27 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDarwin provided the final means for dispensing with god altogether. After Darwin, there was nothing left which 'required' god's handiwork.
As far as I know nobody knows when Jesus was born so I see nothing wrong with Christians picking a day for the celebration. The Anglican Church, as do many other denominations, countries and other bodies have many many holidays, 'feats days' or other types of special day who's date has no real link to whatever is being celebrated.
Many atheists I kn who in addition to his great discoveries and theories came into conflict with religion.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by rwingettThe Darwin delusion.
Darwin provided the final means for dispensing with god altogether. After Darwin, there was nothing left which 'required' god's handiwork.
Darwin made a significant contribution to advance science and end some preconceived myths than were present in society. That's it. To think that Evolution is incompatible with theism is ludicrous.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course theism is compatible with evolution. But evolution works equally well with or without god. God is simply not a necessary component. We have no further 'need' of his services.
The Darwin delusion.
Darwin made a significant contribution to advance science and end some preconceived myths than were present in society. That's it. To think that Evolution is incompatible with theism is ludicrous.
27 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIf people had the intellectual capacity to just say, "I don't know", to the big questions, then strictly speaking he probably never was necessary. But as people seem to have an overwhelming desire to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with the god(s) of their choice, he was a practical necessity for most of man's history. Darwin provided the means for divesting god of much of his remaining power, thus transforming him into a purely figurehead monarch. We can posit god as the 'man behind the curtain', so to speak, but it really isn't necessary.
Why was it necessary before?
27 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettactually my friend, i am sure you are aware that where Nietzsche is concerned in relating as you yourself do that God is dead in the hearts of modern men, killed by rationalism and so called science, in other words that there is no more necessity for God in the lives of individuals i would readily challenge, infact, i would even go as far to say the converse is true, that never before has the need for God been so great, therefore i challenge you or any of the other atheists to produce any evidence that this new morality devoid of God has benefited anyone or inspired anything in life, literature, music or art that can be comparable in excellence to what went before in the establishment founded on the Christian moral!
Of course theism is compatible with evolution. But evolution works equally well with or without god. God is simply not a necessary component. We have no further 'need' of his services.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are many works of art that were created in pre-christian cultures, or non-christian cultures, that are as good, or better than, anything inspired by christianity. Your god is simply not necessary for artistic accomplishment. And if we take the morality of the Old Testament (specifically) as a model, then christianity is a great detriment to morality.
actually my friend, i am sure you are aware that where Nietzsche is concerned in relating as you yourself do that God is dead in the hearts of modern men, killed by rationalism and so called science, in other words that there is no more necessity for God in the lives of individuals i would readily challenge, infact, i would even go as far to say the ...[text shortened]... omparable in excellence to what went before in the establishment founded on the Christian moral!
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by rwingettBut why doesn't the same argument apply to 'gaps' like abiogenesis, for example or for first cause? There's always gaps to fill. Evolution was just one in a long road.
If people had the intellectual capacity to just say, "I don't know", to the big questions, then strictly speaking he probably never was necessary. But as people seem to have an overwhelming desire to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with the god(s) of their choice, he was a practical necessity for most of man's history. Darwin provided the means for dive ...[text shortened]... an posit god as the 'man behind the curtain', so to speak, but it really isn't necessary.
In a more personal view, I'd say most of the 'power' that god has relates more to 'philosophical' concerns (why are we here? why should we care? what does it all mean? etc...) than material ones (how did life begin? how did man come about? etc.). It's all about the 'why', not the 'how'.
27 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasMithraism celebrates Dec 25 as the birth of the great God Mithras. Legend has it that he was "born of a virgin" and arose into the heavens.
And Christians doesn't know what day Christ was born.
If he actually was born at 25th of december, why does the year 1 A.D start 7 days later, at January 1st?, and he was born at year 1 BC. This doesn't make sense.
Yes, I know why the arbitrary day of the 25th of december was chosen - it was a feast day of another religion that they took over, so we are actually celebrating the birth of Christ on a heathen day.
Why do Christians celebrate Dec 25 as Christmas? Should it not be Mithramas ?
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are correct in observing that evolution does not fill all the gaps. Nor does it even address most of them. But it filled a big one. And from then on people looked to science to explain natural phenomena, rather than god. Not that they hadn't begun doing that already, but evolution was the capstone on that process.
But why doesn't the same argument apply to 'gaps' like abiogenesis, for example or for first cause? There's always gaps to fill. Evolution was just one in a long road.
In a more personal view, I'd say most of the 'power' that god has relates more to 'philosophical' concerns (why are we here? why should we care? what does it all mean? etc...) than material ...[text shortened]... ife begin? how did man come about? etc.). It's all about the 'why', not the 'how'.
Your observation that god has been repackaged to answer the 'why' questions, rather then the 'how' ones, is but a concrete example of his ever shrinking provenance. As there is no reason to suspect that an appeal to god will provide a reliable answer to them, even his jurisdiction over the 'why' questions is open to debate.
27 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettOk, I think we agree.
You are correct in observing that evolution does not fill all the gaps. Nor does it even address most of them. But it filled a big one. And from then on people looked to science to explain natural phenomena, rather than god. Not that they hadn't begun doing that already, but evolution was the capstone on that process.
Your observation that god has been eliable answer to them, even his jurisdiction over the 'why' questions is open to debate.
I took your 'dispensing with god altogether' too literally. If you meant that traditional creationist views of God were given a serious blow, then I'd agree.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by PalynkaImagine that. A debate that ended in an agreement on something. That must be a first for this forum. 😀
Ok, I think we agree.
I took your 'dispensing with god altogether' too literally. If you meant that traditional creationist views of God were given a serious blow, then I'd agree.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydNot the sentiment? Which sentiment is that?
They celebrate the holiday--at least the ones I know do, but not the sentiment.
Atheists don't celebrate the sentiment of generosity, goodwill etc..? I hope you don't think atheists don't like those sentiments or wouldn't like them.