Debating an Atheist

[mattrose]

evangelical leaders in academia are having a crisis over evolution, with some accepting and some rejecting. Nearly all the relevant science evangelicals accept it, and more and more of the theological experts are coming to accept it. For example, Baylor is one of the premiere evangelical universities, and their science dept. fully accepts evolution.

This must be very confusing to you, since you believe evidence for evolution destroys theism, eh?

[steve7150]

Since the year 2000 when so much DNA across all animals species has been read and compared, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.











I know little about similarities in DNA but it seems to me that if one believes in no god then evolution is the only logical explanation. If one believes in a Creator then evolution is an explanation among the methods God could have chosen.

[TrumanSmith]

evangelical leaders in academia are having a crisis over evolution, with some accepting and some rejecting. Nearly all the relevant science evangelicals accept it, and more and more of the theological experts are coming to accept it. For example, Baylor is one of the premiere evangelical universities, and their science dept. fully accepts evolution.

This must be very confusing to you, since you believe evidence for evolution destroys theism, eh?

Of course it isn't confusing to me- I've already lived through it. I was an evolutionary creationist, and an anti-evolutionist before that. I've been aware of Biologos ever since they originated. I've been involved in these debates as an evangelical Christian myself, back when I believed. I had a final choice of remaining an evolutionary creationist or leaving it and becoming an atheist, and becoming a naturalistic thinker seems to make perfect sense of the world. It is a matter of truth-seeking and having the courage to admit that one is wrong in their most preciously held beliefs, even when it causes relationship problems with friends and family... it is more important to follow the truth than to compromise one's intellectual honesty.

[mattrose]

evangelical leaders in academia are having a crisis over evolution, with some accepting and some rejecting. Nearly all the relevant science evangelicals accept it, and more and more of the theological experts are coming to accept it. For example, Baylor is one of the premiere evangelical universities, and their science dept. fully accepts evolution.

This must be very confusing to you, since you believe evidence for evolution destroys theism, eh?

Of course it isn't confusing to me- I've already lived through it. I was an evolutionary creationist, and an anti-evolutionist before that. I've been aware of Biologos ever since they originated. I've been involved in these debates as an evangelical Christian myself, back when I believed. I had a final choice of remaining an evolutionary creationist or leaving it and becoming an atheist, and becoming a naturalistic thinker seems to make perfect sense of the world. It is a matter of truth-seeking and having the courage to admit that one is wrong in their most preciously held beliefs, even when it causes relationship problems with friends and family... it is more important to follow the truth than to compromise one's intellectual honesty.

And the hardest part is to keep pursuing the truth after that

[TrumanSmith]

The nice thing about being solely devoted to the truth is that you don't have to defend a bunch of baggage. When I was a Christian I was planning on starting a new church. Maybe it is a good thing I didn't keep with those plans, as it may have solidified me into that position. Once someone is gainfully employed by religion, it becomes difficult to impossible to leave. The Clergy Project is an anonymous service to help those trying to leave the clergy because they no longer believe, and there are hundreds enrolled. But once someone has spent so many years in ministry, it is very difficult to find outside employment. I was lucky that I was always employed in a secular environment, so I didn't have to numb my mind to protect myself from employment issues.

RE:
http://www.clergyproject.org/

[steve7150]

so I didn't have to numb my mind to protect myself from employment issues.











No need to be modest Truman, you are much better at it (numbing your mind) then you give yourself credit for.

[jarrod]

A thinking man can read Genesis 1 and see very clearly that the Bible destroys the modern scientific and philosophical search for the origin of creation. It makes perfect sense!

I had a final choice of remaining an evolutionary creationist or leaving it and becoming an atheist, and becoming a naturalistic thinker seems to make perfect sense of the world.

[TrumanSmith]

A thinking man can read Genesis 1 and see very clearly that the Bible destroys the modern scientific and philosophical search for the origin of creation. It makes perfect sense!

"Origins" is a hot area for scientific research... just the opposite of "being destroyed," the science is actually flourishing. And with each development, special creation becomes more and more to be obvious myth. Recent examples on origin research:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossil ... n_of_life/

[CThomas]

Hi, Truman. Ordinarily I don't interject facts about my personal life into discussions of matters that are independent of my personal history. But since you continually do, and routinely assert that everyone on our side does not follow the truth as you do so objectively and heroically, I guess it becomes germane. I grew up an atheist, and was a passionate defender and "apologist" (for want of a better word) for atheism. I read Dawkins's books multiple times, read numerous academic and popular publications about evolutionary theory and practice, fully understood them, believed that atheism was obviously true, and thought that there was no remotely cogent argument in support of any sort of theism, let alone Christian theism in particular. In fact, I published articles in one of the leading skeptical publications and academic articles applying principles of evolutionary biology, and spoke at academic conferences on these issues. I did not grow up in a Christian household, and had no affinity for Christianity before my conversion. My life was happy and I had no particular fear of death or anything like that which would motivate a conversion. And yet I did become a Christian after years of serious and careful study in a wide variety of subject areas. Despite all this, I would never go around to atheists and tell them, "You know, I understand how desperately you want to cling to your irrationality, but if you're ever able to have an interest in truth like me then it won't be as bad as you so obviously fear."

Now I do think that atheists are wrong and irrational, but I wouldn't go around talking like that because I don't want to be perceived as a jackass. Anyway, as I noted previously, I would never talk about my own personal history in a discussion of the truth of religious matters because it would be irrelevant, not to mention self-centered and egotistical. But I'm sure you can imagine how, reading your constant casual assertions that only you and those who share your views have any interest in following the truth and how, because you haven't been able to see a case for Christianity, it follows that everyone else who holds to Christianity must be ignorant or biased (because surely you couldn't possibly be missing anything or unable to follow anyone else's arguments), it would rub someone like me the wrong way. It might slightly mitigate the annoyance if you were able to display a serious understanding of the views that you assume are so obviously wrong, but -- and I know you won't be able to recognize this -- you frequently don't even understand what the Christian beliefs are, let alone the rationales and arguments that support them. So that, long-winded though it is, is a response to your efforts to pull rank on the rest of us and bully us by asserting with no evidence whatsoever that you have some unique commitment to truth.

Best wishes,

CThomas

[steve7150]

The nice thing about being solely devoted to the truth is that you don't have to defend a bunch of baggage





By definition you can't be devoted to the truth Truman. You only will consider naturalistic answers so if the truth is not a naturalistic answer you will not allow yourself to explore it therefore by definition you are not a truth seeker.

You have your opinion that all answers are naturalistic but that is your opinion and the opinion of the folks you choose to follow and since you would acknowledge you can be wrong (since you are not divine) you seek the truth only if it fits your agenda.

This is not a truth seeker, this is a religion for you.

BTW the retort that the science is overwhelming is again your opinion and the opinion of the folks you follow. Numerous times in history science was sure about something only to change their views later on. Let's not worship science Mister truth seeker.