It can be generalised that way, yes. But it's a broad overgenralisation that isn't too helpful.
2007-06-02 01:42:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dharma Nature 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I wouldn't say a scientific view. I think 'psychological' is more what you're getting at.
The divide is how we look at the world. Those who value human potential do seem to be less threatened by processes like evolution, atheism, and respecting other ways of viewing the world.
And a strong case can be made, based on questions and answers here, that the most dogmatic Christians who just can't imagine purpose or morality without their Book and pastor, have a dim view of human potential. It's like all of that native optimism has been shoved off into the afterlife.
2007-06-02 01:56:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by The angels have the phone box. 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The division you allude to is strikingly obvious because even within the main stream Christian religions themselves the division exists too. The major problem is that creationists tend to be close minded and see nothing but gloom and doom where as the more open minded groups tend to be optimistic and see promise beyond the chaos and ignorance. One should take a leaf from the history of evolution which shows that there is some force that tends to send into extinction that which cannot be fitted into the adaptation of more evolved species of life. One can only hint.
Peace
2007-06-02 02:08:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by ziffa 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I can agree with what you are saying. An evolutionist is more apt to believe that the fit will survive and improve, if given a chance. Meanwhile, the creationists seem to want front row seats at the apocolypse concert, even though, they seem rather conflicted as to whether the world is an evil place, or that god is everywhere.
2007-06-02 01:51:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree. I am atheist,but posted a question about a TV evangelist that sticks to "what can you do to make the world better"and never speaks of hell,only about how to act today. The overwhelming majority of answers were"He's a phony,he doesn't talk about how wretched we are and how we are going to hell"I didn't think much would shock me at my age,but some people appear to be addicted to the" filthy hell bound sinner"and oppose a preacher who speaks of loving today,not hell tomorrow. It is truly amazing
2007-06-02 01:51:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by nobodinoze 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
the subject with some religions is, that they they replace the unknown or unanswerable or any gray section with 'god'- god is the answer to why issues are what they are. ''god'' is used to fill the void. the place as technology accepts that the unkown is basically unknown and accepts whilst it dosent continually have an answer and what ever can me pointed out can take transport of factually to an volume, backed up with learn, tests and logic. so technology accepts that it dosent have an answer for each little thing, and in the event that they are incorrect, then they are incorrect. so technology, may be something fearfull for people who're religious or orthodox. its exceedingly much sorting available faith, becuase if technology is real it proves particular ideals incorrect. and the possibility of scinence, is greater likey to be perfect and that i've got observed that maximum religious human beings turn a blind eye to it- as they concern this is going to weaken or question their faith. i'm a sikh. we've self belief in god yet no longer as a guy up interior the sky, and we are his puppets.we've self belief 'god' is the universe in case you like. we settle for we can not ever recognize precisely how creation got here approximately. yet all of us recognize that the universe or earth is like an organism that manifests itself. as a result this is the author. so god IS. god is grass, tree, sky, you, me etc. this is interms of creation. so evoution is precisely what you reported, a thought. we are able to attempt to comprehend it, wether you opt to have self belief it or no longer is a private determination. i in my view see some certainty in it. i admire all religions ideals regardless of if i dont in my view believe it.
2016-10-09 07:36:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What? Give it a rest. Just make sure your jeans are passed on.
I guess my answer is No, I don't agree. But I don't agree that the atheist conspiracy is evil either. Oh well.
2007-06-02 01:46:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by b w 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Look at our history over the past 100yrs,wars both global and national have been ongoing, sexual perversion is at an all time high, children are abused and women raped almost daily, both world wars were instigated by atheists and communists, while power hungry mogals keep poor countires down.
You say that we have advanced and have great human potential, so is this it?
2007-06-02 01:43:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sentinel 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes agree 99%
2007-06-02 01:50:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you can't see all of the people being murdered, shot, raped, children molested, raped, murdered, the drugs in our schools, the killings in and on our school campuses, and a whole hose of other evil doings, then you must be blind.
It's all over the news every day and every night.
2007-06-02 01:59:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Me 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
i don know
the thing i know that scientifically humans fall into animalae
ok then why are laws in place.Scientifically ,being animals , we can live as we like. Which can prove we dont deserve to be called animals as we are cultured.Can science explain any sort o' culture' in a dog. an so we r not
2007-06-02 01:51:01
·
answer #11
·
answered by Ahmad 2
·
0⤊
2⤋