Why isn't DNA and Human Consciousness Enough For Some Christians?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.

Unless they think the atheists are right.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If a prominent atheist explains how water flowing down hill without god sucking it down takes away evidence for god then theists will line up on the wrong end of the log ride and the wait times will shorten nicely.

Theism requires some deceit, self or overt, but to discard knowledge because you don't like what use another person is making of it is one of the historical unfortunate aspects of religion of any kind.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all theists have this problem, Catholics, Jews, C Of E spring to mind.

Its only a big problem for a few. The interesting question is why?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never argued that with him, as I said from the beginning its political.

I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god, and pointed out the dishonesty of people who claim evolution is false just because its convenient for their cause.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has he said they are lying when they say they don't accept evolutiion? Or are they lying to themselves, knowing that evolution is a valid theory yet forced to reject it since they think it does not help the god cause? Rather like a women who knows he's cheating on her.

What explanation has he given? Christians are pure overt liars or what?

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Theism requires some deceit, self or overt, but to discard knowledge because you don't like what use another person is making of it is one of the historical unfortunate aspects of religion of any kind.


[/ QUOTE ]


Get in line. You have the same complete blind spot bunny is talking about. Take a number.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready wins this one


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm making a print out of this post, sending it to you for autograph, then encasing it a frame of gold and diamonds.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready wins this one. He has said repeatedly that the fact that evolution is used to justify atheism, does not logically imply that theists must reject evolution. He was simply explaining why some theists have that knee jerk reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has he said they are lying when they say they don't accept evolutiion? Or are they lying to themselves, knowing that evolution is a valid theory yet forced to reject it since they think it does not help the god cause? Rather like a women who knows he's cheating on her.

What explanation has he given? Christians are pure overt liars or what?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
There's little we can be certain of but we can be certain that NotReady will never seriously address this question.

I'd be very happy to overcome my genetic programing and admit I was wrong.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Telling NotReady that evolution doesnt disprove theism doesnt address his point - to disagree with him you have to claim that some atheists havent used evolution to argue for an atheistic worldview

[/ QUOTE ]
but just because atheists make use of evolution doesn't mean that theists must oppose evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly not. I think NotReady was merely speculating that one reason some theists have rejected evolution is that some atheists with strong evolution credentials have suggested that if you accept evolution as fact, you should also reject God. I think he's right that a theist confident in their belief in God, but ignorant about science may well conclude from such a claim that evolution must be wrong.

This doesnt provide justification for their position, merely an explanation of why they have adopted it.

I dont think you ever missed the distinction, but several of the replies to NotReady followed the "Science cant disprove God" path - which doesnt have much relevance to what he was saying.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There's little we can be certain of but we can be certain that NotReady will never seriously address this question.


[/ QUOTE ]


I've got nothing else to say. DS has spoken.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've taken issue with his false claim about Dawkins claiming science can disprove god...

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think Dawkins makes this claim? Or at least the claim that because of our dicovery of evolution, there is less reason to believe in God?

[/ QUOTE ]
I gave the reference above to where Dawkins makes explicitely clear that he believes science cannot disprove god.

He may well claim that the evolution means there's less reason to believe in god. I'd disagree with him but its sure a very good reason to believe creationists are wrong.

chez