FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


This months edition of Good News





Bikerman
I have a monthly subscription to Good News - a publication by the United Church of God in the US (it was free, they pestered me, and I fancied seeing what they were publishing).

It didn't disappoint. It contains some of the worst creationist propoganda I have seen - in a glossy magazine with a smaller booklet included on a special 'theme of the month'.


I'm going to pick a shortish article out of each edition every month and post it up here. I'll give FRIH$500 to the best rebuttal of the article posted - by which I mean a thorough demolition of it, not just a few comments. Believe me these articles are not hard to refute, so I'll be looking for style, elegance of argument and comprehensive coverage, as well as pointing out fallacies of logic and outright lies. I'll use the winning entry as a voiceover for part of a monthly video I'm producing to debunk the publication.

I'll scan/OCR the articles for convenience. Here is this month's article:
Good News magazine wrote:

How Naturalism—Rejection of God—Holds Humanity Captive

Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula. A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence. Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.

Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination. According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).

Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
I have a monthly subscription to Good News


I could suggest to anyone to try to read articles from another perspective instead of the "they are attacking us with lies" approach. If we look at the reasons behind printing the article, the audience it is presenting to and what exactly the articles are saying sometimes we can see another side to it.

Quote:
- a publication by the United Church of God in the US


Yes, I may not agree with everything either out of that publication but if anyone has different views we can write another article?

Quote:
(it was free, they pestered me,.


Free yep! Pestered not sure about?

Quote:
and I fancied seeing what they were publishing


That may be good for reading. Whether you agree with it or not is always our choice. Everyone can publish as well.

Quote:
It didn't disappoint.


I am glad. Promote reading I say!

Quote:
It contains some of the worst creationist propoganda I have seen - in a glossy magazine with a smaller booklet included on a special 'theme of the month.


Have to like that word propoganda. Why is it when we are attracted to something we . .

Quote:
I'm going to pick a shortish article out of each edition every month and post it up here.
see above Laughing

Quote:
I'll give FRIH$500 to the best rebuttal of the article posted

That might be rather tasteless? Contests and the Marketplace do need some enthusasim. Why not try promoting $ trades sure. I think that section though is more geared for fun little trades though not collecting supporters for a cause? Might want to rethink this? Is this not like buying votes? Just a thought.

Quote:
- by which I mean a thorough demolition of it, not just a few comments.


In this style of what I've seen I think in my opinion it is actually not a very 'nice' way to approach a discussion that leads to a success ending? Is Demolition very distructive?

Quote:
Believe me

No, although I consider the writer extremely inteligent, not in everything. I have to look at lots of different sources to determine truth.

Quote:
these articles are not hard to refute, so I'll be looking for style, elegance of argument and comprehensive coverage, as well as pointing out fallacies of logic and outright lies.


It is not a black and white logical arguement one might find in say a science journal so I think that statement is misleading. That is a demolition refute of this post by the way!
You can never refute these articles of biblical reasonings by this kind of argument in my opinion. I believe the article is true from the standpoint that it reflects what the bible maintains. A lot of this article has basis in what comes out of the bible and that is not a 'logic' book? So to state that the article is lies is simply not logical?

Quote:
I'll use the winning entry as a voiceover for part of a monthly video I'm producing to debunk the publication.


in the words of my old friend the auto mechanic, "what ever turns you Crank!"

Quote:
I'll scan/OCR the articles for convenience. Here is this month's article:


good article! Not sure it is all to do with satan though.
Good News magazine wrote:

How Naturalism—Rejection of God—Holds Humanity Captive

Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula. A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence. Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.

Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination. According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).

Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I have a monthly subscription to Good News

I could suggest to anyone to try to read articles from another perspective instead of the "they are attacking us with lies" approach. If we look at the reasons behind printing the article, the audience it is presenting to and what exactly the articles are saying sometimes we can see another side to it.
You can suggest what you like. The fact is that this publication explicitly attacks atheists. It calls us Satan and states that we are inherently immoral and degenerate. That isn't a matter of interpretation, that is pure and simple bigotry.
Quote:
Free yep! Pestered not sure about?
And how would you know either way? If you want to dispute my word then you should at least have some reason or evidence to do so. When I said pestered I meant pestered - 3 emails a day, unsolicited. That is pestering to me.
Quote:
Have to like that word propoganda. Why is it when we are attracted to something we . .
Propoganda is the exact word which is most suitable to describe the magazine - which is of course why I used it.
Quote:
Quote:
I'll give FRIH$500 to the best rebuttal of the article posted

That might be rather tasteless? Contests and the Marketplace do need some enthusasim. Why not try promoting $ trades sure. I think that section though is more geared for fun little trades though not collecting supporters for a cause? Might want to rethink this? Is this not like buying votes? Just a thought.
No it isn't buying votes. There are quite a few (probably a majority) posters who probably share my opinion of this publication. I would not expect someone who does not share my opinion to be interested in writing the article, so I am hardly trying to 'buy' anything. I am simply trying to encourage logical and elegant argumentation.
Quote:
In this style of what I've seen I think in my opinion it is actually not a very 'nice' way to approach a discussion that leads to a success ending? Is Demolition very distructive?
Absolutely and that is the correct thing to do. Wipe out bigotry, don't encourage or even tolerate it.
Quote:
It is not a black and white logical arguement one might find in say a science journal so I think that statement is misleading. That is a demolition refute of this post by the way!
You can never refute these articles of biblical reasonings by this kind of argument in my opinion. I believe the article is true from the standpoint that it reflects what the bible maintains. A lot of this article has basis in what comes out of the bible and that is not a 'logic' book? So to state that the article is lies is simply not logical?
The article contains many factual errors, several logical fallacies and a couple of downright lies. Those are easy to demolish and should be demolished.
catscratches
This looks like fun. I doubt my rebuttal will be very in-depth, though.


Good News magazine wrote:

How Naturalism—Rejection of God—Holds Humanity Captive

Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula.
Now I would like to stop right here and ask where this notion is coming from. I doubt that the ratio of atheists to theists would be higher in teachers than in any other profession not related to religion. Sure, atheists write textbooks, but so do Christians and Muslims as well. In this survey by Pew Forum, only 5% of the demographic answered that they did not believe in God. Unless the situation is very different in education (which I would require evidence to believe), the atheists are not dominating our classrooms and school curricula. It's the exact opposite.

Good News magazine wrote:

A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story.
Stop right there! First of all: Evolution is very important as a scientific theory. It explains how species evolve and how characteristics change with each new generation (or well, most changes take far longer time than that). It gains us a deeper understanding of how the world works. Of course it's important from a scientific perspective!

Second: Creation story? Last time I checked evolution has nothing to do with creation at all. It explains how species change over time, nothing less and nothing more. We have various different idéas of how life began, but none of them involve evolution (no sane idéa, at least).


Good News magazine wrote:
Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence.
No... they don't. Examining the creation story from a religious perspective is a job for theology, not serious philosophy. Nor education or law for that matter. I'm perfectly capable of seeing why I shouldn't murder without believing that God created the universe. In fact, I don't really see how the Christian creation story answers any moral questions at all.
Developing theories of how life began and how the universe came to is very well a job for science, but that job has nothing to do with ethics. Science never tries to tell us what's good and what's bad or what we should do. Science's job is to tell us how things work, not how they would preferably work in an utopian reality.

Good News magazine wrote:
Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.
Can't argue much with that. There is radical disagreement, indeed. Sometimes even violent, indeed.

Good News magazine wrote:
Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination.
Again, Mr. Johnson does not appear to have a reliable source for these numbers. Fact remains that the majority of the American population believe in God. Whereas that idéa does indeed exist (though it isn't a creation story), it does not appear to be in majority.

Quote:
According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).
Now if it's subject to natural selection it's hardly unguided, is it?
Besides, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with this "story" of how religion was created.

