.. They try to use that as a political tool. But atheism doesn't share a single trait of any religion. The link above explains that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Why can't a form of creationism and the science of evolution co-exists?

 

[kudzu]

Why can't a form of creationism and the science of evolution co-exists?

Actually they do co-exist.. One is spiritual.. the other is science. Creation myths (all of them) explain where do we come from to Bronze Age people.

 

[DarthPedant]

Why can't a form of creationism and the science of evolution co-exists?

They can coexist, in theory. There’s issues of Occam’s Razor (which admittedly is more of a useful guideline than a hard and fast rule): IF evolution is a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, then there’s no reason to multiply causal agents for the diversity of life unnecessarily by adding a god. Which doesn’t speak to whether a god was involved in anything else.

Technically, evolution doesn’t address the chemical formation of the first replicator. That’s a different area of biochemistry and we don’t know exactly how that happened. A lot of work has focused on the first mechanisms for replication and the first metabolic chains, but even with the interesting work there, there’s a lot about the formation of cell structure that’s very complicated and in some ways unexplored.

Some people are more comfortable than others appealing to a god to fill in the present gaps of our knowledge, which includes the formation of life, but can be pushed back to the question of ‘why is there something rather than nothing’.

My atheism is largely based on inductive arguments, one example: we know humanity has made up gods to explain what we didn’t yet understand, and as time goes on, we have found many of the things previously ascribed to gods to have perfectly natural explanations. I find it very unlikely that our present gaps in knowledge will turn out to be resolved by the very kinds of things (gods) our most primitive ancestors made up to explain their gaps in knowledge.

But inductive arguments have limits, so I would never claim that this ‘proves’ there are no gods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why can't a form of creationism and the science of evolution co-exists?

They can philosophically...it just isn't science. Science excludes Creationism as Science self limits itself only to natural causation and excludes supernatural causation or explanations. Creationism and its identical cousin Intelligent Design Creationism posit supernatural causes or explanation to model speciation which excludes them as science since they violate that specific ground rule (among others).

So yes they can co-exist but one is science (biological theory of evolution) and the other (Creationism & ID) are something other than science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They can coexist, in theory. There’s issues of Occam’s Razor (which admittedly is more of a useful guideline than a hard and fast rule): IF evolution is a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, then there’s no reason to multiply causal agents for the diversity of life unnecessarily by adding a god. Which doesn’t speak to whether a god was involved in anything else.

Technically, evolution doesn’t address the chemical formation of the first replicator. That’s a different area of biochemistry and we don’t know exactly how that happened. A lot of work has focused on the first mechanisms for replication and the first metabolic chains, but even with the interesting work there, there’s a lot about the formation of cell structure that’s very complicated and in some ways unexplored.

Some people are more comfortable than others appealing to a god to fill in the present gaps of our knowledge, which includes the formation of life, but can be pushed back to the question of ‘why is there something rather than nothing’.

My atheism is largely based on inductive arguments, one example: we know humanity has made up gods to explain what we didn’t yet understand, and as time goes on, we have found many of the things previously ascribed to gods to have perfectly natural explanations. I find it very unlikely that our present gaps in knowledge will turn out to be resolved by the very kinds of things (gods) our most primitive ancestors made up to explain their gaps in knowledge.

But inductive arguments have limits, so I would never claim that this ‘proves’ there are no gods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they can't exist together in SCIENTIFIC Theory. The Biological theory of evolution meets all the criteria of a scientific theory. Creationism and ID meet none of them. Creationism and ID violate the ground rules of science and you cannot elevate them by trying to discredit a proven theory with disreputable non-sense as you have just attempted to do so here.

Creationism certainly exist as a religeous philosophy, it just simply isn't science.

 

[DarthPedant]

No they can't exist together in SCIENTIFIC Theory. The Biological theory of evolution meets all the criteria of a scientific theory. Creationism and ID meet none of them. Creationism and ID violate the ground rules of science and you cannot elevate them by trying to discredit a proven theory with disreputable non-sense as you have just attempted to do so here.

Creationism certainly exist as a religeous philosophy, it just simply isn't science.

Simmer down, friend. What disreputable nonsense have I said?

In no way was I attempting to elevate creationism or ID to any scientific status. The question was about incompatibility or accommodation. One could accept the evidence for evolution and still believe in a god just as easily as one could accept the evidence for evolution and be a humanist or be a vegetarian or like sportsball. Evolution doesn’t explore the existence of gods one way or the other, and the question I was responding to was about ‘a form of creationism’, which could include a deistic god that just got the ball rolling outside of the scope of evolution.

But if I were to play angel’s advocate, I might suggest that ID is no less ‘science’ than string theory, which also currently has no plan in place for testing whether or not it is likely to be true (at least last I checked). In that sense both ID and string theory are ‘just a theory’ in the way science enthusiasts cringe when evolution is dismissed as ‘just a theory’. (‘String theory’ also demonstrates that the common rebuttal of narrowly defining what a scientific ‘theory’ means is not carried out consistently, or we’d be talking about String Hypothesis! In the end, theory and law are terms that stick to things for historical/accidental reasons rather than fastidious definition hawking.) In the case of ID, it’s a pretty weak scientific idea because it really boils down to a collection of arguments from personal incredulity: I don’t believe X could have come about by natural means.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DarthPedant]

They can philosophically...it just isn't science. Science excludes Creationism as Science self limits itself only to natural causation and excludes supernatural causation or explanations. Creationism and its identical cousin Intelligent Design Creationism posit supernatural causes or explanation to model speciation which excludes them as science since they violate that specific ground rule (among others).

