Evolution and Nursing

Updated:   Published

I just want to see how people feel about evolution on the nursing community. This is no way bashing thread. I just want to see if any people choose not to believe in evolution and be in nursing

GrumpyRN said:
Wow, just..... wow! I am glad I live in the UK where the theists would be seen as wrong to give negative attention to an atheist. I regularly wear t-shirts with the slogans "god is an existentialist", "religion, together we can find the cure" and "atheism, a non prophet organisation". Would not expect any problems while wearing them and would not expect my character to be defined by my atheism.

Recently read "Christian Nation, a Novel" by Frederic C. Rich. Scary stuff and gives an idea what American atheists live with.

I'll think for you.

I receive your 'thinking' with full appreciation :D

If you live anywhere but in a major urban center, it can be 'tough' to be a nonbeliever in that speaking your mind can have negative consequences.

Atheists are considered one of the least trustworthy groups, by some recent poll. Nurses were voted as the most trustworthy of professions. An atheist nurse in America has a job keeping her lip zipped. In the great scheme of things, it's not a huge deal, except once in a while.

It's also not difficult at all to politely and respectfully tolerate. That's what tolerance means, tolerating people who assign dark adjectives and terms to atheists when atheists simply don't believe in gods or a god. When you think about it, everyone is an atheist with the gods of other religions, and I only went one god further. I can't expect (without just being plain stupid) others to tolerate ME, but I can tolerate them and that's what my personal integrity requires.

1 Votes
herring_RN said:
I believe Jesus is God and died for us.

I know that is faith. Faith is believing in what cannot be proven.

It is useless to try logic regarding faith. Faith is not logical.

I also believe that at the moment of death a person who tried to do the right thing ands treat others as they wish to be treated will see the truth.

So I don't need to be rude or upset people.

I explain more only to people who ask.

The scientific method is the process of experimentation to determine what is fact.

That is why peer review is required so others can try to duplicate research. Something is only proven when an experiment produces the same result every time. Then there can be a "law" such as the "law of gravity".

There are some things science cannot explain or find an answer to. Some of those things science should not even bother trying to!

Perhaps someday we'll develop a 'means' by which to measure or study human transcendence, perhaps even to 'improve' how it is discussed, taught to children and each other. There ought to be no real need for intolerance going in either direction, because when it comes to some experiences, like mystical/religious/transcendent ones, the ones HAVING them are human beings, we all have them in common, even people like me who don't believe in gods or a god.

1 Votes
Specializes in critical care.
Quote

If you live anywhere but in a major urban center, it can be 'tough' to be a nonbeliever in that speaking your mind can have negative consequences.

Atheists are considered one of the least trustworthy groups, by some recent poll. Nurses were voted as the most trustworthy of professions. An atheist nurse in America has a job keeping her lip zipped. In the great scheme of things, it's not a huge deal, except once in a while.

It's also not difficult at all to politely and respectfully tolerate. That's what tolerance means, tolerating people who assign dark adjectives and terms to atheists when atheists simply don't believe in gods or a god. When you think about it, everyone is an atheist with the gods of other religions, and I only went one god further. I can't expect (without just being plain stupid) others to tolerate ME, but I can tolerate them and that's what my personal integrity requires.

I fully agree with this. I have a friend who is a priest and we have twice now debated whether an atheist is capable of objective morality. In his belief system, his god has laid out the rights and wrongs and that is objective. He feels atheists base their morality on societal expectations, which groom us into an understanding of right and wrong that is purely culturally based. I was extremely offended at first, at the idea that he felt I'm not capable of being objectively moral. My morality is based on "do no harm". I think that's pretty objective. But to each their own, I suppose. If I really were to be honest, I feel religion struggles desperately at identifying objective morality. But that's from the outside looking in at them all simultaneously. Who can say which is right? They all have different rules.

1 Votes
Specializes in critical care.
ixchel said:
I fully agree with this. I have a friend who is a priest and we have twice now debated whether an atheist is capable of objective morality. In his belief system, his god has laid out the rights and wrongs and that is objective. He feels atheists base their morality on societal expectations, which groom us into an understanding of right and wrong that is purely culturally based. I was extremely offended at first, at the idea that he felt I'm not capable of being objectively moral. My morality is based on "do no harm". I think that's pretty objective. But to each their own, I suppose. If I really were to be honest, I feel religion struggles desperately at identifying objective morality. But that's from the outside looking in at them all simultaneously. Who can say which is right? They all have different rules.