Quote:
Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself.
Again, science never says anything, ever, of how things should be. It tells us about how things are. (Or at least, how we think they are based on empirical evidence and reasoning. There is always room for inaccuracies and new evidence that forces us to refine or dismiss theories. This is its strength, not its weakness.)

Quote:
The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).
Which renders this entire article utterly pointless, doesn't it? The author is just a bloody liar anyways (ironic as it is very true in this case).

Quote:
That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).
Yeah, those damn philosophers. Trying to understand how the world works and everything. Clearly, all the answers you'll ever need are in the Bible. You don't need any other source to tell you about the world. This article being an exception, of course.
Bikerman
That's not a bad effort at all.
You picked up on some of the key inaccuracy - the normal creationist trick of conflating evolution and abiogenesis for example. You also picked up on the false assertion that the US is somehow becoming dominated by atheism when that is demonstrably untrue, and nailed the nonsense that the education/legal systems are somehow dependant on a common creation myth.
Careful on challenging 'unguided'. Actually that is one of the better definitions of evolution I've seen from a creationist. Unguided is actually fine - there is no 'direction' or 'oversight' to evolution.
I WOULD actually argue with the assertion that lack of common creation myth leads to culture war. The UK must have 20 or 30 different creation myths in the population and it hasn't, to my notice, contributed to cultural tensions, let alone war.
The main point on the next section is that he assumes that evolution is anti-religion. There are 1.15 billion catholics ( many times as many as any other Christian denomination). Catholics accepted evolution decades ago - so are they all 'godless'?

Good effort anyway - I'll not say too much more or I'll be writing an essay for the next person Smile
C.
catscratches
I didn't really mean that the differences in creation myth necessarily needs to conflict, just that is has done so and is indeed doing so today. Far from everywhere and far from everytime, though. Looking back at the statement now, it does seem like the article is assering that there is bound to be intense conflict as soon as there is disagreement, which is, as you noted, not true.

I was also about to dispute the use of 'war' to describe it but wasn't sure whether 'culture war' was some expression not meant to be taken literally, as I was unfamiliar with the phrase.
ocalhoun
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I have a monthly subscription to Good News


I could suggest to anyone to try to read articles from another perspective instead of the "they are attacking us with lies" approach. If we look at the reasons behind printing the article, the audience it is presenting to and what exactly the articles are saying sometimes we can see another side to it.


Wow... You're actually defending it.

Boiled down, it says, Evil Atheists are trying to educate our children! This must be stopped because we need them to be more ignorant in order to believe our religion.
liljp617
Good News magazine wrote:

How Naturalism—Rejection of God—Holds Humanity Captive

Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula. A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence. Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.

Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination. According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).

Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).


Where to start...

Let's begin with the idea that atheists and agnostics are the ones "dominating" textbooks. Last I checked, the state of Texas (specifically conservatives on the school board) was in the news for its antics regarding school textbooks -- actively seeking to remove evolution from textbooks, impose the idea that the Founding Fathers did not seek a secular government (rather a government guided by Christianity), and questioning the principle of separation of church and state. They even went as far as to remove Thomas Jefferson from a list "revolutionary thinkers" only to replace him with Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Granted, I'm not sure I would place Jefferson on such a list, but I certainly wouldn't put Aquinas or Calvin on there either.

And...they won the vote on these textbook standards, among others. Now, okay, that's just Texas. Slightly concerning, but it's still only a small section of the population, right? Unfortunately, no. The kicker here is that Texas is such a huge purchaser of textbooks in the US that many publishers try to base their textbooks largely on the curriculum of Texas. So in reality this nonsense from Texas school boards affects students nationwide.

Moving on...

The very first sentence in the second paragraphs is absolutely insane. Legitimately insane. From that sentence, I must assume the person who wrote the article has never taken an antibiotic. I must assume they have no issue with epidemics/pandemics, or infectious disease in general. I must assume they have no desire for HIV to be cured. I must assume they oppose the entire idea of studying genetics. It hurts the bones in my face to know people don't realize studying genetics makes no sense unless studied in the context of evolution. It's like trying to study physics without math. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (interestingly enough, an essay by a Russian Orthodox Christian and evolutionary biologist criticizing anti-evolution creationism -- Theodosius Dobzhansky).

