The Athiest and The Ape

Why do these discussions always concern being atheist or Christian? I'm agnostic. I don't disbelieve in God, but I certainly don't believe in him either. Basically it boils down to evidence for me. There are too many inconsistencies in the bible (like how the OT God and the NT God are so different in character that they are practically different "gods" if you will) and not to mention, many of its stories can be traced back to stories and myths from other, earlier religions. That being said, the bible is a book written and edited by man and if God does exist and evidence surfaces indicating as such, I would be more than willing to open up my beliefs to Him.

Sorry rant over, I just hate how my mindset is always left out of this discussion and you are either for or against His existence.

You are indeed brave to start a thread on this topic. The subject of creationism vs evolution brings out the rabid blatherings of some. They are so hillarious that I almost reverse-snorted my coffee. Some posters on this thread could use a remedial course in logic.

That being said, back on topic...what you proposed in your op is basically what the Bible describes as the earthly vine which will be cut off and will be burned like chaff and the devine vine which will know eternal life.

As a Christian, I am more interested in where I am going than where I came from. I believe in a Creator but I am not so full of pride that I think that I can know the Mind of God.

reply to post by Juran


Does it not also say "Alahym breathed into man, and he became a living being or living soul" That's speaking of the soul. Your body cannot live without the soul. And yet people still don't want to admit for example, a dead person in the hospital, on a breathing machine and anything to keep the body alive, because it will not sustain itself, and the doctors cannot explain why the person wont live on its own. The brain functions, the organs work, but not without outside assistance will it survive.

Doesn't that mean there is another power at work here? And the only explanation is that the body had no soul left in it? Therefore no soul, no life. The body becomes worthless, and back to the ground it goes.

That's why life cannot be created without the 'Lifegiver'. And why our soul, is who we are, our conscienceness, our personality.

reply to post by jiggerj


I am not aware of other religions that support evolution with their own doctrine, but yes there is Catholic sects that do use that.

Its just a compromising group of believers who don't want to truly stand up for the Word, but cower and give in to big groups like evolution speaking people.

But those who try to use evolution to incorporate into Scripture, are heretics. No where does evolution, MACRO evolution I'm speaking of ever happen in Scripture. And also, saying evolution happened, is also contradicting to the verse Romans 5:12. Where death came because of sin, not death before sin.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Just goes to show that Catholics who use evolution don't know their Scripture.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1

I am not aware of other religions that support evolution with their own doctrine, but yes there is Catholic sects that do use that. Its just a compromising group of believers who don't want to truly stand up for the Word, but cower and give in to big groups like evolution speaking people.

What is so frustrating is that I'm sure evolution can be proven in a lab. There are bugs that live only a day, so they have to quickly mate in order to pass on their genes to the next generation. I don't know what they are, so I'll use a common housefly as an example. Flies squirt liquid out of their proboscis to liquify what they eat. If that food source (say sugar) is under a plastic shelf with tiny holes in it the fly would have to stick its proboscis through these holes. But, what if the shelf is raised just a little from time to time? Would the proboscis on these flies grow longer and longer with each generation in order to get at the sugar? I think it would. Ergo, evolution. Or, some flies would die out from having too short of a proboscis, leaving the better equipped flies to mate and pass on their genes. That is still evolution, and I think these changes can occur within a very short amount of time for us to actually see the changes.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1

But my question is, why do you want to choose and believe you have no soul? Why would an evolutionist want to believe they have no purpose after death? Doesn't that make a person feel worthless?
Just the mere thought of having as soul, makes me feel special. Why would you choose the latter?

Why? We believe in reason and evidence.

If your beliefs about the origin of the Universe, Humankind, and even Reality itself, is purely an investigation of feelings and wants then we are simply approaching it from completely different angles.

Why do you want to choose and believe you don't have mutant healing factor? Don't you know it's your lack of belief causing you not to spontaneously heal? Doesn't that make a person feel less special? It saddens me to think Christians choose not to believe this.

The above example is absurd and ridiculous. So is the demands of the religious for us to choose to believe in religious dogma by appeal to emotion without sound reason.

I am sure many atheists and non-religious would 'want it' and 'feel good' to discover they do in fact have souls that transcend bodily death for further journey. We are open to the evidence!!

Also, the prospect of permanent death doesn't render someone without purpose in life. That's a bad thought truly. You can say void of some ultimate transcendent universal purpose if you want. But to render non-believers without purpose because they don't believe in your religious thoughts is quite frankly immoral.

reply to post by 1PLA1

Some posters on this thread could use a remedial course in logic.

Right. The OP post was flawless in its logic.

God creates everything. Atheists are not created from god.

Flawless.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I'm agnostic. I don't disbelieve in God, but I certainly don't believe in him either. Basically it boils down to evidence for me.

if God does exist and evidence surfaces indicating as such, I would be more than willing to open up my beliefs to Him.

