why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?

People who so much want 'God' that the notion can twist and adapt to every turn of events might as well have the Guy, for they will never meet up with any problems to the notion.

Unfortunately, they are perhaps unwittingly utilizing the results of their unproven notion beforehand, to further that very notion along.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Correct. Because our knowledge was incomplete and we were at the start of the learning curve.
Did that apply to god when he designed us?
Click to expand...

I think it rather applies to how we perceive ourselves.

Ie. there was a time when people did not perceive the human body as flawed; at least not as as flawed as some do nowadays.

In earlier times, people seemed to have been much more able and willing to bear hardship - but nowadays, we tend to shun any hardship as much as possible.
(Even though eventually, it tends to dawn on people that enduring hardship is essential to life. Some newer approaches in psychology in fact focus on developing distress tolerance skills (such as DBT therapy); not so long ago, this would have been written off as "unnecessary tough love.")


Bottomline: Perceiving ourselves as "flawed" (whether due to not so intelligent design or whatever) is not helpful.

Yet, there is a tendency to see ourselves as "flawed." What drives this perception of flawedness?
 
News flash:

Austin...continuing on with my questions about the mystery of our DNA, I would ask you how come researchers like Gregg Braden can take the chemical elements of life in our DNA, being Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon and compare them to the letters in the Hebrew and Arabic Alphabet and it reveals that our every cell is encoded with the ancient name of God. This work and study revealed not only God's ancient name encoded into our every cell but also a literal message...."God/Eternal within the body."

Why do these alphabets reveal God's ancient name in the cells of our species?? Surely we have a greater mystery in our DNA and a very strange connection to the ancient alphabets, letters and letters coded with number values...

The letters of God's name within our bodies are universal regardless of such silly diversities like race, gender or culture....

— Mikal


Is this in every DNA structure, or do we all vary? You intrigued me, so I took mine out and read it; It said:

Made by the Devil’s own brand, purveyor to the aristocracy of the middle heavens. Best used before 27-May-2009; Ideal for flavouring and spices. Use with caution !!


The key to translating the code of DNA into a meaningful language is to apply the discovery that converts elements to letters. Based upon their matching values, hydrogen becomes the Hebrew letter Yod (Y), nitrogen becomes the letter Hey (H), oxygen becomes the letter Vav (V), and Carbon becomes Gimel (G). These substitutions reveal that the ancient form or God’s name YH, exists as the literal chemistry of our genetic code.

In substituting modern elements for the ancient letters it becomes the following:


God’s Name as Elements

Y=Hydrogen
H=Nitrogen
V=Oxygen
H=Nitrogen


Humankind’s Name as Elements

Y=Hydrogen
H=Nitrogen
V=Oxygen
G=Carbon


Note: The H in the YHVH of God’s name is replaced by G in the YHVG of Humankind. Through language this illustrates that while we share three of the four letters of God’s personal name as our genetic code, we are not equal to God. 25% of our composition is very different. It is this difference that gives us our physicality and accounts for our uniqueness as a species…

(This study described the letters T. C. A. G or Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine and Guanine as abbreviations for the combinations of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon that make up the DNA bases.) Gregg Braden…’The God Code’

It boggles the mind that this content of information can surface from comparing our DNA chemical elements of life to the letters of the ancient Hebrew and Arabic alphabets.


It certainly does. To question this would be to carry skepticism to an insane degree, and would be met with contempt, disapproval, or condemnation, according to the nature of the reader. Therefore I find myself entertaining an opinion about the basis of which there is a quality of feeling which tells me that to inquire into it would be absurd, obviously unnecessary, unprofitable, undesirable, bad form, or wicked. I know that that opinion is a non-rational one, and probably therefore, founded upon inadequate evidence. The notion, that the creative imagination, especially in its highest exercise, has little or nothing to do with facts is one of the pseudodoxia epidemica of our times.


No fear... Your reactions to inquiry are duly noted as yours.

I live with an open mind, free of a fixed belief system so when I inquire into something there is no structure there to prevent examination. Naturally I can discard certain information for example Darwin's theory which I see as flawed in part in a greater respect.

Gregg Braden can take the chemical elements of life in our DNA, being Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon and compare them to the letters in the Hebrew and Arabic Alphabet and it reveals that our every cell is encoded with the ancient name of God.
 
Signal said:
I think it rather applies to how we perceive ourselves.

Ie. there was a time when people did not perceive the human body as flawed; at least not as as flawed as some do nowadays.

In earlier times, people seemed to have been much more able and willing to bear hardship - but nowadays, we tend to shun any hardship as much as possible.
(Even though eventually, it tends to dawn on people that enduring hardship is essential to life. Some newer approaches in psychology in fact focus on developing distress tolerance skills (such as DBT therapy); not so long ago, this would have been written off as "unnecessary tough love.")


Bottomline: Perceiving ourselves as "flawed" (whether due to not so intelligent design or whatever) is not helpful.

