Atheism is not a religion, for a start.

I wondered how long it would take; thanks for not making me hang around.

It is a religion, or an anti-religion, or a worldview (call it what you will), but the actions of its adherents are just as real as the actions of people of any other belief system – and beliefs have consequences.

You seem to be assuming that atheists are not capable of non-selfish behaviour.

Not at all; I was arguing that if ‘atheists’ lived according to the tenets of their evolutionary belief system, they would be having loads of children, rather than perhaps reluctantly having one or two and they would be ultra-conservative and be appalled at modern leftist PC ideology – at least within their own culture.

Any non-selfish, purely altruistic act with no hope of ever being recompensed comes from the fact that we are made in the image of the Creator. Just as ‘atheists’ don’t live according to their supposed beliefs on this issue, the same applies to many other areas, like altruism. Why do they do that if they have evolved via a process of billions of years worth of struggle and death? Haven’t they heard of ‘survival of the fittest’? (That is actually an over-simplification of what goes on – sometimes the fittest aren’t the ones who survive, but the ones best suited to short-term environmental factors.)

I suspect that Catholics and Muslims have more children than ‘atheists’, but I was just making the simple point that ‘atheists’ ought to be having large families. You would think that their genes would ‘tell’ them to! In fact, many evolutionists believe that there is no such thing as free will; were that the case, they should have no excuse for having only 2.4 children, or is it 1.4 now for the natives – well below replacement level (so much for survival) – because their instincts, honed over billions of years, apparently, is to survive to pass on their genes.

The truth is that nobody lives like an atheist. To do so would likely render a person insane or to live like an animal or both.

Reply

@Windsock – That would be a possible reason, but not really when you think about it. Most people are having smaller families because of the success of ‘family planning’/’Planned Parenthood’ which came out of the eugenics of the 1920s and 30s.

The globalists have been into population control for a long time, but now, in the West, the natives are generally in decline with only immigrants nudging the fertility rate above the 2.1 children per woman replacement threshold. Japan and South Korea, with little immigration and very low fertility rates are facing a bleak future and the population of Japan is expected to see its population fall by a quarter in the next few decades. When the fertility rate is low enough, extinction is the result, so no evolutionary benefit to modern sexual mores and family values.

If the evolutionary story is true then why is cheap propaganda more powerful than evolution’s driving forces of survival and reproduction?

Maybe homosexuality is a natural gift of Darwinism to help control runaway populations.

Evolution is about tooth and claw survival. Sometimes this involves juvenile siblings being eaten by their parents or their siblings to improve the gene pool by weeding out the weakest. Darwin wrote in ‘The Descent of Man’ (1871):

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

You can see why Darwinian thinking is so dangerous to all those who are not an elite member of society, especially when it is put into practice such as the gassing of tens of thousands of disabled people in Nazi Germany or indeed unborn babies in Britain who have been diagnosed with Down’s syndrome: nine out of ten are killed and it is ‘legal’ any time before birth.

On the homosexual thing, if it is genetic, to slow population growth, then you assume that the gene(s) somehow ‘know’ there is an issue with lack of resources and switch on. On the other hand, if it really is genetic, why hasn’t the ‘gay gene’ disappeared (for obvious reasons)?

“All maybes. Just like your’s.”

I’m writing about facts, e.g. Darwin was wrong that his transitional fossils would be found in every stratum and he was right that complex organs which cannot be explained by Darwinian processes invalidate his theory (‘my theory would absolutely break down’) and that evolution-believing ‘atheists’ should behave very differently to the way they actually live. Don’t get me wrong – I am extremely grateful that ‘atheists’ don’t live like atheists ‘should’.

Why not apply Occam’s razor? It is far simpler to accept that some behaviour is caused by sin (regardless of whether there is genetic influence) and that we are more generous, sympathetic, altruistic and prepared to sacrifice than evolution can account for.

Reply

tdf, the correlation between active church involvement and the massive increase in crime is compelling, though not totally conclusive of course, but there are many other correlations, e.g. suicide, so you think ’cause and effect’ and what is the cause?; what has changed so drastically in society since the 1940s/50s? and it’s the reduced influence of the faith which has shaped our people and country.

You pose an interesting and important question about why nobody in the mainstream media says anything.

“Is it because they are afraid of their own shadows?”

In a way, yes. This video shows what is happening – http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dvd-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-ben-stein/14678032

Scientists, teachers and journalists are being disciplined if they even mention ‘Intelligent Design’ and so they nearly all toe the line and keep their well-paid jobs.

“Is it because the science moved ahead of itself, I wonder?”

It is down to the interpretation of the mounting evidence. Evolution has become in a way the state religion and it is akin to blasphemy to deny Darwin even though his work isn’t founded on standard scientific principles and there are nearly 200 years of scientific enquiry since he set sail on the Beagle.

What he did was to extrapolate from his observations about minor changes within different kinds of creature. What he observed was what we expect to see when mutations and natural selection work together – variation within the kind. But Darwin didn’t write a book called ‘Variation Within Kinds’, he wrote a book to try to explain the origin of species – every species, from a common ancestor – by using extrapolation and suggesting that the kind of changes we observe in finches and dogs can be used to explain the kinds of changes needed to change a microbe into a man.

This kind of extrapolation is similar to making the argument that if you can cycle 24 miles in a day then it would take you10,000 days to cycle to the moon. Darwin had absolutely no evidence for his claims – he admitted the serious nature of the lack of transitional fossils. His entire argument for the origin of species is based on a false premise arrived at via extrapolation from a correct premise.

Reply