As was stated, evolution and "creation" are separate fields, albeit related in ways. The Theory of Evolution as it stands now is obviously no creation story. I'm also unsure what "relating to your fellow creature" has to do with how you got here. What difference does it make in how you should treat people?

In the next paragraph, again we have the obvious mistake of calling the Theory of Evolution a creation story. I can't say I have too much disagreement over their use of "purposeless" as evolution doesn't have a "purpose." Following that, however, they (as always) toss in the word "random," asserting that evolution by natural selection is random, when it's clearly not to anyone who understands it at a basic level.

Following this twisted description of evolution, they put words in the mouths of those who adhere to the theory. While the Theory of Evolution does provide an alternative explanation, it's hardly the main reason people question the idea of a supreme entity as described by the Abrahamic religions.

Next we have the generic claim that without religion and the aspect of creation you cannot be moral, and further the claim that religion offers an ethical theory that can adequately be applied to reality. Again I must question: What relation does our origin have to how we should behave to our neighbors? Whether we were created by some cool guy in the sky or, as the author puts it, "randomly" cooked up in some "primordial slimy soup"...how does that determine whether or not you're going to murder that guy over there and steal his car so you don't have to take the bus to work? It's such a baseless and nonsensical view to hold, that religion is the heart of morality. There are many legitimate ethical theories that have much more justification than any religious offering.

All one need to do is glance at prison populations or the various studies done on society to see the lack of correlation between religious belief and "good" behavior.

Finally, they conclude with the idea that people only accept naturalism (what they really want to say is atheism, I imagine) so they can avoid consequences for their actions. This, again, is based on the principle that there doesn't exist any sort of moral foundation or ethical framework outside of religion. I must point to the lack of evidence for this claim and also point to, again, the dozens of studies showing evidence that religion and morality are actually not correlated. They claim there are no rights or wrongs without religion, then combine that with a twisted (incorrect) usage of the phrase "survival of the fittest" along with what seems to be an implication of egoism -- painting those who don't follow religion as only caring about themselves, ensuring their survival at all costs even if it means sacrificing the happiness of others. Anyone with brain cells can see that's not true.

If all else fails, end your article with a Bible quote that could be applied to four million scenarios and mean whatever you'd like it to mean! It's interesting people jump on you for supposedly taking the Old Testament out of context, but when it suits their interests it's no big deal to quotemine.



I wouldn't consider mine anything spectacular either. Done on a whim, so bound to have many errors Smile
Bikerman
A couple of extra facts :
the Doctor quoted in the first paragraph - Philip Johnson - is generally known as the Father of Intelligent Design. He is one of the senior people at the Discovery Institute and was responsible for writing the Wedge Document to try and get ID on the school science curriculum.
He got his ass well and truly stomped on by the Judge in the Dover Case.
Bikerman
liljp617 wrote:
I wouldn't consider mine anything spectacular either. Done on a whim, so bound to have many errors Smile

Ahh, but not many people might have the time or energy or inclination to submit anything Smile
Bluedoll
"The fact is that this publication explicitly attacks atheists." - Bikerman
I disagree with this statement. This is not a fact. The article is not attacking it is showing “how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists . . . Christian society can be badly corrupted” - Good News magazine

The article is written by Christians for Christians and is taking about how the false logic of naturalism interferes with Christian belief’s.
“The new creation story said it is not true that God created us” ” - Good News magazine

That is the issue, belief what you will however everyone deserves to here the good truth about God. This is not about science nor misguided logic, this is about naturalism declaring to Christians that God does not exist. It is not the truth.

