Did Darwin Kill God

Originally posted by whodey
Er....um....God is still alive. At least you must conceede this point in terms of his still having followers that far outnumber atheists in the world.

Sorry to break the news....😛

Which God would that be? Last I checked there were so many different versions that the Atheists probably do out number all versions except possibly the ones worshiped by the Catholics and the Muslims.
Or are you one of those that think that you all worship the same God but some have it dreadfully wrong?

Originally posted by whodey
Er....um....God is still alive. At least you must conceede this point in terms of his still having followers that far outnumber atheists in the world.

Sorry to break the news....😛

That may be debatable.

However, what is pretty certain is that the number of people believing in a particular god or set of gods, is vastly outnumbered by those who do not believe in that god or set of gods.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Tomorrow evening on BBC2 at 1900 bst is a program entitled "Did Darwin Kill God?"

Essentially, the answer posited is "No", which I agree with (my atheism is not solely based on Evolution and I fully comprehend that nothing can logically kill God, he is as indestructible as the fairies at the bottom of my garden).

Just thought some people on this forum ...[text shortened]... o with the morality and politics of the time.

Jean Claude Bragard
Executive Producer

No, Darwin did not kill God; I have noticed Darwin is on the breathing
impaired list however.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, Darwin did not kill God; I have noticed Darwin is on the breathing
impaired list however.
Kelly

You don't know much about Darwin, do you, KJ? Let me inform you: Sir Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution, died 1882 in Downe, Kent.
Darwin was, at his times, more alive as god has ever been. He was namely born once. God wasn't.

Glad to see this thread. I was just pondering the other day something brought on by having watched a video my daughter and wife wanted to see. It was a cartoon feature showing a lot of African animals living together around a water hole, naturally all speaking English, and also quite unaware that some of them occupied niches in the eco-system requiring them to eat others. Apparently there must have been some sort of Serengetti MacDonald's for them.

In nature, we see the most cruel, deadly, and brutish things.

I find it to be the way nature happens to be. Predators and prey .. and so on.

I wondered if anyone could explain to me how to reconcile the facts of nature with the concepts of various religions that appear inconsistent with any living being, animal or no, being subjected to such a life of fear, pain, and death.

Did God intend nature to be so cruel and result in so much pain and suffering? Towards what end?

Originally posted by Scriabin
Glad to see this thread. I was just pondering the other day something brought on by having watched a video my daughter and wife wanted to see. It was a cartoon feature showing a lot of African animals living together around a water hole, naturally all speaking English, and also quite unaware that some of them occupied niches in the eco-system requiring them ...[text shortened]... id God intend nature to be so cruel and result in so much pain and suffering? Towards what end?

An excellent observation! look forward to hearing some thoughts!

Originally posted by Scriabin
Did God intend nature to be so cruel and result in so much pain and suffering? Towards what end?

At what level in the reduction of 'pain and suffering' would the concept of God then become a possibility to you? You may find your response renders your point irrelevant.

Originally posted by divegeester
At what level in the reduction of 'pain and suffering' would the concept of God then become a possibility to you? You may find your response renders your point irrelevant.

I can contemplate that the universe, in all its complexity, unimaginable scope and age, its unbounded cold, natural cruelty is yet the creation of some thing beyond our comprehension. Rather, I can contemplate that everything we mean by the word "universe" is subsumed in and a part of some thing, a First Cause, a Creator, whatever.

The ordinary use of the word "God" denotes an anthropomorphic construct made even more so by the apparent necessity to follow the Greek model and create divine-human hybrids so as to make organizing ordinary people around an undeliverable and unconfirmable promise of life everlasting easier.

One doesn't ask for the reduction of pain and suffering. It is what it is, and we can choose to become aware and accept reality, or say no to it and live in that Egyptian river.

What is relevant for me is the trite insistence on a concept for the meaning of that word "God" that is wholly inconsistent with nature as one can observe it, even without going to the grasslands of the African continent.

The choice is between what is plain in front of one - that which can be observed and is the case, and that which must be accepted on the word of those who would exercise power over others but cannot show any evidence that there is anything that is the case to back up their beliefs.

If I were to say to you that drinking a certain potion would render you invisible, I'd expect you might want some evidence of that before trying it out.

