The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
It’s quite amazing to observe how many seemingly thoughtful people, rather than admit they don’t know what the grand narrative is, will insist the Darwinian story (which is undoubtedly real) is the grand narrative despite its hostility to so much of what they care about and its misalignment to reoccurring aspects of reality.If you are going to dedicate yourself to fudging toget
No one here is claiming to have any access to a mysterious grand narrative.
The evidence of life and death is abundant. I'm just a scientist who follows the evidence. I don't pretend to be able to explain creation and the origin of time, matter and energy. I'm content to live with that mystery.
I don't pretend to be a good or virtuous person and I reject the notion that I am bad. I have something in common with every other human. I didn't choose to be who I am. I am a function of the DNA which was embedded in me.
It is my preference that human civilization carries on long after I'm gone. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's simply my preference. I get a primitive satisfaction from trying to educate people about the risks to the continuity of human civilization.
I'm interested in connecting with people who share that preference. I'm interested in connecting with people who share an interest for scientific inquiry.
Religious zealots who have been brainwashed to believe that humans are at the center and apex of the universe ... I find them completely boring. The only thing they are at the apex of is gullibility.
Bacteria would have been here through nearly all of those pieces.
If you want an example of an exceptionally adaptable taxonomical group .... bacteria are the obvious answer.
Fyi - most of the cells in your body are not human. They are bacterial. Our survival is completely dependent upon theirs.
Ours along with every other organism’s survival. Yeah, I know:
Nah, you just get a tie. The Catholic Church has accepted Darwinian evolution for decades; there's nothing inconsistent with evolution and an omniscient creator. What it rejects is Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism.
The Catholic Church does not reject Intelligent Design, it confirms it.
I can cite the Catchecism if you want.
(I'm not Catholic, btw)
The Catholic Church does not reject Intelligent Design, it confirms it.
I can cite the Catchecism if you want.
(I'm not Catholic, btw)
I know what you're getting at (I think) but back in Aquinas’ time “design” meant purpose or intention (eg, “Our design is to visit several of the smaller Islands" -Johnson, 1773), not an engineer meticulously designing a system and every part down to the minute detail like the modern ID crowd believes.
The Catholic Church does not reject Intelligent Design, it confirms it.
I can cite the Catchecism if you want.
(I'm not Catholic, btw)
353
God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.
353
God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.
As a substitute for “willed” and “designed,” “intended” fits better than “engineered,” imo, the latter of which is more in line with modern Intelligent Design arguments.
The Catholic Church does not reject Intelligent Design, it confirms it.
I can cite the Catchecism if you want.
(I'm not Catholic, btw)
I am interested in your citation. I'm not an expert on the Catechism, as it stopped being studied in most Catholic schools by the time I attended in the 1970s-80s, but this article published by the University of Notre Dame appears pretty legitimate. It says that "the topic is never explicitly mentioned" in the current Catechism.
side note to geezerchess:
By the way, I believe you did give a significant reply to our brief discussion about Bible passages I believe condemn the current Republican Party (in the Trump thread?), but I was away from the forum for a few days and that thread had too much added to it for me to go back and read everything. I am still interested but don't really want to clog up that thread further by going back to something that was rather off-topic to begin with. Maybe a new thread would be appropriate, or a different one?
Nah, you just get a tie. The Catholic Church has accepted Darwinian evolution for decades; there's nothing inconsistent with evolution and an omniscient creator. What it rejects is Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism.
I don't get this reply at all - neither my message you quoted, nor the thread in which I was participating, had anything to do with the Catholic Church.
However, as just mentioned, I don't believe the Catholic Church has made any official pronouncements regarding the truth or falsity of evolution. A few Popes have issued letters about evolution, but AFAIK none were defining official doctrine of faith or morals.
353
God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.
Oops, I guess you already cited it. Honestly I don't think this statement really confirms or denies what is usually considered to be the "Intelligent Design" theory of biological variation.
This is an interesting article presenting a Catholic perspective on ID.
353
God willed the diversity of his creatures and their own particular goodness, their interdependence and their order. He destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. Man, and through him all creation, is destined for the glory of God.
This human centricity is comical and downright childish.
Why did God wait for the 99.993% of Earth's history to pass before putting humans on Earth if the whole purpose was to benefit the human race ?
200 years ago, white men enslaved black people because their story was that God made the world for white people. Black people were not considered equal humans in the US South. The Catholic Church was silent about that.
I suppose it's impossible to separate religion and society when human societies are organized around religious dogma and brainwashing.
Look at the hypocrisy among American Christian's today. In church, they worship a man in Jesus Christ who fed the poor and in politics they worship a man in Trump who takes away from the poor and gives tax cuts to the rich.
I don't get this reply at all - neither my message you quoted, nor the thread in which I was participating, had anything to do with the Catholic Church.
Your reply didn't establish that nihilism is true - and consequently theism is false - based on the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. It just shows that evolution is consistent with nihilism's core claim of no purpose. I used the Church's position to show that evolution can also be consistent with theism. That's what I meant by a tie versus a win.
Your reply didn't establish that nihilism is true - and consequently theism is false - based on the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. It just shows that evolution is consistent with nihilism's core claim of no purpose. I used the Church's position to show that evolution can also be consistent with theism. That's what I meant by a tie versus a win.
nihilism doesn't require atheism btw so it's not the opposite of theism.
A creator god that doesn't interact anymore with what he created is fully compatible with nihilism for example.
