25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI find it very surprising where it indicates that many people often use naturalism and evolutionary theory to find a sense of “meaning” in life. I find that very eccentric indeed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110330192201.htm
This study links personal death anxiety to acceptance of 'Intelligent design', the latest dodge for creationism.
I have no doubt the religious set will condemn this study and all others showing why ID is dreaming in the wind.
These people must have a totally different way of thinking from the way I do for I cannot do that and just would not ever think like that -unless I have misunderstood what it says?
25 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat is your definition of 'naturalism'?
I find it very surprising where it indicates that many people often use naturalism and evolutionary theory to find a sense of “meaning” in life. I find that very eccentric indeed.
These people must have a totally different way of thinking from the way I do for I cannot do that and just would not ever think like that -unless I have misunderstood what it says?
Are you saying they find meaning in evolution outside of religious dogma? I think the religious set demands atheism to not have meaning in life, something I find abhorrent, disingenuous and arrogant to boot. And I don't even claim to be atheist.
26 May 11
Originally posted by sonhouseDuh, it spouts that evolution is accepted by all the proper people, those
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110330192201.htm
This study links personal death anxiety to acceptance of 'Intelligent design', the latest dodge for creationism.
I have no doubt the religious set will condemn this study and all others showing why ID is dreaming in the wind.
scientists that believe in evolution as the best explation for the beginning of life
and belittles those that don't accept it, this something new?
Kelly
26 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“...it spouts that evolution is accepted by all the proper people, those
Duh, it spouts that evolution is accepted by all the proper people, those
scientists that believe in evolution as the best explation for the beginning of life
and belittles those that don't accept it, this something new?
Kelly
scientists that believe in evolution as the BEST EXPLANATION for the beginning of life ...” (spelling corrected and my emphasis)
NO IT DOES NOT! Where does it say that?
“....and belittles those that don't accept it, ...”
again, NO IT DOES NOT! Where does it do that?
Have you read it?
26 May 11
Originally posted by sonhouse“...What is your definition of 'naturalism'? ...”
What is your definition of 'naturalism'?
Are you saying they find meaning in evolution outside of religious dogma? I think the religious set demands atheism to not have meaning in life, something I find abhorrent, disingenuous and arrogant to boot. And I don't even claim to be atheist.
rightly or wrongly, I have taken its meaning to be the belief that we can only rationally assume natural causes (as opposed to supernatural causes) as explanations to all observed phenomena in the world.
“...Are you saying they find meaning in evolution outside of religious dogma? ...”
that is one of the things I, rightly or wrongly, assumed the link implied can happen.
“...I think the religious set demands atheism to not have meaning in life, something I find abhorrent, disingenuous and arrogant to boot. ...”
I am with total agreement with you here for I feel the same. But, personally, I can only see meaning in my life by discovering what it is I want and also by doing something that I find meaningful. But I cannot see how I can find meaning in my life by considering either evolution or naturalism (as I understand it) hence my surprise on what I think that link implies -unless the link implies no such thing? Perhaps I have just misunderstood the link.
26 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think all the link implies is some people fear death and if there is offered a way out they will swallow the story hook line and sinker, regardless of how this way flies in the face of reason.
“...What is your definition of 'naturalism'? ...”
rightly or wrongly, I have taken its meaning to be the belief that we can only rationally assume natural causes (as opposed to supernatural causes) as explanations to all observed phenomena in the world.
“...Are you saying they find meaning in evolution outside of religious dogma? ...”
that i ...[text shortened]... nk implies -unless the link implies no such thing? Perhaps I have just misunderstood the link.
26 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"British evolutionary biologist Prof. Dawkins, like the majority of scientists, argues that life's origins are best explained by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. However, intelligent design advocates such as Prof. Behe, a U.S. author and biochemist, assert that complex biochemical and cellular structures are too complex to be explained by evolutionary mechanisms and should be attributed to a supernatural creator."
“...it spouts that evolution is accepted by all the proper people, those
scientists that believe in evolution as the BEST EXPLANATION for the beginning of life ...” (spelling corrected and my emphasis)
NO IT DOES NOT! Where does it say that?
“....and belittles those that don't accept it, ...”
again, NO IT DOES NOT! Where does it do that?
Have you read it?
I was quite fond of this part, "...Prof. Dawkins, like the majority of scientists..."
where a distinction was made on what side of the discusion everyone was on.
Kelly
27 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWhich of course is a red herring, trying to deflect the argument about death anxiety.
"British evolutionary biologist Prof. Dawkins, like the majority of scientists, argues that life's origins are best explained by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. However, intelligent design advocates such as Prof. Behe, a U.S. author and biochemist, assert that complex biochemical and cellular structures are too complex to be explained by evolu ...[text shortened]... ts..."
where a distinction was made on what side of the discusion everyone was on.
Kelly
27 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJaywhen will you and everyone else(like you) finally get it? evolution is only "the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms"(wiki). it isn't explaining how or why life began. an intelligent creator is not incompatible with evolution. you only wish your creator used magic to bring the world to be as opposed to a billion year evolution process because somehow you think the former is "awesomer".
Duh, it spouts that evolution is accepted by all the proper people, those
scientists that believe in evolution as the best explation for the beginning of life
and belittles those that don't accept it, this something new?
Kelly
dude, if you keep insisting on refusing to accept evolution (as if god would damn you to hell for not believing in a highly metaphorical and badly written passage in a holy book from which you already discard about half of it) why not read some stuff or two about it. at the very least you will no longer provide ammo for the evolutionists who call you on your lack of understanding of the theory you argue against.
27 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJaythat complex biochemical and cellular structures are too complex to be explained by evolutionary mechanisms and should be attributed to a supernatural creator
"British evolutionary biologist Prof. Dawkins, like the majority of scientists, argues that life's origins are best explained by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. However, intelligent design advocates such as Prof. Behe, a U.S. author and biochemist, assert that complex biochemical and cellular structures are too complex to be explained by evolu ...[text shortened]... ts..."
where a distinction was made on what side of the discusion everyone was on.
Kelly
so mr behe claims those structures are too complex to be explained by evolution. therefore he logically assumes that a supernatural creator is involved. i say it was a sudden portal from a parallel universe that brought dna material here.
of course, my theory is slightly more outlandish than behe's (or is it?). but the point is, how can you accept one theory over another when neither has any proof supporting it?
27 May 11
Originally posted by sonhouseThat doesn't make sense.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110330192201.htm
This study links personal death anxiety to acceptance of 'Intelligent design', the latest dodge for creationism.
I have no doubt the religious set will condemn this study and all others showing why ID is dreaming in the wind.
How can I be afraid of dieing when I know I'm going to live forever?
27 May 11
Originally posted by sonhouseHere's another example of good money being thrown away needlessly. Tracy, Hart and Martens essentially wasted their time and efforts on a piece of crap, which they now hoist exuberantly above their heads as though holding a trophy. As if that wasn't enough, they failed to find anything solid.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110330192201.htm
This study links personal death anxiety to acceptance of 'Intelligent design', the latest dodge for creationism.
I have no doubt the religious set will condemn this study and all others showing why ID is dreaming in the wind.
Death anxiety? Seriously? Who ever died and then subsequently shared the tale with those living? What's there to fear?