why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

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

And most don't.

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

Compassion isn't something you take from your pocket and sprinkle it around.
If you don't think I'm a compassionate person, then you have to give reasons why.

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

Examples?

The way many theists tend to engage in discussion, I am not surprised that people turn away from theism altogether.

What is the state their integrity, if all it takes is a bad discussion to make up their mind about something so profound?

jan.

 

[wellwisher]

Although humans have genes, genes don't have full control over humans, like they do over animals. If my eyes have genetic based focal problems, I can use my brain to get glasses. The animal can't do, that rather the herd would have to wait for DNA, evolution and selective advantage to remove these genes from the herd.

I have no problem seeing how evolution allowed nature to progress to the future. But once the evolutionary process reached humans, a will card variable was added (free will). Will power can do better than natural (glasses) or lower than natural (pervert). Darwinian evolution is not enough to explain the human factor within evolution, since will power allows culture to set the conditions for selective advantage. Humans can also stack the deck to give themselves selective advantage. You can play fair or cheat. It does not have to be random but can be calculated, etc.

If you were an alien looking at the earth, the human factor is part of evolution but does not fully play by all the Darwinian and genetic rules, because of the will power wild card.

Creationism, to me, should not be seen as an alterate theory for biological evolution. Rather it is about the evolution of the human mind, as it began to break away from animal evolution.

Mythology is a product of the imagination and mind. It does not define the natural world which is always stressed. The genetic and animal instinct is lost there ,since it did not evolve in this alternate reality. This alternate reality was set up, so the human mind could escape darwin and create a new reality. It does not deny the old ways of genetics, but opens the door to another way which runs parallel.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But once the evolutionary process reached humans, a will card variable was added (free will).

Supposition.

lower than natural (pervert).

Nonsense.

Rather it is about the evolution of the human mind, as it began to break away from animal evolution.

Supposition again.

Mythology is a product of the imagination and mind. It does not define the natural world which is always stressed. The genetic and animal instinct is lost there ,since it did not evolve in this alternate reality.

"Alternate reality"?

This alternate reality was set up, so the human mind could escape darwin and create a new reality. It does not deny the old ways of genetics, but opens the door to another way which runs parallel.

Word salad.

 

[spidergoat]

Although humans have genes, genes don't have full control over humans, like they do over animals.

No, animal behavior isn't totally controlled by genes, especially with mammals, particularly with primates. Evolution describes a gradual scale of intelligence, leading to the present state in humans, which is not an end state.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you don't think I'm a compassionate person, then you have to give reasons why.

A compassionate person would state clearly what their meaning was when requested to do so and not resort to obfuscation, avoidance and deliberate sidetracks. If you wish I shall point out examples of these as they arise in future posts.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A compassionate person would state clearly what their meaning was when requested to do so and not resort to obfuscation, avoidance and deliberate sidetracks. If you wish I shall point out examples of these as they arise in future posts.

Okay.

jan.

 

[kx000]

Supposition.


Nonsense.


Supposition again.


"Alternate reality"?


Word salad.

Adam and Eve were the first humans. The first to rise in stature, and mind.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Adam and Eve were the first humans. The first to rise in stature, and mind.

Supposition.
Myth.

 

[spidergoat]

Adam and Eve were the first humans. The first to rise in stature, and mind.

Evolution disproves that there were any first humans.

 

[kx000]

Evolution disproves that there were any first humans.

So every great ape evolved on the same day?

 

[wynn]

Compassion isn't something you take from your pocket and sprinkle it around.
If you don't think I'm a compassionate person, then you have to give reasons why.

I've been telling you about communication styles recently.
Yours tends to be aggressive; if you read the links I provided you, you could identify your style.
The way you formulate your statements about other people, suggests that other people don't really exist for you as persons, but more as types or objects of your imagination.

Most people tend to be like that anyway, so this is nothing special. It does hurt though when those use it who claim to know (the truth about) God in some way or another - because then, the aggressiveness/control is amplified infinitely.

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

Examples?

We've actually been over that at least once, remember?

The next sentence I quoted from you is an example right here - you going straight for the jugular - suggesting that people who turn away from theism lack integrity and are shallow -

What is the state their integrity, if all it takes is a bad discussion to make up their mind about something so profound?

When the vast majority of discussions with theists go by the same script (ie. the theist is right/good, the non-theist is expected to believe themselves wrong/bad),
and all one knows about theistic topics, one has learned from theists,
it is hardly a jumping to conclusions to be dismayed about theism.

 

[wynn]

A compassionate person would state clearly what their meaning was when requested to do so and not resort to obfuscation, avoidance and deliberate sidetracks. If you wish I shall point out examples of these as they arise in future posts.

Oh well. Some theists believe it is "compassionate" to even beat people - as long as it is done in the name of God.
If the people resist or turn away from theism, it is by no fault of the theist who beat them!

