Atheism, a dangerous idea?

That's one of the advantages of being a nihilist.

I think the great majority of theists either accept biological evolution theory (call it "Darwinism" if you wish) or are indifferent about it.Probably a significant portion of the theists view atheism as it's hard variety - "There is no God". And that atheists are hostile to religion. I don't think most atheists are the hard variety and are not hostile to religion, unless perhaps, because some of the religious are to them.I think that Jimmy Carter was probably the most religious of the recent Presidents. He was quite open about his faith. BUT he did not let his religious faith intrude upon his actions, even if some went against his religious beliefs. For example (as I understand it), per his religious faith, he was anti-abortion. But he felt that it wasn't proper to impose his religious beliefs on others, and thus he was not promoting anti-abortion legislation. He, however, did promote programs to try to minimize the needs for abortion.In a way, he was functionally a soft athiest as far as his government actions, in that he very much believed in the seperation of church and state. Or something like that.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

quote:

---

I think the great majority of theists either accept biological evolution theory (call it "Darwinism" if you wish) or are indifferent about it.

---

I would guess that most atheists probably don't care all that much about evolution, either. Most of the atheists (and agnostics) that I have known seem to think that the intensity of my interest in the subject is another of my eccentricities.-

quote:

---

I think that Jimmy Carter was probably the most religious of the recent Presidents.

---

Born again Baptist, I believe.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Why does it seem like you try to turn everything into a nihilism topic.STOP IT!In general, people, are you going to discuss the issue as presented in message 1, or are you going to use this topic to trade one-liners?If anyone really feels the need to reply to this message, go to the "General..." topic, link below, to do it.Adminnemooseus (heading towards the cranky mode)

---

Ha, ha, ha.

Minnemooseus writes

quote:

---

I think the great majority of theists either accept biological evolution theory (call it "Darwinism" if you wish) or are indifferent about it.

---

I don't agree. My personal experience tells me that the majority of theists tend to be indifferent about it because they don't know anything about it but tend to lean away from it whenever the topic comes up. You have to admit that the surfaces of evolution have some kind of theistic repellent characteristic. More often than not, evolution theory is viewed more of an atheistic concept than a true scientific theory.

I happened to bump into this web page. It seems pertinent to the topic under discussion here.

It all goes back to the Puritains.Those were the first settlers, you know, and they were religious wackos.

quote:

---

Remember that the christian fundamentalists only represent a small portion of the voting population here in the U.S.

---

Really?I thought that it was an important voting block which had a very high voter turnout rate.Wouldn't that make it a large percentage of the voting population?

I love Asimov. He was one of the last American Renaissance intellectuals: has anyone published more books on more topics? His 3 Laws of Robotics were like a conversation with Hillel the Elder*; his Foundation Trilogy synthesized the major schools of historiography. Great Mark Twain/Will Rogers strain of plain spoken humor, too, as above.* and

schraf writes

quote:

---

I thought that it was an important voting block which had a very high voter turnout rate.

---

It was an important voting block because the few fundamentalists had their god-given loud mouths that demonized gay people, misrepresented science, and sometimes outright lied about political issues. They also had the will and resources to organize whole congregations to the voting booths via bus. Heck, they were even willing to FedEx people to the right voting locations if it meant making a victory for the ultra-right.

quote:

---

Wouldn't that make it a large percentage of the voting population?

---

The large percentage of the voting population you are speaking of are people who don't know (pardon my french) a fucking shit about evolutionary science or the so-called gay agenda. You have to admit that even though we have a lot of liberals in the media, none are as vocal, insistent, and outright doomsayeth (if that's a word) as the fundamentalists.Even in this day and age, there are still congregations that teach about the "gay plague". Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless dedicates a whole chapter to the so-called gay plague and denies HIV's nondiscriminate nature when dealing with heteros versus homos.There is one thing that Fundamentalists have that our side doesn't: The will to sensationalize bullshit issues. Quite frankly, people nowadays worry more about gay marriage bringing down fire and brimstone than what is happening to the ozone layer or the average global temperature. Heck, they don't even give a second's thought on how many orphans are out there waiting to be adopted. Why do you think the right is pushing for legislations on banning gay people from adopting? How are the fundamentalists achieving all of this? They sensationalize bullshit issues.

Hi,NWR. From your linkAtheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.”Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

rgb, when you return, I would like for you to send me a private e-mail so we may discuss this gay issue. To do so here would way off topic!My mail is open...

Asimov. My favourite science fiction writer of all time, and a professor of biochemistry. I came across his "Foundation Trilogy" while a biochemistry undergraduate. I have not read his "In the Beginning" which would appear to be relevant to this thread. Did anyone here read it, and did they find it a good analysis of the creo/evo debate?

Tom Flannery (who I had never heard of until spotting a link to this article) writes the sort of diatribe I had in mind when I posted about right wing fundamentalists equating liberals, atheists and Darwinists.