Comments on: Some Thoughts on Evolution Sunday http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:20:31 +0000 By: Mikel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15746 Mikel Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:55:25 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15746 I never heard of Evolution Sunday until this year at Unitarian Universalist church. I thought it was a pretty neat idea--and I didn't even know that any Christian churches even touched the idea.... The Nazarene church I grew up in sorta gave lip service to science but seemed nervious about evolution. I think they should be. I mean, they do literally believe in special creation of mankind--and the fall of man which was reversed by the literal death and resurrection of Jesus--but this all just falls on its head if humans evolved like all the other animals, doesn't it? They really do have something to be nervious about. I never heard of Evolution Sunday until this year at Unitarian Universalist church. I thought it was a pretty neat idea--and I didn't even know that any Christian churches even touched the idea.... The Nazarene church I grew up in sorta gave lip service to science but seemed nervious about evolution. I think they should be. I mean, they do literally believe in special creation of mankind--and the fall of man which was reversed by the literal death and resurrection of Jesus--but this all just falls on its head if humans evolved like all the other animals, doesn't it? They really do have something to be nervious about.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15348 Alex Weaver Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:06:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15348 Hey, people are living longer... Hey, people are living longer...

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15303 Ebonmuse Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:36:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15303 Well, as much of the next hundred and fifty years as I have the good fortune to see. :) Well, as much of the next hundred and fifty years as I have the good fortune to see. :)

]]> By: Terry http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15223 Terry Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:54:42 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15223 Personally, I can't wait to see what the next hundred and fifty years will bring… In your afterlife???!!! Sorry. Personally, I can't wait to see what the next hundred and fifty years will bring…

In your afterlife???!!! Sorry.

]]> By: Scholar http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15052 Scholar Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:22:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-15052 Ebonmuse: I am a fan. In this case I disagree with you. I think that religion and science do not mix. I don't want to get emotional or call names. You are wise about human nature. In terms of science education, I hope you (continue to?)keep up to date on the latest trends in scientific theory. I know you are busy standing up for rationalism...lets use a bit more common sense and realize that RELIGION and SCIENCE don't MIX! Ebonmuse:

I am a fan. In this case I disagree with you. I think that religion and science do not mix. I don't want to get emotional or call names. You are wise about human nature. In terms of science education, I hope you (continue to?)keep up to date on the latest trends in scientific theory. I know you are busy standing up for rationalism...lets use a bit more common sense and realize that RELIGION and SCIENCE don't MIX!

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14861 Alex Weaver Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:36:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14861 <blockquote>This is a nice worldview to hold for the short-run, but in the best interests of civlization theism must be eradicated.</blockquote> Theists endorsing science, and Christopher endorsing the interests of humanity as a whole. This was indeed a day of pleasant surprises. I just hope it lasts... ^.^

This is a nice worldview to hold for the short-run, but in the best interests of civlization theism must be eradicated.

Theists endorsing science, and Christopher endorsing the interests of humanity as a whole. This was indeed a day of pleasant surprises. I just hope it lasts... ^.^

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14819 Polly Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:43:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14819 Science may not ever tell us EVERYTHING we want to know conclusively (or within our lifetime) and some can't seem to live without an answer today. Where science has lagged, religion has provided some structure and framework in the mean time. Kind of like a babysitter through humanity's infancy. But, now we're growing up. Science may not ever tell us EVERYTHING we want to know conclusively (or within our lifetime) and some can't seem to live without an answer today. Where science has lagged, religion has provided some structure and framework in the mean time. Kind of like a babysitter through humanity's infancy. But, now we're growing up.

]]> By: Archi Medez http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14817 Archi Medez Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:16:19 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14817 A note on the exchange above: Flew appears to be a deist, not a theist. "In God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984), Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, though he has been persuaded in recent years that such evidence in fact exists, and his current position appears to be deism. In a December 2004 interview[2], he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html A note on the exchange above: Flew appears to be a deist, not a theist.

"In God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984), Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, though he has been persuaded in recent years that such evidence in fact exists, and his current position appears to be deism. In a December 2004 interview[2], he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/atheist_philosopher_041210.html

]]> By: Simen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14806 Simen Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:19:45 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14806 Rastaban, theism is a position on a question (is there a god?) that has an objective answer, totally unsupported by evidence. If you agree that it would be irrational for me to believe that there's an invisible unicorn right next to me as I type this, you must also agree that it's irrational to believe that there's an invisible god next to me as I type. Whether intelligent people believe in it or not, it is an irrational position. Your intelligence will not make an irrational position rational just by the pure power of your intellect. Rastaban, theism is a position on a question (is there a god?) that has an objective answer, totally unsupported by evidence. If you agree that it would be irrational for me to believe that there's an invisible unicorn right next to me as I type this, you must also agree that it's irrational to believe that there's an invisible god next to me as I type. Whether intelligent people believe in it or not, it is an irrational position. Your intelligence will not make an irrational position rational just by the pure power of your intellect.

]]> By: Rastaban http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14790 Rastaban Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:08:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/02/evolution-sunday.html#comment-14790 <blockquote>This is a nice worldview to hold for the short-run, but in the best interests of civlization theism must be eradicated. </blockquote> Christopher, I don't agree. There's nothing inherently irrational or dangerous about theism. It is simply one possible explanation for our existence. Many extremely intelligent people believe in God -- Antony Flew for example, the prominent atheist who recently changed his mind and concluded there must be a God after all. (Besides, it's not in our interest as human beings for ideas to be eradicated. We need all the ideas we can get.) Now, if you meant to eradicate the use of <i>blind faith</i> as a guide to truth, I'll drink to that.

This is a nice worldview to hold for the short-run, but in the best interests of civlization theism must be eradicated.

Christopher, I don't agree. There's nothing inherently irrational or dangerous about theism. It is simply one possible explanation for our existence. Many extremely intelligent people believe in God -- Antony Flew for example, the prominent atheist who recently changed his mind and concluded there must be a God after all. (Besides, it's not in our interest as human beings for ideas to be eradicated. We need all the ideas we can get.)

Now, if you meant to eradicate the use of blind faith as a guide to truth, I'll drink to that.

]]>