Atheism in decline? (debate likely)

[jenfur]

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050301-123015-2069r.htm

With all of the talk of the decline of Atheism, the increase of even general spirituality, the many holes in the theory of evolution and the increasing evidence for intelligent design (even if you do not believe in the "christian" god) how long will it take for effects of the humanist agendas to reflect the beliefs of the majority?

At the moment, I see anything that is considered a "religious" argument to be scorned by people who consider themselves highly intelligent or speaking for the majority. Examples;1) Jerry Falwell- wrong when he said 9-11 was possibly God's rebuke for sin (not agreeing with this statement) Ward Churchill- okay when he calls the victims nazis, alot of other okay when they say US had it coming for foreign policy reasons. 2) Anything "liberal" that is considered morally wrong must be done so for religious reasons alone such as abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex. 3) There is definate discrimination against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools even though it has far more evidence supporting it than evolution.

I personally think intelligent design should be taught along side evolution and that no specific religion should be taught but all religions should not be avoided like the plague. What is so wrong with believing in something higher than man?



(wondering what I am getting myself into as I hit submit )

 

[chadfromdallas]

3) There is definate discrimination against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools even though it has far more evidence supporting it than evolution.

So many things wrong in your post, I'm only going to pick on this little sucker.

There isn't any evidence of intelligent design....Repeat after me...THERE ISN'T ANY PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

 

[jenfur]

So many things wrong in your post, I'm only going to pick on this little sucker.

There isn't any evidence of intelligent design....Repeat after me...THERE ISN'T ANY PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Gee Thanks! Could you please say I will win the lottery next week since you simply saying it would make it so? Could you DO a little non-biased research before you post? Thats what the grown-ups do.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Could you DO a little non-biased research before you post? Thats what the grown-ups do.

It takes zero research on my part as I've already debated this topic before on here. Just because an organism is complex isn't evidence enough that it was made by a "higher being". You want to know why it will never be taught in school? Because you must believe in a higher power for it to even be considered.

 

[jenfur]

Because you must believe in a higher power for it to even be considered.

That argument actually makes sense but could easily be avoided by teaching both as possibilities. What is wrong with considering the possibilty of a higher power?

 

[chadfromdallas]

That argument actually makes sense but could easily be avoided by teaching both as possibilities. What is wrong with considering the possibilty of a higher power?

Because without evidence(a.k.a. the things that make up evolution and the evolutionary theory), its pointless and mute. Intelligent design does not belong in schools for that fact and many others. Science class is for science, not theories that lack any backbone or facts.

 

[Pugdog007]

I will be praying for you Chad.

 

[chadfromdallas]

I will be praying for you Chad.

 

[Planogirl]

I personally believe in both and think that they worked in conjunction with one another but I don't really want what I believe being taught in schools. The school's function is to teach facts not beliefs IMO.

 

[chadfromdallas]

The school's function is to teach facts not beliefs IMO.

Key point qouted right here.

 

[treesinger]

I personally believe in both and think that they worked in conjunction with one another but I don't really want what I believe being taught in schools. The school's function is to teach facts not beliefs IMO.

Agreed. But are we making the assumption that creation through evolution is fact? Seems to me that we can not prove that definitively any more than intelligent design can be proven definitively.

 

[Charade]

Because without evidence(a.k.a. the things that make up evolution and the evolutionary theory), its pointless and mute. Intelligent design does not belong in schools for that fact and many others. Science class is for science, not theories that lack any backbone or facts.

So what is this? You're trying to silence people?

 

[chadfromdallas]

Agreed. But are we making the assumption that creation through evolution is fact?

Biological evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is made up of a composite of data(facts) gathered over time.

 

[jenfur]

If evoltion had been proven as a fact, I would accept it. I could do what some christians already do and say evolution was the tool that God used. The evolution theory has too many holes to be taught with as much "faith" as the law of gravity.

 

[chadfromdallas]

So what is this? You're trying to silence people?

bleh, moot moot

 

[chadfromdallas]

If evoltion had been proven as a fact, I would accept it. ..[..]..The evolution theory has too many holes to be taught with as much "faith" as the law of gravity.

Lack of understanding would have you come to a conclusion like this.

 

[treesinger]

Biological evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is made up of a composite of data(facts) gathered over time.

Again, I agree that evolution is a biological process that has been observed in our world. But to extend it back to the beginning of life? To quote yourself, "there is no proof" that the observed phenomena of evolution is the origin of life itself.

 

[simpilotswife]

jenfur, what other reason could anyone have for being against homosexuality besides religious reasons?

I can see a non-religious argument for the other two but not for homosexuality so please enlighten me.

 

[treesinger]

If evoltion had been proven as a fact, I would accept it. I could do what some christians already do and say evolution was the tool that God used. The evolution theory has too many holes to be taught with as much "faith" as the law of gravity.

I agree to a point. I think evolution should be taught for what it is proven to be so far. It is the tool by which organisms adapt to their surroundings over time. We shouldn't throw it out completely. But to teach it as the be-all, end-all of creation is stretching the data much to thin.

You aren't saying that evolution has no value are you?

 

[jenfur]

Biological evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is made up of a composite of data(facts) gathered over time.

Do not confuse the facts of adaptation, natural selection and microevolution with the idea that evolution explains the origins of life from its very beginning. There are several laws of physics that make evolution as an origin of life impossible.