Which makes you an atheist Absent belief in god. You qualify.

You are open to seeing evidence and changing your beliefs. Good. Most atheists are.

Common misunderstanding that this is not an atheist position. Most atheists are atheists because of the lack of evidence, ergo presented with sufficient evidence they would no longer be atheist. The rational atheist anyway.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Shema

 

Yes, in a way its a cauldron of ingredients that are never going to mix together so why entertain thoughts that they might if one stirs them enough times. For a moment there I did.... forgive me.

Hey dont give up that easily

Why dont we start in the spirit of your OP and list what various religions and evolution agree on. I'll start

1. We all agree life started on this planet when once there was no life on this planet

Might need a little edit......I think most agree that at some point there was no life, and then there was!

I know I'm nitpicking, but I am a fan of microbial panspermia. I dont think life had to start here--on earth.

(knowing mr C from other threads, i'm sure you also had that in mind and was being succinct)


Cabbits




Sorry! wrong thread

###The atheist has only evolution to believe in... and the evolutionist has only the ape to believe in.

reply to post by Shema




Please educate yourself re: Evolution and atheism, before you continue to speak on this topic.

I am continually amazed by people who speak on these subject who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of them.

reply to post by idmonster

I think those of us who have participated in the madness should add "Cabbits" to our sig.

It seems to me that the problem that most creationist have is that they just don't want to be related to a primate, monkey, or ape. They believe themselves so special that they could only be related to a god; yet they list pride as a sin.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

###The atheist has only evolution to believe in... and the evolutionist has only the ape to believe in.

reply to post by Shema

 

Please educate yourself re: Evolution and atheism, before you continue to speak on this topic.

I am continually amazed by people who speak on these subject who demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of them.

The thread was nonsense, is nonsense, always will be nonsense. I found several of the later responses helpful and interesting. I have in many ways changed my outlook since posting the thread. Thank you all.

reply to post by Shema

1. You spelled atheist incorrectly in your thread title.

The atheist has only evolution to believe in... and the evolutionist has only the ape to believe in.

2. How do you explain the inordinate number of theists who subscribe to evolution?

3. How is "belief" necessary in terms of a phenomenon that is objectively verifiable?

4. What is an "evolutionist"?

The Gulf that divides the creationist from the atheist is so wide that the only logical conclusion is to accept that dedicated atheists do indeed evolve from primates and that dedicated creationists are indeed created by God.

5. So if I "believe" hard enough that I'm somehow formed from the Loch Ness Monster, I am?

This is not as silly as it sounds. Why would an atheist feel so in tune with the primates unless they are actually related?

6. Can you explain what "in tune" means in this context?

And why would a creationist feel so close to God unless they are of God?

7. There are a wide range of creation myths, some Abrahamic, some not, some monotheistic, some not, yet you seem to be grouping them under the very large umbrella of "creationism". Can you be a little more clear about which specific brands of "creationism" you are referring to?

It is not a matter of one being right and the other being wrong. Let us agree to agree and put a stop to all the bickering once and for all.

8. I have no issue with those who choose to believe in any form of creationism, but why should anyone allow one particular sect over another to attempt to legislate their particular brand of creationism into school curricula? Not sure if you live in the US, but this is a major issue in science education here.

The evolutionists have every right to pursue their ancestral links just as the creationists have every right to celebrate God their creator without both sides mocking and slandering each other.

9. I completely agree with you but, again, I'll ask you to address the point taken above -- how should creationists seeking to legislate their non-scientific religious dogma into a science classroom be handled?

Its a disgrace. Lets adopt the golden rule and show respect for each other and not succumb to discrimination and prejudice just because someone is different.

10. I have never disrespected anyone's faith on this forum, or in real life. Being a former theist and coming from a theistic background, I understand the importance that faith can play in the lives of people. Rather than being met with the same respect, I'm regularly told that I'm going to hell, that I am amoral, etc. Can you explain why I haven't been treated in the way that I've already treated others?

reply to post by jiggerj

I know that the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church support evolution. I wonder if any other religions have done likewise?

Oh I bet many have. Which would beg the question: is their religion really compatible with the science?

Here is an interesting quote from Carl Sagan.

“The Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang.”

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by idmonster

 

I think those of us who have participated in the madness should add "Cabbits" to our sig.

I will...how do I add a second line

I think I did it!
Second

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The way I understood it is that atheists due to a lack of evidence for God do not believe in God and any of the things such as souls, afterlife, etc. Agnostics on the other hand believe that they don't know the answer and cannot say one way or the other if God exists or not. The reason I shy away from the atheism title so much is because the way it is presented, it is almost like a religion in itself saying that God doesn't exist. It IS a word ending in "ism" like most religions of the world. Atheism, to me, is just another way of saying, "I know the answer." Which is clearly untrue; no one knows the answer. This view is what I was trying to express in my post.

