For haphazard were we born .....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Some people who are atheists may be particularly hedonistic, others are not. The same could be said of Christians, of course.

Of course ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are you distinguishing between hedonistic and other advocates of evolutionary theory? If so--why?

Not necessarily.

I want to adress the general hedonistic tendencies in present culture which is accompanied by a general belief in Evolution Theory as it is and the premature conclusions drawn from it. One of these premature conclusions is that there isn't a hereafter. An other is that we, humanity, are here merely by chance.

There seems to be a connection between the "anything goes" attitude concerning morals in present Western Culture, the hedonistic "Carpe Diem" lifestyle, the assumption we are allowed to kill under certain circumstances, abortion and euthanasia (the tendency wanting to control, to dominate, death) and the fact that evolution adherents cherish the thought that we are here by chance.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I want to adress the general hedonistic tendencies in present culture which is accompanied by a general belief in Evolution Theory as it is and the premature conclusions drawn from it.

Go on then.

Originally posted by Starrman
Just to show you how little this piece compares to the actual mindset of an atheist who accepts the ToE:

[b]1
they who said among themselves, thinking not aright: "Brief and troublous is our lifetime; neither is there any remedy for man's dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from the nether world.

There need be no remedy for death, why w in an attempt to prove that a set of beliefs is wrong, you are a charlatan.[/b]

Starrman: " It also lends weight to the suspiscion I hold that this piece is not a representation of anything more than a Christian's misguided view of an atheist, failing to understand the core and then building up a speculative account of things upon that misunderstanding."

Starrman: "Like the church? Strength has no place in anything, this is clearly more propoganda.

Starrman: "More propoganda; if he was just, he wouldn't be obnoxious. Atheists do not dislike christians as a matter of course, nor do we find the need to 'beset' them for being disagreeable."

Starrman: "More propoganda; if he was just, he wouldn't be obnoxious. Atheists do not dislike christians as a matter of course, nor do we find the need to 'beset' them for being disagreeable."

Starrman: "However, this still suggests that atheists have a tendency to beat on Christians, which is plainly ridiculous." 😀

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


To understand the text I presented it might be a good idea to consider the fact that it is NOT a Christian text.

Does this fact influence your above conclusions concerning the "Christian propaganda" and your remarks about the Church ?


By the way, this thread is not meant to be a personal thing of some sort, so please do not take it this way.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Cheers, Omar Khayyam.

The intention of this post is rather obscure to me. Could you please elaborate ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The intention of this post is rather obscure to me. Could you please elaborate ?

It's not important (a throwaway remark, if you like). If you're really interested, you can work it out for yourself.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Go on then.

Ever the fluffy one, aren't ya?

Originally posted by Halitose
Ever the fluffy one, aren't ya?

I'd like Ivanhoe to present his critique without interrupting him.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'd like Ivanhoe to present his critique without interrupting him.

Sure you do -- that is if Hoe can see through all the hackles.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Go on then.

The first conclusion we can draw from reading the text is of course that the idea that we are here by chance is not a new idea.

As you probably know the Roman-Catholic Church acknowledges the Evolution theory for what it is: A scientific theory. The Church does not deny the fact of evolution, brought forward by this theory.

If we assume that evolution theory didn't exist at the time the Book of Wisdom was written (It was written between 300 BC and the year 30 scientists asume) we may safely draw the conclusion that the idea of being here by chance is not a specific idea necessarily tied to evolution theory.

Furthermore we can draw the obvious conclusion that the idea that we are here by chance is not a new one.

It seems that the idea of being here by chance is a philosophically inspired idea and not a scientific fact. My impression is and always has been that the Evolution Theory is often treated by its advocates as a replacement or even a rebuttal of the philosophy(ies) which assumes that God exists. As such the Evolution Theory has developed from being a scientific theory to an overall philosophical ideology.


Do you agree ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Do you agree ?

Yes. Proceed.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Starrman: " It also lends weight to the suspiscion I hold that this piece is not a representation of anything more than a Christian's misguided view of an atheist, failing to understand the core and then building up a speculative account of things upon that misunderstanding."

Starrman: "Like the church? Strength has no place in anything, this is clearly ...[text shortened]... meant to be a personal thing of some sort, so please do not take it this way.

Then where is it from? You'll forgive me for presuming it was, since it was to be found on a Christian site. If you explained a bit about the origin of the text before presenting it and asking for comment, perhaps I would not have formed my opinions as they were.

I am still finding it hard to reconcile your suggestion that this text concerns the notions or mindset behind the ToE, being as it is a scientific process. Do you think atheists went in search of a way of displacing god? I presume form your other posts that you do not believe this, so I will ask, what mindset do you presume to be behind the ToE, that would mean atheists hold the same type? I was under the impression that the ToE was a scientific one and atheists reserve the right to disbelieve it should they choose to.

I do believe that athiesm is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition for a belief in the ToE.

Originally posted by Starrman
Then where is it from? You'll forgive me for presuming it was, since it was to be found on a Christian site. If you explained a bit about the origin of the text before presenting it and asking for comment, perhaps I would not have formed my opinions as they were.

I am still finding it hard to reconcile your suggestion that this text concerns the notion ...[text shortened]... elieve that athiesm is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition for a belief in the ToE.

Starrman: "Then where is it from?"

The Book of Wisdom is from Jewish origin.

Starrman: "If you explained a bit about the origin of the text before presenting it and asking for comment, perhaps I would not have formed my opinions as they were."

I would appreciate it very much if you would be so fair to take responsibility for your own misconceptions and otherwise flawed conclusions and comments.


Starrman: "I presume form your other posts that you do not believe this, so I will ask, what mindset do you presume to be behind the ToE, that would mean atheists hold the same type? "

It is not a matter of a mindset being "behind" the Toe.

The ToE, as it stands now, is being influenced by certain philosophical rather than scientific ideas. The ToE has the tendency, stimulated by its advocates, of developing from a purely scientific theory into an overall philosophy, an ideology, which presents itself as an alternative, or even a rebuttal, of other philosophies, or ideologies, which are based on the existence of God.

The ToE in its present form and the present ruling Western Hedonistic Culture are as the Germans would say "Wahlverwandschaften". The one does not follow from the other, there is no cause and effect relationship, but they have, as it were, chosen eachother because they are "Relatives of Choice". They are, in a certain way, congruent.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The ToE, as it stands now, is being influenced by certain philosophical rather than scientific ideas.

You've gone around the bend. Are you standing on a ledge as you type this by any chance?

Originally posted by David C
You've gone around the bend. Are you standing on a ledge as you type this by any chance?

Maybe I should clarify this by stating that the ToE is indeed based on scientific facts, but that the present ToE is being influenced by certain ideas which are of a more philosophical or ideological nature rather than a scientific one.