Well this is awkward. This post was supposed to be in response to gooselady's post 3 posts up. Not sure what happened to the quote.

1 Votes
ixchel said:
Well this is awkward. This post was supposed to be in response to gooselady's post 3 posts up. Not sure what happened to the quote.

Looks like an HTML code problem with the quote function? Anyway, I got your reply ?

The unsupportable notion that an objective morality is superior to a culturally influenced, evolving morality (whether it is objective or not) is one of many debate topics that have the Christian apologists and secularists goin' head to head. Some of these debates are very interesting to listen to, I encourage anyone of either side who is interested in debate to watch a few.

If a person isn't a believer, you'll get very specific and formal arguments that challenge your own assumptions, and vice versa. In debate, it's not about 'winning' so much as who concedes what claim.

Objective morality has been frequently debated, with Theists claiming God's objective morality is always superior and more 'foundational' than moral relativism or whatever sorry attempts humans can come up with and call 'morality' on their own.

I say it is much LESS actively moral to just follow orders than to deliberate within oneself, and contemplate, compare and contrast about why an act is or isn't 'moral'. And how exactly an act can be considered immoral. Anyone can follow orders, and history has many examples of people following grossly immoral orders while sincerely believing they were doing 'the right thing'.

When the ancient Hebrews were ordered by God to slaughter the entire Amalekite civilization

Quote
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.'

they were performing a moral act solely because God ordered it. If God says to do it, then that is the definition of 'morality'. Your priest friend would have had a time convincing you of the morality of genocide even if God ordered it. It's why the 'objective morality' argument of the Theists is such a popular and persistent debate, because it is so relevant to us modern persons trying to share a planet with competing Divine Command Theories and a growing secular population looking at all of them with growing horror.

1 Votes
Specializes in Reproductive & Public Health.
herring_RN said:
I believe Jesus is God and died for us.

I know that is faith. Faith is believing in what cannot be proven.

It is useless to try logic regarding faith. Faith is not logical.

I also believe that at the moment of death a person who tried to do the right thing ands treat others as they wish to be treated will see the truth.

So I don't need to be rude or upset people.

I explain more only to people who ask.

The scientific method is the process of experimentation to determine what is fact.

That is why peer review is required so others can try to duplicate research. Something is only proven when an experiment produces the same result every time. Then there can be a "law" such as the "law of gravity".

No, gravity is a scientific theory. The existence of bacteria, the speed of light- these are examples of directly observable things that can be called facts. Scientific theory is a higher level concept, bringing together known facts under a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous examination and repeated experimentation. These concepts remain theories because the scientific method is based on the idea of constantly searching for new information, constantly testing current theories to better understand the physical world.

As they say, science exists on the edge of knowledge. And yes, I agree that there are some things that science may never be able to explain. Our ability to understand the universe is limited by our humanity- and possibly, by the very laws we are seeking to understand.

eta- we know gravity exists, we know evolution exists. These are observable facts. The theory part is understanding HOW these things happen.

1 Votes
cayenne06 said:

eta- we know gravity exists, we know evolution exists. These are observable facts. The theory part is understanding HOW these things happen.

What a great way to explain that, thanks. I'm going to remember that for future use.

1 Votes
MidLifeRN2012 said:
Sigh .... Hell is going to be full.

So many atheists.[/quote

Telling me, as an atheist, that I am going to hell is like telling me that I'm going to be visiting the North Pole to see Santa.

Your imaginary storybook villain's lair does not scare me.

1 Votes
Fractal-5 said:

Telling me, as an atheist, that I am going to hell is like telling me that I'm going to be visiting the North Pole to see Santa.

Your imaginary storybook villain's lair does not scare me.

I do not believe in Hell, but have often thought that if there WERE such a place, it would probably contain much more interesting companionship than elsewhere! All those people deemed unworthy of Heaven might just be a lot of fun! ?

1 Votes

They say there's a Heaven for those who will wait

Some say it's better, but I say it ain't

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints

Sinners are much more fun....

-Billy Joel, Only the Good Die Young

1 Votes
+ Add a Comment