Likewise, I study reincarnation and NDE cases to get an understanding of the soul and its existence. I believe these routes are some of the best to get an understanding of whether or not souls and by extension God exist. I feel that many atheists try to shy away from these studies as bunk because of their preconceived notions that there is no soul and therefore no God. Things like this are what upset me the most about the atheist title.

You say that atheists are open minded to new ideas and concepts, but from my experience and understanding I see that they can be just as close minded as their religious counterparts. And it isn't until a new idea gains considerable ground that they decide to pursue studies in an area that was originally considered to be bunk and even this is after many people try to cast the people breaking new ground in bad light or even outcast them.

Originally posted by Shema

The Atheist and The Ape


###The atheist has only evolution to believe in... and the evolutionist has only the ape to believe in.

The Gulf that divides the creationist from the atheist is so wide that the only logical conclusion is to accept that dedicated atheists do indeed evolve from primates and that dedicated creationists are indeed created by God.

This is not as silly as it sounds. Why would an atheist feel so in tune with the primates unless they are actually related?

And why would a creationist feel so close to God unless they are of God?

It is not a matter of one being right and the other being wrong. Let us agree to agree and put a stop to all the bickering once and for all.

The evolutionists have every right to pursue their ancestral links just as the creationists have every right to celebrate God their creator without both sides mocking and slandering each other.

Its a disgrace. Lets adopt the golden rule and show respect for each other and not succumb to discrimination and prejudice just because someone is different.

Comments?

The problem is DNA, both yours and the ape are 98% the same....you are related to trees and grass too...all life on planet earth is related.

BTW why does everyone always debate the how and not the why? The how can be anyway...why can't God make man through evolution? If there is a God then he must have....get over it and stop thinking the earth is flat because of religious ideas.

Religious people are suggesting that God can only do things one way...hmmm I guess you know better than God. Even the bible says Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (where there was no sin) after taking the bite from the apple that was from the tree of knowledge. They gained self awareness and put on clothes....

What a great story of how man progressed from the animal world i.e. Garden of Eden when he became self aware. Once man became self aware he could then decide to do good or evil...his choice....sure sounds like evolution to me....

reply to post by Krazysh0t

The way I understood it is that atheists due to a lack of evidence for God do not believe in God and any of the things such as souls, afterlife, etc.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god. That's it. They may derive from the lack of God belief it follows other things wouldn't be true.

Agnostics on the other hand believe that they don't know the answer and cannot say one way or the other if God exists or not.

You yourself said I quote "certainly don't believe in him (god)" That means non-existence.

So how does that reconcile with "cannot say one way or the other".

You do say one way or the other. As does the atheist. Lack of evidence leads you to believe god doesn't exist.

The issue again, is that you think atheists are not open to changing their position if sufficient evidence was shown. As if that was the domain of the "agnostics" only.

Here is a quote from Huxely. The one who termed agnosticism.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Not a creed but a method.

So if you want an 'agnostic atheist' would be someone who doesn't believe in god due to a lack of evidence. Implicit to that really is "one way or another" because it could go the 'other way'. Once there is good reason to do so.

The reason I shy away from the atheism title so much is because the way it is presented, it is almost like a religion in itself saying that God doesn't exist.

We define religion much differently. Where is the laws, rituals, tenets, demand for worship, etc in atheism?

I don't know why you would shy away from your own belief. Again I quote "certainly don't believe in him (god)".

Perhaps you are put off not by atheism but some atheists?

Atheism, to me, is just another way of saying, "I know the answer."

That kind of atheist is not the majority. Meaning to say they reject any possibility of contrary evidence. The atheist that says I KNOW for a fact god doesn't exist and no evidence can or will ever be presented. That person is still an atheist, but only a type of atheist. Again atheism is just the lack of belief in god's existence, not the methodology one used to reach the belief (non-belief).

Which is clearly untrue; no one knows the answer. This view is what I was trying to express in my post.

Makes total sense, but it's a confusion about what atheism and agnosticism means. At least this is my understanding and opinion.

Likewise, I study reincarnation and NDE cases to get an understanding of the soul and its existence. I believe these routes are some of the best to get an understanding of whether or not souls and by extension God exist.

That's fantastic! I study similar things. And practice meditation. Now I am not an atheist. I am a deist. I just agree with atheism most of the time because it's usually in context to religions and religious gods. So yeah, I think that's awesome and I support your investigation

You say that atheists are open minded to new ideas and concepts, but from my experience and understanding I see that they can be just as close minded as their religious counterparts.

Absolutely they can, and some surely are. People are people. This is expected. Atheism doesn't guarantee someone is a critical thinker andor 'open minded'.