Yet, there is a tendency to see ourselves as "flawed." What drives this perception of flawedness?
Click to expand...

There is the possiblility that this claim of ''flawed design'' is a bid to discredit God. A bogus argument.

jan.

jan.
 
AlexG said:
We can know there is no evidence for God. We cannot know there is evidence for no God.

You just had the word 'no' in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

You think, or would like to think there is no evidence for God.
That is not the same as knowing there is no evidence for God. ;)

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
There is the possiblility that this claim of ''flawed design'' is a bid to discredit God. A bogus argument.
Click to expand...

It is sometimes used like that.

It is bogus only is some instances, though.

If it is implied that the purpose of human life is to be perfect, in an omnimax sense, then pointing out that we are flawed is a justified bid to discredit God.

For example, "If God would exist and would be good, I would have muscles that don't get injured. But I have a muscle injury, therefore God is not good, and perhaps doesn't exist either."


On the other hand, if the purpose of human life is such that it can be acted upon with any human body, regardless how young, old, healthy or ill it is, then the fact that we are not omnimax is not a problem.
 
Signal,

It is sometimes used like that.

It is bogus only is some instances, though.

If it is implied that the purpose of human life is to be perfect, in an omnimax sense, then pointing out that we are flawed is a justified bid to discredit God.
Click to expand...


Where does ''God'' come into the notion of the implication ''that the purpose of human life is to be perfect, in an omnimax sense''.

For example, "If God would exist and would be good, I would have muscles that don't get injured. But I have a muscle injury, therefore God is not good, and perhaps doesn't exist either."
Click to expand...

That's like saying if my parents are good then they wouldn't tell me off when decide to set the living room sofa on fire. But they did tell me off therefore they are no good.

The question is why is a militant atheist prepared to entertain the idea that if god existed then his creation is a flawed design. Then answer, because it negates God.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Where does ''God'' come into the notion of the implication ''that the purpose of human life is to be perfect, in an omnimax sense''.
Click to expand...

Some people reason like this:
"If God created us, then we would be omnimax. We are not omnimax, therefore, God doesn't exist, didn't create us, or isn't good."


That's like saying if my parents are good then they wouldn't tell me off when decide to set the living room sofa on fire. But they did tell me off therefore they are no good.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the analogy applies, but perhaps this isn't so important now.


The question is why is a militant atheist prepared to entertain the idea that if god existed then his creation is a flawed design. Then answer, because it negates God.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is so simple.

When strong emotions are involved (such as with militant atheism), we can be reasonably sure that there is a lot going on and very complex - and won't be accessible within a few short forum posts.

It seems that some atheists believe that
"If God created us, then we would be omnimax. We are not omnimax, therefore, God doesn't exist, didn't create us, or isn't good."
(note that this is an if-clause)

I suspect many self-declared atheists are first and foremost deeply disappointed and hurt - by religion, by theism, by self-declared theists, by God as they have come to know Him via their particular experience with (self-declared) theists.

I think someone like Harold Kushner is ten times the atheist Richard Dawkins is.

I think that real atheists are possible only within organized religion.
 
Signal,

Some people reason like this:
"If God created us, then we would be omnimax. We are not omnimax, therefore, God doesn't exist, didn't create us, or isn't good."
Click to expand...

Why do they reason that way?


I'm not sure the analogy applies, but perhaps this isn't so important now.
Click to expand...


It shows the underlying reasoning behind the assertion.


me said:
The question is why is a militant atheist prepared to entertain the idea that if god existed then his creation is a flawed design. Then answer, because it negates God.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is so simple.

When strong emotions are involved (such as with militant atheism), we can be reasonably sure that there is a lot going on and very complex - and won't be accessible within a few short forum posts.

It seems that some atheists believe that
"If God created us, then we would be omnimax. We are not omnimax, therefore, God doesn't exist, didn't create us, or isn't good."
(note that this is an if-clause)

I suspect many self-declared atheists are first and foremost deeply disappointed and hurt - by religion, by theism, by self-declared theists, by God as they have come to know Him via their particular experience with (self-declared) theists.
Click to expand...

This is claissic chopping down the trees to get a good look at the forest mentality.
How about you start with, they are just NOT interested in God, period?

I think someone like Harold Kushner is ten times the atheist Richard Dawkins is.

I think that real atheists are possible only within organized religion.
Click to expand...

Do either of them believe in God?
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God no matter how you want to mix it up.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
How about you start with, they are just NOT interested in God, period?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But people who really are not interested in something, usually do not talk about it, at all.



An atheist is someone who does not believe in God no matter how you want to mix it up.
Click to expand...

I'm not mixing it up. I am appealing to your compassion.

You tend to have this hardcore, kick-the-atheist-fucker-in-the-face approach.
I find it really alienating.


The way many theists tend to engage in discussion, I am not surprised that people turn away from theism altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top