From: Susan Brassfield <Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu>
>
>>Rich:
>>>Stephen's point is a red herring anyway (surprise, surprise!). Most
>atheists
>>>become atheists as a result (in part) of accepting evolution; not
>>>the other way around.
>
>I disagree. I think most atheists become nonbelievers because they can't
>believe the unbelievable. They've seen prayer be no more effective than
>crossing one's fingers and making a wish. They've seen all the religions of
>the world having similar beliefs and all but "that one" (identical to the
>others) are false. Why make an exception? All the gods throughout history
>but "that one" are false. How hard is it to disbelieve just one more? I
>became an atheist decades before I discovered evolution and the evol/crea
>debate.
I'm of the same opinion as Dawkins when he says that he finds it hard to
imagine being an intellectually fulfilled atheist before Darwin. But maybe
not all atheists rate intellectual fulfilment as high as Dawkins and I do!
But your case gives us another example of how one can be an atheist without
being an evolutionist (one can simply be unaware of evolution), so
undermining Stephen's argument even further.
>Bertvan:
>>This is quite an admission if true. (That most atheists become atheists
as
>a
>>result of accepting evolution.) . Actually, I would correct the statement
>to
>>say people become atheists "as a result of accepting Darwinism".
>
>"It is indeed remarkable that [The Theory of Evolution] has progressively
>taken root in the
>minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different
>spheres of
>knowledge.
>
>"The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies
>undertaken
>independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument
>in favour of this
>theory."--Pope John Paul, Oct. 24, 1996
>
>so is the Pope about to become an atheist? Why is it that Jesuits have been
>teaching evolution in Catholic high schools since the sixties? because they
>had become atheists? I kinda doubt it. The link between evolution and
>relgion is and has always been spurious. Dawkins is an idiot. I know I've
>said that before, but I think it can't be repeated enough. He may be a fine
>zoologist, but philosophically he's an idiot. I find it hard to believe
>Richard fell for his silliness.
I find it it hard to believe that you've made the same kind of logical
blunder that Bertvan did. My statement that "Most atheists become atheists
as a result (in part) of accepting evolution" does not imply that most (let
alone all) people who accept evolution become atheists. "Most dogs have four
legs" does not imply that most animals with four legs are dogs.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 18:24:33 EDT