What ideology is that?
Yep. Organic chemistry, physiology, gene seq, taxonomy, and the list just goes on.
It's interesting.
Do atheists study any biology other than evolution?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
What ideology is that?
Yep. Organic chemistry, physiology, gene seq, taxonomy, and the list just goes on.
It's interesting.
That it takes theists to get them interested in science? No idea really, what would it prove to you?
The majority, by far - don't forget those atheistic regimes that prove the evil inherent in denial of all that allows imagination to flourish, eh? IIRC most books on "gene-centric" or Darwinian evolution were banned from the Soviet Union, and are uncommon in China even now.SAM said:
btw:
Is there something about the standard or conventional theisms (Abrahamic) that interferes with an adherent's questioning the way things "seem to them", in the light of further experience?SAM said:
Last edited:
SAM, you have a bad habit of answering direct questions put to you with questions rather than with answers.
I'd like to remind you that you started this thread, not me. You must have had something in mind when you started it. Or were you just trying to yank chains?
I already stated in the OP why I started this thread. To see if atheists study any biology as ardently as they appear to embrace evolutionary science. I was wondering what you thought it would prove apart from what I already stated, since you seem to think it is not sufficient.
I didn't know that. What is the reasoning behind the ban?
It seems to me that most arguments by atheists center around accepting evolution. I sometimes wonder what they think it means in terms of their beliefs. Suppose all people in the world accept the current evolutionary theory without any reservations. Then what?
It seems odd that so many non-biologists would care about anyone accepting or not accepting a scientific theory. Imagine the same fervency given to the string theory. Or black holes. Or entropy/ Whats the big deal? The pope has accepted evolution. What did that change?
However, it would seem from the poll that most non-biologists who are atheists appear to be widely read in biology. So at least among atheists here, its moot.
SAM:
That's quite a statement. Do you mean that you think that atheists believe that if they can convince people about the truth of evolution then those people will become atheists? I don't think that's what most atheists think, and I wonder what gives you the strange idea that they do think like that. It seems like common sense to me that evolution is not incompatible with belief in God. Nor do you have to believe in evolution to be an atheist. All you need is to lack a belief in gods.
Then we'd have no Answers in Genesis fundamentalists, I guess. But we'd still have plenty of religious people. They'd just be religious people who accept the science of evolution.
Do you think that science and religion are incompatible?
I would say that a lot of atheists see religious beliefs about the origins of human beings as displaying a lack of critical or "scientific" thinking. To them, religious ideas about origins are irrational superstitions. Therefore, it makes sense for them to make their point in the strongest way they can - by appeal to the science and rationality that they believe underpins their non-religious stance.
The big deal with evolution is that religious fundamentalists spend a lot of their time trying to attack evolution, whereas they do not seem to be so concerned with the implications of string theory or black holes. So, I'd say you may be looking for fervency in the wrong place. The apparent atheist fervency may in fact be a reaction to the fervour of the religious. What do you think?
It removed part of the cloak of legitimacy worn by the fundamentalists, perhaps. It also sent a message to Catholics that evolution and the Catholic faith are not considered by Church authorities to be incompatible. That's a positive move, if you ask me.
That's quite a statement. Do you mean that you think that atheists believe that if they can convince people about the truth of evolution then those people will become atheists? I don't think that's what most atheists think, and I wonder what gives you the strange idea that they do think like that. It seems like common sense to me that evolution is not incompatible with belief in God. Nor do you have to believe in evolution to be an atheist. All you need is to lack a belief in gods.
Then we'd have no Answers in Genesis fundamentalists, I guess. But we'd still have plenty of religious people. They'd just be religious people who accept the science of evolution.
Do you think that science and religion are incompatible?
I would say that a lot of atheists see religious beliefs about the origins of human beings as displaying a lack of critical or "scientific" thinking. To them, religious ideas about origins are irrational superstitions. Therefore, it makes sense for them to make their point in the strongest way they can - by appeal to the science and rationality that they believe underpins their non-religious stance.
The big deal with evolution is that religious fundamentalists spend a lot of their time trying to attack evolution, whereas they do not seem to be so concerned with the implications of string theory or black holes. So, I'd say you may be looking for fervency in the wrong place. The apparent atheist fervency may in fact be a reaction to the fervour of the religious. What do you think?
It removed part of the cloak of legitimacy worn by the fundamentalists, perhaps. It also sent a message to Catholics that evolution and the Catholic faith are not considered by Church authorities to be incompatible. That's a positive move, if you ask me.
Meanwhile, reprise:
Is there something about the standard or conventional theisms (Abrahamic) that interferes with an adherent's questioning the way things "seem to them", in the light of further experience?
SAM said:
Is there something about the standard or conventional theisms (Abrahamic) that interferes with an adherent's questioning the way things "seem to them", in the light of further experience?
Was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Last edited:
I've an interest in many ares of biology, but as evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology, you aren't going to go far any where else without touching on it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
You are confusing atheists and supporters of science. Sure there is a big overlap, but the two are not synonyms.
Evolution, despite the way fundies spaz over it, has absolutely nothing to do with god for or against.
And do what? Let their wild imaginations run amok because so many people refuse to think critically?
It changed the outlook of religions to that of indoctrinated cults.
Ah James, sometimes you're so bloody naive. hehe
