Illithid

IMO, this is an attempt to sneak evolution into the minds of less rigid-thinking theists, by not directly attacking their core of God-belief. It's a corrosive and subversive tactic, and somewhat dishonest (I like it), because it does lead the honest thinker spang into "metaphysical naturalism" (hey, if this is true then... maybe the Universe doesn't _need_ Big Sky Daddy to make it exist....). But by not saying this out loud, we may lead some hearers to the edge of the slippery slope of non-magical/deistic thinking, and maybe some of them won't be able to scramble back from the steep part in time (Wheeeeee!!!!).

BTW, though he has dominated this thread, I advise everyone to follow my own policy of simply ignoring Amos. Not because I disagree with him (heck, I'm not totally sure whether I do or not, most of the time), but because he posts approximately 1 cogent paragraph in 100. I've seen people who speak a non-English language primarily, and their posts can be hard going, but I think this man is from an alternate universe or something. No, wait, I've got it... he's a new form of cybernetic life, created by some secretive coding genius among us... it's The Sockpuppet Daemon!

Amos

These people are very much handicapped because they recognize the metaphysical underpinnings in nature but refuse to equate this with what is commonly known as God. They argue that their anthropomorphic "sky daddy" God is not responsible for this essence and therefore they remain 'die-hard' atheist against their own stupid idea of God while failing to resolve their own findings with their own ignorance. That, my friend, is the height of stupidity. In other words. Metaphysical naturalists have found scienctifis evidence that essence precedes existence, but call it not God becuase their preconceived idea of God does not match their actual evidence of the true meaning of God.

It sounds like scientific literalism to me.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

It is not my wish to be here but I was challenged to come over here to defend a post I wrote in BC&A, I think it was.

Please don't believe anything I write at will because that would confuse you even more.

Amos

I am going to a funeral in Europe and lucky for me, according to our travel agent, we have a $8300 discount per person on our flight tickets which now still cost two and a half times what a charter-flight ticket would cost.

E_muse

Amos.. if this was aimed at me then I find it profoundly offensive.

To fail to answer hardly constitues a rebuttal of someone's ideas. Please demonstrate (when you can) on what grounds you can accuse my ideas of being twisted. Without this it is nothing more than a baseless ad hominen.

I'm sorry to learn of your reasons for having to go... and I'm sorry you're having to leave the debate just when it was 'hotting up'. I respect your desire to argue on these forums in what can be such a hostile environment.

If ever you want to carry this debate on the please leave me a personal message and I'll give you my email.

You did well with the discounts. There seems to be a lot of good deals going around at the moment.

I hope you have a safe journey and get the opportunity to mix some pleasure in with your main reason for travelling.

E_muse

I don't think that theology has ever really discussed the mechanisms by which it claims God created the natural world.

However, I am interested by your use of the terms 'stupid' and 'smart' theology. As you are an atheist, how do manage to view any theology as 'smart'?

The problem is, 'smart' theology cannot divorce itself from scientific ideas, particulary as theology seeks to describe a God who is reponsible for the things that are touched by science. If God is creator then he is responsible for using evolution as a mechanism. In this regard areas that are touched by science inform the theologian's idea of God and so cannot be separated.

However, you here clearly imply that theology and science are separate. It is interesting because this hasn't been the case in the past. However, it certainly seems to contradict the idea that science is 'for everyone'. How can someone who is a theist (and therefore a theologian) and also a scientist perform this act of keeping theology and science separate? What's more, this seems to be a clear statement that theology cannot inform science.

I am really intrigued that you, as an atheist, refer to dumb/stupid and 'smart' theology. Surely you have rejected all forms of theology?

If it isn't philosophically neutral then what branch of philosophy would you say that it best conforms to?

As you are a biologist (and therefore are confident that science gives accurate explanations for reaiity) and an atheist (who has reject all theological arguements as having no bearing on reality) then the answer to the above would seem self evident.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

I really want to believe that you are joking here, but I suspect you are not.

Firstly, you imply here that you recognise a deliberate attempt (you used the word 'tactic') on the part of atheists to use subversive and dishonest tactics to convert people to atheism.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that the best means available to atheists of converting people to atheism (and therefore metaphysical naturalism)is to introduce them to the theory of evolution.

To begin with, this confirms any idea that metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are in some way synomonous. You seem confident that an acceptance of one, plus time, will lead to the other.

Also, the second point leads to a disturbing realization that the purpose of promoting evolutionary theory is not merely to promote the impartial findings of the material sciences but is undergirded by a desire to convert.

All I can say is... I'm glad you said it and not me!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I wonder if the atheists on these boards will leap on you with the same measure of agression that they would do had a theist made the same comment? I must confess that I shall be watching with baited breath!

Once again, I'm hoping you'll turn round and admit that you have indulged in some form of irony, playing to the unfounded assertions of creationists that atheists are engaging in the type of plot suggested by your good self!

But then, maybe not!

I shan't be following that advice.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Albion

And yet according to a poll, about 40% of scientists believed in a god in a personal sense. That doesn't even count the new-age type of beliefs. The proportion of scientists who are atheistts isn't that different from the proportion of the general public who are atheists until you get to the really senior scientists. And even the ones who are atheists don't necessarily tie their science and their atheism together.

E_muse

I was also under the impression that this is the true state of affairs.

This all seems to suggest that intelligence and religious conviction are not necessarily linked. However, you still get sites like <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm" target="_blank"> this</a>.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Amos

Thanks E_Muse, my wife told the clerk that we would have felt better if they would have first quoted $100.000 per ticket. We think it is stupid to quote 10,000 and sell for 1700, with beravement discount if regular charter flights cost only 699.

My objection was your interpretation of anthropomorphism which ususally means the "sky daddy' image of God. I tried to bring God down from this heavenly image and identify God in nature as the true identity of all sentient beings, including a human beings as well as the smallest beings like an amoeba. Then if all sentient beings are divided in their own mind they will all have an ego identity that is built upon their conscious awareness through which they pick and choose between good and evil, or right or wrong, for the betterment and sustainance of the true identity . . . which is called God in our language.

I am not an atheist and am happy to be called a Catholic.

Thanks again and we'll return to this later.