But I continue to be amazed at the number of people who can open the nightstand in many motels in the USA and believe without question that what they find there left by the Gideons is the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth.

And no evidence needed.

Fairly boggles the mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which God would that be? Last I checked there were so many different versions that the Atheists probably do out number all versions except possibly the ones worshiped by the Catholics and the Muslims.
Or are you one of those that think that you all worship the same God but some have it dreadfully wrong?

Well what we are talking about here is the God of Abraham for which both Muslim and Christian point towards. In addition, both believe in Creationism. So with both belief systems combined, atheists are less than a minority. So I ask you, how has Darwin killed the Creationist God of Abraham considering these facts?

Originally posted by Penguin
That may be debatable.

However, what is pretty certain is that the number of people believing in a particular god or set of gods, is vastly outnumbered by those who do not believe in that god or set of gods.

--- Penguin.

Those who believe in the God of Abraham far outnumber other who believe in other gods or no gods at all. Of course, I may be mistaken only in terms of the Hindu religion because of its influence locally in India in which there are great numbers of people.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An excellent observation! look forward to hearing some thoughts!

Its the old debate as to why there is pain and suffering in the world. If God is a God of love, why is there suffering?

My pastor spoke about this a while back. He said that attacks by people such as Dawkins are laughable simply because they know nothing of theology and have never walked the Christian walk. He said what shook him the most are accounts of those who have walked the walk and have suffered greatly inspite of their faith. I always hearken back to Job when I think about pain and suffering. He didn't get a whole lot of answers either.

I think that pain and suffering can be traced Biblically to sin that was introduced into the world. It knows no bounds and cares little if "innocents" are effected. This goes for ALL of creation, not just mankind.

Originally posted by whodey
Its the old debate as to why there is pain and suffering in the world. If God is a God of love, why is there suffering?

My pastor spoke about this a while back. He said that attacks by people such as Dawkins are laughable simply because they know nothing of theology and have never walked the Christian walk. He said what shook him the most are accounts o ...[text shortened]... d cares little if "innocents" are effected. This goes for ALL of creation, not just mankind.

Your pastor didn't answer your question: "Why are there suffering in the world?". By this non-answer, he answered it anyway: "Because god is not good."

My faith in atomic theory is strong. The christian faith of the existance of god is weak. When someone doubt the atomic theory and give his expression about it, I laugh, and go on. When someone doubt the existance of god and give his expression about it like Dawkin, christians become very upset and cannot forget, on the contrary, the create a crucade against him. So whose faith is strongest?

What has atomic theory has to do with it? Atomic theory is the base for radiometric dating, but creationists doesn't belive in this, it threatens their creationistic view that animals were not created but evolved, and that the age of fossils is not according to bible. In order to defend thi creationistic view, they have to dismiss radiometric dating, and thus atomic theory. Creationists cannot believe in the scientific vew of atoms, therefore they cannot believe in atoms.

So ultimately the faith of creationists is very weak, they feel threatened by atomic theory. Atomic theory is a fact, those who dismiss atomic theory cannot know much, but I laugh at them and go on.

Originally posted by whodey
Those who believe in the God of Abraham far outnumber other who believe in other gods or no gods at all. Of course, I may be mistaken only in terms of the Hindu religion because of its influence locally in India in which there are great numbers of people.

You may be correct that they are in the majority, but 'far outnumber' is an exaggeration.
The first site on the matter I found on google:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

gives Abrahamic religions 54%
I obviously don't believe everything I see on the internet, but I very much doubt that Abrahamic religions exceed 60% and I seriously doubt that all those listed under Abrahamic religious are genuine believers. I have seen many surveys of people claiming to be Christian in which a high percentage quite happily say in the survey that they do not believe in an afterlife or that they are actually agnostic and are playing a just in case game or simply enjoy going to church.

Originally posted by whodey
In addition, both believe in Creationism.

But certainly not Young Earth Creationism. The vast majority of Christians believe that evolution is factual - or at least their Church leaders officially accept it as such.

Originally posted by whodey
So with both belief systems combined, atheists are less than a minority.

What does 'less than a minority' mean? I think you will find that there are more atheists in the world than you would like to believe.