Very interesting subject. Is man born with an inate sense of right and wrong or is it learned. Is the ability to believe it is morally wrong to kill babies wrong put there by God? how the heck to do we find out. He doesnt exactly answer us when we ask him does he.
Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers
by Perry 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
toreador
Perry you posit that social conditioning changes at whim. Have you ever read Numbers the 31 chapter. God had men, children, mothers, infants and babies killed but had the Isrealites save the virgins for themselves in an act of war against the midianites. Does christianity now teach the same thing or has it changed. Do we look down on those who kill babies even in war, call them barbaric etc in todays world?
Did God change? In war or any other time would you kill women, infants and children if God told you to do so? Would you feel it was morally wrong to do so?
Tor
-
Asheron
Perry,
Do you answer questions or are you just going to preach now as in your last response?
Asheron
-
Perry
I appreciate everyone's posts. I have nothing really further to add. This thread was about whether Atheism/Evolutionism was dangerous. I'm not going to put God on trial for the reasons I stated in my last post. Another thread recently covered that topic anyway.
Peace to All
-
thetrueone
No I don't believe so, I think atheism is a opening door of knowledge for man and a possibility to better his advancement, some of the most intelligent people that ever lived were atheists
Human ignorance and religion walk hand in hand and may have evolved from it.
Fear, power, corruption, ignorance and money are all ingredients in most organized religions, ( WTS ) they are mostly concerned for advancement of themselves rather than for mankind.
Not intentionally meant to hurt anyone for saying so...........I hope
-
DanTheMan
So, it is possible (probably likely) that the social conditioning of future generations will condemn as immoral or unethical many of the notions of right and wrong, or, good and bad of today's atheist.
Of course! Just like future generations of believers may condemn as immoral the notions of right and wrong of today's believer, which was the point of my last post with the example of slavery.
A current example would be eating meat. The majority of people alive today (in the West anyway) don't see the killing of animals for sustenance to be a source of moral conflict. But over the next 100 or 200 or however many years the moral zeitgeist may change completely so that humans find it unthinkable to raise cattle for the sole purpose of crushing their skulls when they reach maturity and harvesting the meat for consumption.
Do you see my point?
So, what is it that makes your current notions regarding such "true" since they have changed in the past (like the emergence of altruism for one) and will likely change in the future?
We are all in this together, trying to figure out what works, what doesn't, what is ethical, what is unethical.
Whatever your answer, isn't that a doctrine of "present truth"?
Accumulated truth would be a better descriptor. I believe in moral progress, not a once-for-all-time set of standards that would put an end to all debates, now and forevermore. That will never happen. Our moral history is one of constant testing and re-evaluating. And again, if believers have such an ironclad set of undisputable moral truths, then what exactly changed with slavery? Is the wrongness of slavery a moral absolute? Isn't the wrongness of slavery a "present truth" to Christians?
-
AllTimeJeff
Since I opened a thread on whether faith was dangerous (read my last post on that thread) I feel compelled to answer this.
To weigh the two, no. Faith, as in faith in an unseen god whose only identitiy is revealed in scrolls dating 1-3000 years old is not as dangerous as science examining the data and coming to conclusions based on this data. There is no danger in showing the evidence, showing out how genes and behaviors adapt, and poining this out. Science is not married to a dogma. This was one of the biggest things I have learned. I was biased before to believe that "Science's dogma is evolution" as merely a counterpoint to religionists own dogma about god exisiting and god creating. I now have learned that while Science doesn't have it all figured out, they don't claim to either. Evolution is the best framework we have right now to explain things that are shown in the world around us. Dogmatic assumptions that come from ancient scrolls that do not accuratly describe what is here is very dangerous. Science makes no claim to infallibility. Many scientists make unusual claims and statements, but it is always based on a reading of some data. Whether it is right or not is the reason the scientific method exists. Religion of course is held to no such standards in order to believe and have faith.
In addition, people do not start wars because of scientific data and postulation. Wars are fought because of conflict of idea's that are irreconcilable. Such as the current Iraq war. I would also point out that belief in Evolution has no bearing on a persons behavior. It is simply a search for truth, a search that continues. Neither Science nor Religion as of yet has been able to explain the existance of evil, or why it happens. But history is abundantly clear that religion is at the forefront of most wars, a belief that god is on "our" side. While we might find terrorism despicable, the sincerity of those who are jihadists is not debatable, nor is it possible to debate the fact that they really believe Allah will reward them for their jihad against the western infidels. That is faith in its purest form!
Perry said:
Many people just do not connect with this heritage of violence that athiests maintain gives them freedom from religious servitude. Many wonder if athiests have split personalities since there is such cognitive dissonance between what they believe is their origins and what they publically practice.
What heitage of violence has athiesm caused? Between the Dark ages, the Crusades, down to our now current war against terror (or as some call it Islamic Jihad). I don't believe that atheiest publicly practice much of anything other then to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
RAF
Believing in evolution is dangerous because it leads to believe that some people are more evoluate than others.
You mean people like James Dobson and the fundamentalists who have the Republicans ear who believe that we are all going to burn in hell if we don't believe in their ideas on abortion and gay marriage? Pat Robertson, who believed and said that Katrina hit New Orleans because a lesbian of note lived in the city and thus god indiscriminatly wiped out the whole place? No, it is people of faith who are so convinced in their rightness that is dangerous, not looking at sceintific data and saying evolution is a better explanation than god.
