For haphazard were we born .....

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 ...[text shortened]... ew in an attempt to prove that a set of beliefs is wrong, you are a charlatan.[/b]

Excellent post. That's pretty much how I feel too. The selection associates things which have little in common and implies that anyone who agrees with part must agree with it all.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"Pray tell could you explain how a scientific theory - any scientific theory - is 'hedonistic'?"

The advocates are hedonistic.

It is a general statement, therefore please regard it as such.

So you misled the reader. Be clear with what you're saying.

Were the Catholic Popes who agreed with the TOE hedonists?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
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 conn ...[text shortened]... eath) and the fact that evolution adherents cherish the thought that we are here by chance.

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.

Correlation does not mean causation. I thought you were smart enough to know that.

...the assumption we are allowed...

Allowed? How can an atheist think he's "allowed" to do anything? Allowed by who?

the fact that evolution adherents cherish the thought that we are here by chance

I don't. I am indifferent to whether I am "here by chance". I don't think any of the Popes who endorsed evolution felt the way you describe either.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
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 evoluti ...[text shortened]... from being a scientific theory to an overall philosophical ideology.


Do you agree ?

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 ?

I think you're observing the influence of Young Earth Creationists on evolutionists. If evolution, then no YEC. YEC's interpret this as "if evolution, then no God" and I imagine some atheists make the same error because when they think of Christianity, YEC's are what they see in their mind's eye.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
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.

Please clarify what "the present TOE" is exactly because I am not following you.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
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.

The ToE cannot be "influenced" by an ideological stance. It is influenced by objective testing, observation and gathered empirical data. It is not a metal spike being tossed on the tracks by evil secular humanists wishing to derail your live-forever-happy-fun-time Jesus Express. It is what it is, and if it leads (m)any to the (rational) conclusion that Creationism is nonsense, so be it. Score one for reality.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Please clarify what "the present TOE" is exactly because I am not following you.

In my previous posts I have explained that the ToE is developing from being a scientific theory to an overall ideology.

That's what I mean with "the present ToE".

Originally posted by David C
The ToE cannot be "influenced" by an ideological stance. It is influenced by objective testing, observation and gathered empirical data. It is not a metal spike being tossed on the tracks by evil secular humanists wishing to derail your live-forever-happy-fun-time Jesus Express. It is what it is, and if it leads (m)any to the (rational) conclusion that Creationism is nonsense, so be it. Score one for reality.

David C: "The ToE cannot be "influenced" by an ideological stance.

It can't ?

Your derogatory and off-topic remarks almost indicate the opposite.

By the way this thread is not about Creationism ... it is not even about the controversy between Creationism and "Evolutionism".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]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 rror because when they think of Christianity, YEC's are what they see in their mind's eye.

ATY: "YEC's interpret this as "if evolution, then no God" and I imagine some atheists make the same error because when they think of Christianity, YEC's are what they see in their mind's eye."[/b]

We're getting somewhere .... except for the fact that you make others responsible for conceptions the secular "evolutionists" are cherishing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Your derogatory and off-topic remarks almost indicate the opposite.

Keep grasping, you've almost got those straws.

By the way this thread is not about Creationism ... it is not even about the controversy between Creationism and The Theory of Evolution

You're only fooling yourself if you pretend it's not.

like grass on a field is the flesh of men and like flowers of the field is the glory of men.
The grass withers and dies and the flowers fall away.
So the flesh of men will die and all money, cars, jewelery, and all things which corrupt the souls of men will fall away.
Surley they will sprout wings like the Eagle and fly away.
In that day wicked men will run to the rocks and the high mountains and will say "fall on us so that we may hide from the apperance of the Lord" but the mountains and the sky and the sea will flea from the presence of the one who comes to judge it.😛😀

Let all who dare challenge the supreme majesty of the God of Heaven or his son Jesus Christ be warned of their eternal damnation.

Originally posted by David C
Keep grasping, you've almost got those straws.

[b]By the way this thread is not about Creationism ... it is not even about the controversy between Creationism and The Theory of Evolution

You're only fooling yourself if you pretend it's not.[/b]

David C: "You're only fooling yourself if you pretend it's not."

This thread is supposed to dwell on the ideological/philosophical aspects of the ToE.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
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.

My error in conclusion was based on your lack of presentation alone. What do you suggest I am to think when the resident papist posts a piece on the spiritual forum, which is to be found on a Christian website? Oh I know, it must be Jewish!

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

Of course it is, you are suggesting that there is a link between acceptance of the ToE and atheism.

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

In your own words: It seems that the thoughts on which the hedonistic Evolution Theory advocates assume this theory is based are very old indeed. This concerns the origins of the theory (in your view), not the present thoughts on it.

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.

No, it remains a scientific theory. If people subsume it into a theory of spirit as well as nature, they are extending it beyond the original purpose and applying it as an addition to their own belief structure. At this point it fails to be the ToE and instead becomes something perverted. ATY's point about YECs would fit in here, but I'm not going to repeat it.

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 each other because they are "Relatives of Choice". They are, in a certain way, congruent.

Well, I agree in part. I find the ToE and atheism seperate entities, both of which I am a practitioner of, but neither of which I find inextricably bound. If there is a link, it is purely that they both fall under the banner of reasoned thinking. Anyone that promotes the ToE on the back of their atheism and not on its own scientific merits, does both a disservice.

Originally posted by royaltystatement
Let all who dare challenge the supreme majesty of the God of Heaven or his son Jesus Christ be warned of their eternal damnation.

Let all who have no point to add to the discussion, but nevertheless post in a debating thread, be moderated.