@ocalhoun
"I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. Yes I agree with the article written in the Good News magazine. I am not defending God as he does not need me to defend but I do believe children and adults will benefit from learning about God. It is that simple". - Bluedoll
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
"The fact is that this publication explicitly attacks atheists." - Bikerman
I disagree with this statement. This is not a fact. The article is not attacking it is showing “how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists . . . Christian society can be badly corrupted” - Good News magazine
Disagree if you like, it doesn't change what the article says. I suggest you read it again.
Quote:
Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself.
That is an explicit attack on atheists (Naturalists) and it is bigoted. It is saying that 'naturalists' are, at best, amoral and don't know right from wrong (or even worse, they DO know, but they teach others so that THEY won't know).

Bigot : One who unreasonably believes in the superiority of their own race, religion or group and is intolerant of others.

A perfect and succint description.
Quote:
The article is written by Christians for Christians and is taking about how the false logic of naturalism interferes with Christian belief’s.
“The new creation story said it is not true that God created us” ” - Good News magazine

That is the issue, belief what you will however everyone deserves to here the good truth about God. This is not about science nor misguided logic, this is about naturalism declaring to Christians that God does not exist. It is not the truth.

Truth? YOUR truth you mean. Naturalism doesn't declare anything. You still haven't understood what the basic terms actually mean. What a person believes personally is not necessarily the same as what they declare professionally, or even publicly. I am a lecturer/teacher but I don't lecture my students on the non-existence of God - it isn't my professional role to do so. You, on the other hand, constantly lecture people about the existence of God with absolutely no evidence...I wonder if you would do the same if you were in a professional role, such as teacher...

If you really agree with the article then I think you are in danger of defining yourself as a bigot...is that what you really want? So much for your talk of the 'Golden Rule'.
c'tair
Bluedoll wrote:


That is the issue, belief what you will however everyone deserves to here the good truth about God. This is not about science nor misguided logic, this is about naturalism declaring to Christians that God does not exist. It is not the truth.

@ocalhoun
"I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. Yes I agree with the article written in the Good News magazine. I am not defending God as he does not need me to defend but I do believe children and adults will benefit from learning about God. It is that simple". - Bluedoll


Wow, can you get any more hypocritical? You say that things like believing science is a matter of perspective and opinion but ZOMG GOD IS TEH REALZORZ. You're implying that you have a monopoly on truth. How can you preach love and peace whilst accusing anyone else with different view - as wrong?

You exhibit the same aggression that you accuse "aggressive atheists" of.
watersoul
Ooh, really interesting topic, and quickly becoming more controversial
liljp617
Bikerman wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I wouldn't consider mine anything spectacular either. Done on a whim, so bound to have many errors Smile

Ahh, but not many people might have the time or energy or inclination to submit anything Smile


I actually just did it for fun, so you can exclude mine from the "contest"...I enjoy posting here, but I don't use FRIH$, so they would be better for someone else who's going to use them.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Good News magazine wrote:
Dr. Phillip Johnson

Good grief, is that jackass still alive? He's gotta be like 80. Last I heard he was brain damaged. Is he writing for this publication, or was he just mentioned?

This is an interesting idea. i've been struggling on content - there really hasn't been much in the news to do with free speech of late.
Bikerman
I believe he is still alive. He had a number of strokes - which, true to form, he interpreted as a message from God telling him to spend more time 'with the family' and less time on 'prideful debate'. Probably a wise move since his last publication - Against All Gods: What's Right and Wrong about the New Atheism - has barely even been reviewed outside the normal Christian sites.

I haven't seen anything by him in the 3 editions of the 'Good News' that I have...but I'll report back if I do.