IsaacJS2
Evolutionists don't "believe" in evolution as a set of moral principles, nor should anyone. I accept it as a scientific theory, and that's it. Evolution is not a philosophy or a religion of any sort and neither is science. To me, you seem to be objectifying us and forgetting we are people just like you.
Bravo! I used to think that exactly, but now I am no longer afraid to see what Science has to say. I as of this moment hold evolution to be nothing more then a theory, but I am educating myself on it. In the months since I have left JW's, as I have started to educate myself, the one thing I have learned about myself is that I used to be fairly certain on issues that I have only a passing acquaintance with. Some call it "just enough knowledge to be a danger to yourself." I am starting to believe more and more that most people have opinions and standards for living, and they have no idea how they acquired them. So the question to me isn't whether or not that you believe in evolution, but rather, "Am I willing to be intellectually honest enough with myself and actually investigate what Science has found thus far about life? Natural selection?"
Evolution has indeed been slandered by religion, and esp by JW's. The claims made against science and evolution by religion are simplistic, dogmatic, and purposely misleading. It is true that their are scientists who make strong assertions of dubious plausibility, but most have some facts and evidence in their corner. Religionists have only old ancient books that on real examination are utterly rejectable and silly. (As an example, YHWH of the Old Testament?? What an utterly cruel "god", and be honest, how much spin did it take from the GB to get you convinced that he was a god of love??) Science DOESN'T claim to have it all figured out, (thats my recent epiphany) and that is the point. Science is interested in learning what the truth is, and they constantly put up what they think they know with new facts, new studies, and new ideas. Science doesn't assume that the latest fact is the final fact. Truth is what can be proved and verified, if you don't know now, that doesn't mean you won't know one day......
I leave with this quote by Sam Harris. It raises a point that people of faith do not seem willing to tackle, but it sums it up for me on who is more trustworthy (and less dangerous) in the search for truth, Athiest/Evolutionists v Thiests
"It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: Either people have good reasons for what they believe, or they do not. When they have good reasons, their beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" sciences here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines, like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely on "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque-that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the Bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to Heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower." -
RAF
ATJ : You mean people like
Read my previous postes please (so you'll anderstand what I'm talking about) ... thank you.
-
tetrapod.sapien
LOL. some pretty cool posts in this thread.
okay. i think perry and axal and the halo-winged puppy top hat have plenty of information in this thread to sort through. not sure i have much more to add. but i will answer the original question:
Is Atheism Dangerous?
yes.
if you consider it dangerous to your worldview, then i guess it is dangerous. once you understand that everyone is an atheist though, you will understand that it is only dangerous in the sense that you will see that there is really only one more god to reject: yours. after all, you are already an atheist perry. if you can't think of any Gods to which you are atheistic, then think harder. i am not going to list them for you.
Is Evolution
ismDangerous?yes.
evolution is dangerous to those who reject it for obvious reasons. but evolution is rational to others a priori with only a little investigation into the theory because of how well it is supported. you do not have to be an official student of the theory to understand it in other words. so either you have not done enough research into the theory to know what you are talking about, or you simply do not want the theory to be the close approximation of history that it indeed has become.
i leave you with a quote from a text book that is one of the best introductory overviews to the history of planet earth (evolutionary science and geology) that i personally have ever come across. this is why evolution is dangerous:
Students of earth history inevitably discover that the perspective this knowledge provides changes their perception of themselves and of the land and life around them.
from Earth and Life Through Time, chp.1 par.1
steven m. stanley, john hopkins university
tetrapod
-
Asheron
Perry,
I feel the need to say something to you and your ilk. You post a bias filled straw man question that attempts to paint a contradiction based on incorrect understandings of evolution and some kind of juvenile concept of a black and white ethic system. And then, despite several reasoned replies (on both sides) regarding the main issue and the side issue of "how can we be good without god" you ignore the points and refuse to discuss them, choosing instead to hide behind the ramparts of "I will not put God on trial".
You point out once again what is inherently wrong with Religious faith and in my opinion is most DANGEROUS. The ability to judge all who do not believe as you but the complete inability to have a discourse that may result in a better understanding of both sides and dare I say it, a peaceful coexistence.
You said: “Who are you to judge God so that I should follow your misdirection and judge Him as you tempt me to do? He is infinite in all respects. You are but a vapor” "I appreciate everyone's posts. I have nothing really further to add. This thread was about whether Atheism/Evolutionism was dangerous. I'm not going to put God on trial for the reasons I stated in my last post. Another thread recently covered that topic anyway.
You are but a vapor??? God on trial???? Judge him???
So its okay for you to judge everyone that doesn’t accept your belief system (like Atheists) and try to paint them as false but as soon as the gloves come off a little you run away.
Here are a few more questions for you that I am sure you will not answer.
If you do things for the GLORY of God, does that not imply that he? (God) is pleased by being found to be worthy of worship? What is this great cosmic play of good and evil all about anyway is we are not to judge the worthiness of God over that of Satan? Did not you at some point make a “judgment” regarding the worthiness of your God?
In reading back through your posts I found a few admissions of times in your life where you questioned your faith. Was that not in effect judging God? I say you have already put God on trail and found him worthy so why the fear of conducting a reasoned discussion?
Perhaps you got in over your head when your poor attempt to “trip up” us Atheists fell apart?
Later