So yes they can co-exist but one is science (biological theory of evolution) and the other (Creationism & ID) are something other than science.

Well, you just busted my chops for saying they can coexist ‘in theory’ right after admitting they can coexist ‘philosophically’... methinks you didn’t read my reply very carefully.

But I don’t know why I should accept such an impoverished view of science. Scientists do examine supernatural claims. Look up the scientific studies done on intercessory prayer. No surprise to us, perhaps, but they found intercessory prayer doesn’t achieve any outcomes better than random chance.

If a god interacts with the world, in theory those interactions can be examined scientifically. Had intercessory prayer ‘worked’ better than random chance, we may not have had an understanding of why it worked, but we’d have learned that it was worth further investigation. Just because science hasn’t (yet) figured out how to make a god detector doesn’t mean that such an instrument would be outside of the bounds of science if one could figure out how to make it.

There are some questions we may never be able to answer because of factors of distance or time, or our inability to make sufficient detectors, but I don’t think science need to cede any territory as being in theory beyond its efforts. Science is the study of reality, and if that reality should happen to include gods or multiverses or m-branes of q-bits in our microtubules, we’d want to know that, whether or not practically speaking we ever figure out how to test for those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Into the Night]

Atheism and Religion

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. Atheism is no exception.

Belief in Supernatural Beings

Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.

Define 'supernatural'. Define 'natural'.

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times

Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.

Define 'supernatural'. Define 'natural'.

 

[Into the Night]

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins

Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.

Atheism defines a 'moral' code as well. Define 'supernatural'. Define 'natural'.

Your entire definition is based on a void argument. Until you can define what 'supernatural' and 'natural' means, they are meaningless buzzwords.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. Not all religions have a god or gods. Examples are Buddhism, Shintoism, and atheism, as well as more modern religions such as Marxism, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, and the Church of Global Warming. These last four religions are related to each other.

In Christianity, that circular argument is that Jesus Christ lives and He is who He says He is.
In atheism, that circular argument is that no god or gods exist.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. It is not a fallacy in and of itself. Only failing to recognize a circular argument (by attempting to prove one, for example) is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. Most atheists are fundamentalists.

 

[kudzu]

Atheism defines a 'moral' code as well. Define 'supernatural'. Define 'natural'.

Your entire definition is based on a void argument. Until you can define what 'supernatural' and 'natural' means, they are meaningless buzzwords.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. Not all religions have a god or gods. Examples are Buddhism, Shintoism, and atheism, as well as more modern religions such as Marxism, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, and the Church of Global Warming. These last four religions are related to each other.

In Christianity, that circular argument is that Jesus Christ lives and He is who He says He is.
In atheism, that circular argument is that no god or gods exist.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. It is not a fallacy in and of itself. Only failing to recognize a circular argument (by attempting to prove one, for example) is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. Most atheists are fundamentalists.

Supernatural (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

[Into the Night]

I doubt I’d agree with your definition of ‘philosophy’ any more than I’d agree with your definition of ‘science’ or your definition of ‘religion’. There are remarkably few settled questions in philosophy, so I don’t know what you’re imagining I can’t deny anyway.

In my experience, people who just makes up definitions and then demand everyone accept theirs are more interested in rhetoric than conversation anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inversion fallacy. You just posted definitions.

Since you deny science, religion, and philosophy, you are left to quibbling over trying to change the language. This is common among fundamentalists.

 

[Into the Night]

https://www.thoughtco.com/is-atheism-a-religion-248056

Some Christians like to claim atheism is a religion.. They try to use that as a political tool. But atheism doesn't share a single trait of any religion. The link above explains that.

Yes it does. It is based on faith, just the same as Christianity or any other religion is.

 

[kudzu]

All religions are based on some initial circular argument. Atheism is no exception.


Define 'supernatural'. Define 'natural'.


Define 'supernatural'. Define 'natural'.

Atheism doesn't meet a single criteria to qualify as a religion.. Some Christians claim its a religion to use as a political tool.. That's laughable.

 

[Into the Night]

Why can't a form of creationism and the science of evolution co-exists?

The Theory of Evolution, like the Theory of Creation are not scientific theories. They are nonscientific theories. There is nothing incompatible between the two.

Some people like to equate the Theory of Evolution with the Theory of Abiogenesis, but they are two completely different theories. The Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation are mutually exclusive of each other. One of them MUST be False.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually they do co-exist.. One is spiritual.. the other is science. Creation myths (all of them) explain where do we come from to Bronze Age people.

The Theory of Evolution is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There are no theories in science about any past unobserved event. They are not falsifiable.

The Theory of Creation is a theory, not a myth. Both the They of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation exist today, well after the Bronze Age.

 

[kudzu]

Yes it does. It is based on faith, just the same as Christianity or any other religion is.

Do you have faith in the Constitution or the Judicial system or your spouse.. Do you have faith in gravity or that the sun will come up in the morning?

Would they also qualify as a "religion"?? You aren't too bright.