Dan,

<<I don’t suppose you are meaning that it is okay for atheists to start wars against whoever so long as they don’t mention the ‘A’ word.>>

Not at all.

There were plenty of deadly conflicts that started because of the actions of Atheists during the 20th century.

You're missing the point.

Stalin, Pol Pot and the likes, were dangerous people who HAPPENED TO BE Atheists, but they didn't do what they did BECAUSE they were Atheists.

<<It’s largely religious people that have started all wars, since it’s people that have started wars and most people are by and large religious.>>

Again, you're missing the point.

Would it be fair to say that the 9/11 hijackers were psychopaths who just HAPPENED TO BE Islamics? Of course not. They did it in the name of their religion. Without Allah, what would they have had?

<<It is pretty easy to make big generalisations...>>

Agreed. But if a group of gang rapists all liked hot dogs, it wouldn't be easy for me to say that they all raped a girl because they all liked hot dogs.

<<Sorry, but repeating something often, doesn’t make it true.>>

I agree.

The only reason I had to repeat it was because the religious on OLO were trying to approach the 'fundamentalist' argument from different angles. But it didn't work.

<<I think your point is about what atheists believe in. Well, they often say there is no such thing as god.>>

And that's where it ends.

Atheists are individual thinkers who are not bound by an absolutist doctrine. So you can't categorise them all by saying: “what atheists believe in”.

<<Although by suggesting that we are all evolving, perhaps at different rates, with some of us being more evolved or superior to others, didn’t do a lot for slowing down the rate of wars in the 20th Century.>>

Who said it was supposed to? I don't think that was what Darwin had in mind.

<<Of course they don’t start with a blank sheet. I’ve seen their book shelves.>>

Continued...

...Continued

So then, what do you think they had before Darwin?

If evolution is dis-proven, then their sheet will be cleared again. But after all this time, Creationism has still failed to fill the sheet with any evidence.

<<We are all to some degree constrained by our upbringing and education.>>

And Creationism has failed to prove the Theist's upbringing and education so far.

<<The result was the longest debate on onlineopinion in months.>>

Only because Theists cannot accept basic logic. Which has been confirmed in this thread. The length of the debate doesn't mean much if blind faith has made it necessary to repeat basic logic over-and-over-and-over again, in many different ways.

<<For you were suggesting that Christians were motivated by fears of hell.>>

No, I wasn't, remember? I said “not entirely”, but “ultimately”, in regards to the fear of Hell.

<<Though I must say to start with that it is wise to be aware of eternal consequences>>

You see what I mean?

<<Let’s think through this for moment. Christians (at least the ones I’ve met) are not motivated by fear.>>

Of course not. But they dare not question too much because of your point about “eternal consequences”.

<<The analogy in Romans chapter eight is of someone adopted into a new family.>>

And if they reject that family, they fry.

<<They know Jesus didn’t go to the trouble he did of dying and rising again just to give them a half baked promise of salvation.>>

Of course not. But we have no real proof that that is the way it happened. Stories are usually exaggerated over time.

<<...I would suggest that it is those who have rejected the idea of God who have the more pressing need to create a satisfactory explanation for how we all came to be here....>>

Hence my point about religion stifling our naturally curious minds, and the stunting effect religion has on science.

“Create” is the wrong word though. You're implying that Evolutionists have invented a theory out of thin air. An implication that is patently wrong.

Dan,
you might find the following review of the book "Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion"
by Francisco J. Ayala of interest to you:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/reviews/377.

I wouldn't have thought that evolution is the point. There are many theists who are content with evolution, or indifferent to it. The truth or otherwise of evolution just doesn't answer the God question.

Even if we humans are nothing more, physically speaking, than the current gorilla upgrade, it can still a situation that is ultimately presided over by God. And, if God saw fit to insert a spark into the latest upgrade, so He can relate to that upgrade, that's God's affair.

The mistake I think a lot of evolutionists make is - being narrow-minded and presumptuous as we humans typically are - is to leap to the conclusion that evolution is all that is true, and that nothing else can be true as well. I suppose that Darwinism gave rise to such a tidal wave of thought, that this mistake is understandable. But, the water has settled, and it is time for our proudly inquisitive empiricists to consider the possibilities beyond their senses.

Bound up in their empiricist strait-jacket, they might just miss something.

Pax,

There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for God. Kant examined all the proofs for the existence of God and could accept none of them. However, he held to a belief in God and the Lutheran church because of faith. All theistic religions have as their basis faith in unprovable propositions.

Unfortunately faith in God has often led to atrocity. On this string Stalin has been cited as an atheist who also was responsible for atrocity. However, Marxism shares with theistic religion faith in unprovable propositions. Secular deterministic ideology is merely religion with a shorter shelf time.

Davidf,

The quote from your post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#104200) wasn't anything I said. It was just a line I quoted from Waterboy's post because it ironically helped my argument. I wasn't saying that that was the entire definition of a fundamentalist.

The reason it helped my argument, was because there are many Christians (mostly in the US) who would love to rid the teaching of Evolution from schools, and replace it with Creationism - or at the very least, teach it alongside Evolution. But doing this, would be debauching the very idea of teaching science.

I went to a Christian school in year 8, and their idea of teaching us about evolution was to show us an half-hour video, and then just state at the end of it: “But we don't believe that anyway”. I'll never forget the contempt shown by the teacher that could be seen in the very way she switched the TV off afterwards. Although, back then, my opinion of evolution was the same.

All that being said though, most of the points you listed, also help my emphasise my point.

You'd have to read all posts from both Dan and myself to see what I mean.

<<Marxism shares with theistic religion faith in unprovable propositions.>>

Not quite.

You can test Marxism. In fact, it already has been tested and it failed.

<<Secular deterministic ideology is merely religion with a shorter shelf time.>>

Not really.

A lot of what I've said already, dis-proves this. Look at all the Secular Democracies and compare them with the Theocracies throughout History and I think you'll find this is seldom ever the case.

Theocracies are dictatorial by nature, and like Communism, require breaches of basic freedoms to be maintained.

Communism may have had horrific results, but Atheism was only a part of it - it wasn't the fundamental reason for it, and this is just one of the many points that Theists have a lot of difficulty understanding.