Also a cruel trickster god that plays games with human beings for his entertainment is compatible with nihilism.
in general most beliefs in god are compatible with nihilism except the existence of a benevolent one who cares about us and that we can "rejoin" in various ways (that would give meaning to life, a purpose, a goal, and so be incompatible with nihilism).
nihilism doesn't require atheism btw so it's not the opposite of theism.A creator god that doesn't interact anymore with what he created is fully compatible with nihilism for example.Also a cruel trickster god that plays games with human beings for his entertainment is compatible with nihilism.in general most beliefs in god are compatible with nihilism except the existence of a
The Thor story is highly relevant here — the idea that all meaning, purpose, and significance is somewhere up there in the real world that we have been banished from.
In his sermon, Christ asked what you do with salt that has lost its saltiness. You toss it out with the rest of the garbage in the outer darkness and forget about it.
Christ said he is the only source of truth and life, and where did he go? Up there. Many theists believe that the only actual value of this world is to prove yourself worthy of returning up there.
In this context, it makes sense the truth would reveal this world to be dead. Meaninglessness and hopelessness can set in after you try to do what’s right and still find yourself stuck in this hell. What does it take to be promoted?
Of the people who get this far, almost all give up at this point which is unfortunate. By give up, I mean they seek a more comforting story to exist in. This includes the one that says meaninglessness is absolute and there is no better world, so you are not actually rejected.
nihilism doesn't require atheism btw so it's not the opposite of theism.A creator god that doesn't interact anymore with what he created is fully compatible with nihilism for example.Also a cruel trickster god that plays games with human beings for his entertainment is compatible with nihilism.in general most beliefs in god are compatible with nihilism except the existence of a
Even if a god is indifferent, passive or cruel, the fact that it intentionally created the world means our existence isn’t without purpose, it just might not be a purpose we like. So while nihilism doesn’t require atheism, a god with intent - good, bad, or indifferent - opposes nihilism because nihilism entails no inherent meaning or purpose at all.
Even if a god is indifferent, passive or cruel, the fact that it intentionally created the world means our existence isn’t without purpose, it just might not be a purpose we like. So while nihilism doesn’t require atheism, a god with intent - good, bad, or indifferent - opposes nihilism because nihilism entails no inherent meaning or purpose at all.
Ruminating about God doesn't get us anywhere.
People are allowed to be nihilists if they want.
I'm not a nihilist. It doesn't feel pleasant to me. I choose a world in which I have a purpose despite the fact that I can't prove that I genuinely do have a purpose.
When in doubt, choose the more pleasant option, right ?
Even if a god is indifferent, passive or cruel, the fact that it intentionally created the world means our existence isn’t without purpose, it just might not be a purpose we like. So while nihilism doesn’t require atheism, a god with intent - good, bad, or indifferent - opposes nihilism because nihilism entails no inherent meaning or purpose at all.
no that's a non sequitur. that's like saying that if your parents made you willingly then your existence had inherently purpose.
nihilism entails no meaning or purpose FOR YOU. you can be part of the meaning and purpose of other agents.
otherwise you could just stop anyone from being a nihilist just telling him "but I care about you!"
Right, it’s about entering into and navigating through the story (reality) from a first person, subjective POV.
Your reply didn't establish that nihilism is true - and consequently theism is false - based on the acceptance of Darwinian evolution. It just shows that evolution is consistent with nihilism's core claim of no purpose. I used the Church's position to show that evolution can also be consistent with theism. That's what I meant by a tie versus a win.
Well, I am not a believer, but I wasn't trying to make any claims about theism in that post. I know Craig is religious, but he wasn't specifically talking about religion either.
no that's a non sequitur. that's like saying that if your parents made you willingly then your existence had inherently purpose.
nihilism entails no meaning or purpose FOR YOU. you can be part of the meaning and purpose of other agents.
otherwise you could just stop anyone from being a nihilist just telling him "but I care about you!"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existent...
Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no objective meaning or purpose.[1] The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create their own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".
Well, I am not a believer, but I wasn't trying to make any claims about theism in that post. I know Craig is religious, but he wasn't specifically talking about religion either.
Then what were you thinking nihilism scored a win over?
In effect you said nihilism is true by virtue of evolution being true. I said that only gets you to the claim that it's consistent with nihilism being true not proof of it being so.
Well, I am not a believer, but I wasn't trying to make any claims about theism in that post. I know Craig is religious, but he wasn't specifically talking about religion either.
Then what were you thinking nihilism scored a win over?
In effect you said nihilism is true by virtue of evolution being true. I said that only gets you to the claim that evolution being true is consistent with nihilism being true. not proof of it being so.
Then what were you thinking nihilism scored a win over?
In effect you said nihilism is true by virtue of evolution being true. I said that only gets you to the claim that it's consistent with nihilism being true not proof of it being so.
Over any competing philosophy which entails life facing any purpose or meaning.
I wasn't trying to prove it, just giving my opinion that it is correct, and that it is supported by directionless evolution.
Over any competing philosophy which entails life facing any purpose or meaning.
I wasn't trying to prove it, just giving my opinion that it is correct, and that it is supported by directionless evolution.
I would argue that nihilism isn't merely supported by 'directionless evolution', but is rather a necessary consequence of it.
side note to geezerchess:By the way, I believe you did give a significant reply to our brief discussion about Bible passages I believe condemn the current Republican Party (in the Trump thread?), but I was away from the forum for a few days and that thread had too much added to it for me to go back and read everything. I am still interested but don't really want to clog up tha
Maybe a new thread would be best if you want to start one. Your choice, though.