The 'Good News' magazine, from the International Church of God, is available on their website:
http://www.gnmagazine.org/
Bikerman
I should just finish replying to Bluedoll before I continue with the rest:

Bluedoll wrote:
The article is written by Christians for Christians and is taking about how the false logic of naturalism interferes with Christian belief’s.
“The new creation story said it is not true that God created us” ” - Good News magazine
No, it is not written for Christians - or if it is then it has massively misjudged the readership.
There are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world. Half are Catholic. Of the rest a small minority believe in creationism and an even smaller number believe in millenialism - one of the core beliefs of this particular group. It is therefore written for a small minority of Christians.
I cannot see how you are in any position to define ANY logic as false, since you have presented no evidence that you understand the basics of logic, let alone are competent to judge the logical validity of a particular argument.
Quote:
That is the issue, belief what you will however everyone deserves to here the good truth about God. This is not about science nor misguided logic, this is about naturalism declaring to Christians that God does not exist. It is not the truth.
I don't how you feel able to comment on what is and is not truth. You have presented no reasonable arguments for or against the truth of any proposition that I can see. You simply present assertions. People who assert without evidence are not entitled to be taken seriously, let alone believed.
As for 'naturalists' telling Christians that God does not exist: You say that Christians have the right to tell everyone that he DOES exist and have a problem when Atheists exercise the same right.
You have previously talked about the Golden rule. Another way of expressing the Golden rule is - if it is OK for you to do something then it is OK for me to do it too. You do not seem to support this notion, yet you raised it...why is that?
Bluedoll
@bikerman previous post

Who do you think you are?
Anyway?

This kind of arguing on board, I disagree with.

I stated at the very beginning that although I might not agree with everything printed by the good new magazine, I do agree with the article being presented, Everyone has a right to exist and state their opinion even bikerman.

The article was talking about naturalism and I agree with what the article says and think the article stands on it own merit. I can state what I believe is true or not true. The golden rule does not imply what was stated. I disagree.

I believe also that members can post their thoughts, opinions and viewpoints on the board for discussion. I believe that although logical statements with evidence works well with scientific analyze, it is not possible to apply it so liberally in this section, let alone with spiritual matters.

Let me remind the reader, that these kinds of subjects and this particular subject is not about scientific discovery’s but is about the right to belief concerning the existence of God, which the article presented. Although this can be discussed, conclusions must be made by the individual based not on mere logical argument but also in connection with what is in they heart. These are spiritual matters not simply a science experiment.

I also believe readers can make up their own mind without the assertion that

“People who assert without evidence are not entitled to be taken seriously, let alone believed.” - bikerman

The forum board is not a court room, a science classroom nor a domain where everyone must follow the same kind of procedural logic.

In this post I am discussing serious (is always relative) subjects while bikerman's previous post was arguing pointing directly his dirty little finger at me and not to the subject but at my character as a person to be able to discuss in this section The evidence is too obvious in the post to be required to supply external evident thereof. I disagree with the previous post and consider it to be poor logical misuse.
Bikerman
You are discussing nothing.
The only point you seem to make is 'everyone is entitled to an opinion'. Well, yes, they are. We know that. That is a given. They are not, however, entitled to be taken seriously or believed, particularly when they cannot or will not frame a coherent argument.
Quote:
For instance, the golden rule , "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - debatably the most known bible verse in the world - is an accurate analysis of basic human to human interaction, and is scientifically backed, in the psychological world.

Quote:
The golden rule does not imply what was stated. I disagree.

So if we take your own definition - you are still breaking it.
You think it is fine for Christians to tell everyone their belief (God exists) but not for strong atheists to tell Christians their belief (God doesn't exist). It is called hypocrisy, bigotry and a variety of other names. It is also a contravention of the Golden rule.
Quote:
this is about naturalism declaring to Christians that God does not exist. It is not the truth.

Quote:
That is the issue, belief [sic] what you will however everyone deserves to here [sic] the good truth about God.
Bluedoll
Actually, I am discussing the fact that your argument has little or nothing to do with the subject here. It is instead pointed directly at me and the way I post. I can post the way I want, write the way I want and express the way I want! I do not accepted judgement by you regarding the golden rule nor am I under obligation to submit to your ruler-ship or even take part in the bikerman wars.

