bushbasher

There are many more scientists today who believe in evolution.
However, if there is any contradiction between science and religion, there will not be a single 'Creationist' scientist. Many of the 'Creation' scientist are biologists. This is not surprising as it is only the irrational who would believe that you get living things evolving from non-living things.

Historical evidence suggests that atheistic regimes whether 'old' or 'new' is accountable for a few hundred million deaths; many times more than deaths caused by the Bush-inspired IRAQ war.

Phillip,

I have already given you a comprehensive statement of what constitutes theistic evolution from Dr. Collin's book. It's a kind of deism. He will ascribe to theology the fact that the universe appears ex nihilo. He will ascribe to theology that the conditions for life and existence were possible. He is also abscribe to theology (incorrectly) the capacity for moral judgement. Apart from that, as far as theistic evolution is concerned, it is the laws of physics and evolution all the way.

If you'd like a continuum, the following may be of use.

1. Creationism (literal biblical truth)
2. Intelligent Design (some greater being intervened in creation)
3. Theistic Evolution (places "God" in categories deemed unprovable by science - a "God of the gaps" argument, effectively)
4. Scientific Evolution (leaves the unknowns as, well, unknown but potentially solvable without recourse to divine revelation).

I'd also check the figures on your "historical evidence". Both in absolute terms and relative to population, I think you will find that religious regimes are still the prime cause of democide.

Further very few have been killed because the government was atheist. When Stalin killed, it was is in the name of his dictatorship, not in the name of atheism. When the Taliban killed however...

Philip Tang,

<<AJ's fire and brimston muddled thinking is leading nowhere. Let's make it simple for him/her.>>

Sorry, Philip. But you are the only one who needs it made “simple”.

Not only have I had this debate many times before, but I used to be a Creationist myself and believe me, I can predict everything you say before you even say it. One of the many reasons I left the Church is because of the deceitfulness of Creationists. I know their arguments; But most of all, I know that everyone of them is complete rubbish. So I'm willing to sit here for the rest of the year if you'd like, and debunk every point you make.

Speaking of muddled thinking though, every time your posts are debunked, you resort to one of the many fallacies of Theists: Stalin was an Atheist, therefore, everything he did must have been in the name of Atheism – the tired old line that has, again, been debunked over, and over, and over.

Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, were Atheists, but they did not do what they did IN THE NAME OF Atheism!

Both Hitler and Stalin had mustaches, but do we assert that they committed their evil deeds because of their mustaches? No.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. But did he do what he did in the name of Roman Catholicism? No.

Theists claim so often that Atheism too has been responsible for travesties, and use the 20th century as an example – but this couldn't be more wrong.

Stalin used the banning of religion as a method of oppressing the people because the elitism attached to the church back then conflicted with his Communist world-view. But in no way at all did he do what he did in the name of Atheism – and most certainly not in the way that the religious have used their religious beliefs to justify such horrific acts throughout the millennia.

This fatally flawed point is yet another example of the deceitfulness of Creationists/Theists.

Continued...

...Continued

Atheists are independent thinkers; not bound by the absolutist, rigid doctrine of an old book that was used to explain the world before we knew any better. So you can't just categorise them all, and assert that Communism is somehow the result of the Atheist mindset. Doing this just makes Theists look stupid, ignorant and deprived of any rational thought.

Philip, try finding ONE war that was initiated in the name of Atheism – you can't. Even if you could name one, it would be minuscule compared to the thousands of conflicts that have arisen over the millennia because of religion.

Answer this, Philip: If Atheism is so evil, then why is it that the more secular we become, the more moral we become?

Take Hitler as a point-of-reference:

Imagine if someone as evil as Hitler had gained power in a Western country in this day-and-age – he wouldn't last more than 10 minutes. Then compare Hitler to the horrific evil of Genghis Kahn, who admitted to feeling pleasure in seeing his victims bathed in tears. Now compare the death toll of the holocaust and WWII, to the outcry of the relatively small death count of the current Iraq war.

The list of examples of the link between secularism and improving morality goes on and on. I'll be happy to continue if you'd like? The more insignificant religion becomes in society, the more society improves. Therefore, the examples of Theists, comparing Communists to Atheists, is irrelevant and just plain stupid.

Finally, to extend on the link that Bushbasher provided (that put the whole 'number of Creationist Scientists' fallacy into perspective), pointing out that there are Creationist scientists out there means nothing...

Normal Scientists:
"Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Scientists:
"Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"

The fact that there are Creationist scientists is completely irrelevant when you consider that they themselves admit outright that they reject any evidence that contradicts the Bible (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith).

Proper scientists have not yet encountered any evidence that they have had to deny.

AJ, you write:

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic. But did he do what he did in the name of Roman Catholicism? No."

There is significant evidence that much of Hitler's actions were inspired by a Christian anti-Judiac tradition, expressed both publically and privately.

cf.,
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Lev I suspected you were a fraud, now I’m certain.

What you’ve said is that truth corresponds with reality and therefore moral truth with moral reality. Good.

You then said that moral value is verified by groups but that the lived experience of billions represented by the Bible is not authoritative.

I explained that the good is discovered. You seemed to affirm it except that you would like not to have to take into account the lives of any other groups except the ones you like.

Now all this assumes that our moral conclusions correspond with objective reality. So I don’t understand in what sense you dispute the objectivity of moral facts. Your definition of what constitutes a moral act is self evidently preposterous.

Yet your ethical theory seems to propose that there needs to be dialogue before I can determine that torturing and murdering a child is wrong and loving and nurturing one is good.

Or that saving a child’s life is not a moral act until he regains consciousness, acquires language, reaches the age of reason and finally gives assent! (You can talk formal pragmatic modal confusion with the child’s parents)

Or that sadistically injuring an animal is not a ‘genuinely moral act’.

Or that our moral sense is neutral about a man carrying on a sexual relationship with an image on a screen for decades? (You confuse neutralism with tolerance.)

None of this by the way goes to what the foundation of morality is, which is a metaethical discussion, and which dominated my post but elicited a confused verbose reply from you.

It was this that I wanted to talk about and its use as a proof of the existence of God. Atheists who accept objective moral values dispute the theist’s conclusions in this proof.

Now the onus is on you to provide warrant for the belief that the collective moral experience of humanity is really illusory, that only groups with fully rational members can actually have a genuine moral experience!