 

[AlexG]

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.

How do you know that?
Did you ask them?


Mind you, this isn't an exercise in projection, or at least shouldn't be.
You are making claims about other people's private states. So you better have evidence that what you say they think and want, really is what they think and want.

 

[Frishman]

...And some athiests believe it is okay to beat people, so long as it is in the name of science.
And, in our defense, a lot of athiests treat us theists as if we're stupid monkeys worshipping trees. Just as many theists treat atheists as if they were the love-child of Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger.

Though, the atheists are right, there is no proof suggesting that Adam and Eve were the first humans. If anything, homo sapiens as we know them today arose from intermingling between several different hominid species, most of whom I can't remember. It's actually kind of impressive how long we were actually on the Earth before we started getting too big for our britches and arguing over things which, ultimately, can only be settled when we die.

But, to answer the topic question: because there's evidence supporting it? Or because we were taught it in our private schools?

 

[spidergoat]

So every great ape evolved on the same day?

We didn't evolve from every great ape, dude. The gene pool that we would come to know as modern humans evolved gradually, over a long period of time.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

I've been telling you about communication styles recently.
Yours tends to be aggressive; if you read the links I provided you, you could identify your style.

What you've done is given a selection of one-liners, without any context, and served them up as aggressive statements.
There is no way one can honestly conclude, just from those statements, that aggression is the motive or solution.

(I'm assuming they are the list from your What are the real conflict between Atheists and Agnostics? thread.)

The way you formulate your statements about other people, suggests that other people don't really exist for you as persons, but more as types or objects of your imagination.

I challenge you to produce these statements, in context, and point out these accusations so we can discuss them.
You have totally ignored my challenges in past, so let's hope you accept this one.

Most people tend to be like that anyway, so this is nothing special. It does hurt though when those use it who claim to know (the truth about) God in some way or another - because then, the aggressiveness/control is amplified infinitely.

Why do you credit this behaviour only with theists?
Are you blind to the aggressive, controling behaviour of other mindsets?
Has the aggressive nature of this subforum escaped your attention?
Do you think your constant generalisation of theists carry no effect, or is not
seen as aggressive??

Lori7: i've always gotten the impression that all he needs from us is our sincere desire for the experience.

Signal: And I am sure that since you are such a wonderful person, you can come up with such a sincere desire at will, and then talk about it on internet forums in great length!!

Lori7: it doesn't have anything to do with me being a "wonderful person". are you saying only wonderful people can have sincere desires?

Signal: I am saying that you brag too much to be taken seriously any longer!

Taken from here

I think you owe me an explanation, and a chance to rebutt your claims, instead of this hit, run, and hide tactic you seem comfortable with.

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

Examples?

The next sentence I quoted from you is an example right here - you going straight for the jugular - suggesting that people who turn away from theism lack integrity and are shallow -

Okay, let's look at it in context.

The way many theists tend to engage in discussion, I am not surprised that people turn away from theism altogether.

What is the state their integrity, if all it takes is a bad discussion to make up their mind about something so profound?

You're jumping to conclusions. If you think it contains a coded conclusion then explain it, don't just make guesses because you think that's what I mean.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh well. Some theists believe it is "compassionate" to even beat people - as long as it is done in the name of God.
If the people resist or turn away from theism, it is by no fault of the theist who beat them!

:wtf:

jan.

 

[kx000]

These arguments are pointless. One day God will have shown up, or he will have not. End of story.

 

[Jan Ardena]

These arguments are pointless. One day God will have shown up, or he will have not. End of story.

What use is that attitude in a discussion forum.

jan.

 

[wynn]

What you've done is given a selection of one-liners, without any context, and served them up as aggressive statements.
There is no way one can honestly conclude, just from those statements, that aggression is the motive or solution.

The communication style is aggressive. That can be clear even without context.

I challenge you to produce these statements, in context, and point out these accusations so we can discuss them.
You have totally ignored my challenges in past, so let's hope you accept this one.

E.g.

And you are the arbiter on what "is warranted" and what isn't ...

The other alternative is to pretend that they are warrented, and I don't see the point in that.

You didn't start out with saying something like
"I think you posting all those threads is not warranted."
Instead, you simply judged me, as if you were the arbiter on what is warranted and what isn't.

Or:
"Your display in this thread is disgusting."
You didn't say, for example "I am disgusted by your display in this thread" or "Your behavior disgusts me."
Instead, you placed yourself into the position of assuming to be an objective judge.

Why do you credit this behaviour only with theists?

The playing field is not even.

The theists are the ones claiming to have The Solution. Thus, they carry a much greater responsibility.

Are you blind to the aggressive, controling behaviour of other mindsets?

They don't claim to have God on their side.
Theists do.


I am, of course, assuming here that having God on one's side is as good as it gets for human beings.