Charles Darwin was not an Atheist
"Is there any way we could just start a new forum that couldn’t be accessed without a second membership to just deal with Evolution, Darwin, Dawkins etc etc." - Clambake
Change the channel. Don't click on it. Ignore it. It won't go away if you do, but by doing so it will spare you unnecessary anguish and spare the rest of us having to wade through your whiney ass responses. Win/Win.
This is how I watch cable news whenever I'm someplace that has it. I typically don't - not because I don't like the news, but because I can't stand the commercials. Every single one of them is about some old person whose body isn't working. They can't get an erection (ED), can't breathe (COPD), can't stop peeing in their pants, they've fallen and they can't get up or some other condition most typically caused by their life choices. I watch something else so that I won't be a whiney ass. Like you.
The only thing that exceeds your whiney-assedness is your lack of self control.
You have to define "God." Did the greatest minds believe in a "personal" God, that is to say, a "God" who was like a human?
More of the greatest minds than you can even imagine, believed in a Universal Consciousness. Reducing that God/Mind to a Jeehoober or whatever is ridiculous.
Who was the "God" of Gallileo, Copernicus or Bruno? Who influenced their philosophical views? Who was the "God" of their instructors?
Many were forced by circumstance to "support" Xianity, but what "God" did they really believe in? Who did "Scientists" risk heresy or apostasy for? What "God" did Bruno die for?
I quite like how Darwin approached it. "Here's the evidence for evolution. What you do with it theologically, that's your business."
For me history was what meant I didn't buy into JW fantasies. You cannot do a serious study of history without it knocking over key tenets of JW doctrine. For others it seems like science has the same effect. You don't necessarily need to replace one thing with another. One of the things I really learned coming out was that black/white thinking just doesn't really help with a lot of things. It's ok to say 'I don't know', in fact the 'don't know' pushes me to want to learn more. And that's fine I think. I'm not looking to replace God with Evolution. God is faith, evolution is knowledge. I may as well argue for a historical Achilles based on nothing but my faith in it being so. It doesn't change the results of the excavations of Troy.
Obviously evolution causes major problems if you believe that Genesis is a literal account of how humans came to be. But then any number of other disciplines and lines of evidence will present problems for you too. If you want to ban all of them from being discussed because they challenge your faith, then maybe it's the faith which is causing the problem.
We could also say that facts don't care what you believe. And "you" can include people like Darwin, who had less facts and data available to him at the time.
Great picture; great T shirt. As I've noted before, I try not to "believe' in anything. The only thing necessary to believe is to feel. The sooner we can all evolve to live an evidence based life the better we - and the planet - will be for it.
When you are trying to wake a JW up, they usually will not actually answer a question, or examine an argument, especially if they feel their faith is challenged, but will leap to something else.
It usually take only seconds before they bring up "Creation" as a proof. As they have little or no knowledge of Evolutionary Theory, and more often than not confuse it with Abiogenesis, these are not just valid topics for this estimable Forum, but I think they are vital ones.
Until the believer realizes the problems with their beliefs, i.e no proof, and the contrast with the solid evidence for what Science presents, they have no chance of really freeing their minds.
I'm surprised no one's brought up the religious views of issac newton yet - he was pretty far out there.