You are stating that I am breaking the golden rule. This is incorrect and I do not have to prove this to you or anyone else. I answer to God and God only in regards to the golden rule! I am subject to governments, law and even tos rules on a forum board and I've always said and will continue to say I will be under subjection to these rules like anyone else. However, the golden rule is not a rule I need to address with you or anyone else.

I will address your accusation this way and that is to say first I think you are accustomed in using manliputive means to attack zealous Christens. It will not work on me.
Secondly, I have heard this too many times. I am not saying that you or strong atheists in general can not state their beliefs. In fact, I am saying the opposite. Discuss it. However respectfully is always better, something I see you do not agree with by the tone and personal remarks you spit out at other members on this board. This has always been my coherent argument in answer to your posts.
Bikerman
As I said, you don't have an argument and simply want to post your opinions unchallenged. Whilst that may be what you want, it is not what you will get on this forum. You will, as Indi said, be challenged. If you either cannot or will not support your assertions then the reader will draw their own conclusions. That is fine by me.

As for the TOS, I refer you to the following:
Quote:
Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not imply, in a derogatory or discriminatory manner, that your culture, religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality, country and/or language is superior to any other culture, religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality, country and/or language.


In my personal opinion you have broken this on several occasions. However, I said that I would not act as a moderator in threads in which I am active, and I will keep to that.
c'tair
Bluedoll, you still haven't answered my post, why is that?

I will state it again - you claim your views are superior and anyone who doesn't share them - is wrong and yet when you receive any critique you acted as if you are suddenly attacked when in fact you aren't (any question Bikerman poses to you, you start insulting him).

I believe you belong to the christianitus imaginatus discriminatus species ie. "Christians who imagine they are persecuted" and you envision anyone who disagrees with you on any matter - a spear wielding Roman soldier ready to pierce your chest. If this gets out of hand it gets diagnosed as paranoia and you get medication.

Unless, after spending too much time on 4chan - this whole thing is an elaborate attempt to troll us and Bluedoll has a PhD in trolling Razz
Bluedoll
@c’tair&Bikerman
I think the basis of your claims that I am trolling are incorrect but to be totally honest, I still do not think I have a complete definition on the word, however perhaps you do?
If this gets out of hand it gets diagnosed as paranoia and you get medication. – ctair
This hurtful remark is pointed personally at me and is totally inappropriate.

c’tair questions,
Wow, can you get any more hypocritical? - c’tair
Answer: I am not being hypocritical. Besides you are not saying my statement is hypocritical you are saying I am. There is a difference. You should understand the difference.
How can you preach love and peace whilst accusing anyone else with different view - as wrong? - c'tair
Answer: I am not preaching. I am posting. I can certainly say what I think is right or wrong. I not accusing. I am stating with passion and conviction what I think is wrong about the subject being presented. As for love and peace, Jesus is the best authority of these things.

I will state for the record once again in regards to tos. I have 100% respect for the rules and want to try to abide by them. I do not attend nor affiliate with any religion. I do not feel my opinions or views are superior to any one else’s but I have them. I do believe that God Almighty is superior to anyone here and trust in his judgements and decisions but because all men and women are his children you can be assured that he will show understanding and mercy. I do have a right to my own belief’s and do agree with this article.



Good News magazine wrote:

How Naturalism—Rejection of God—Holds Humanity Captive

Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula. A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence. Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.

Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination. According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).

Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).
c'tair
Bluedoll wrote:
@c’tair&Bikerman
I think the basis of your claims that I am trolling are incorrect but to be totally honest, I still do not think I have a complete definition on the word, however perhaps you do?
If this gets out of hand it gets diagnosed as paranoia and you get medication. – ctair
This hurtful remark is pointed personally at me and is totally inappropriate.

c’tair questions,
Wow, can you get any more hypocritical? - c’tair
Answer: I am not being hypocritical. Besides you are not saying my statement is hypocritical you are saying I am. There is a difference. You should understand the difference.
How can you preach love and peace whilst accusing anyone else with different view - as wrong? - c'tair
Answer: I am not preaching. I am posting. I can certainly say what I think is right or wrong. I not accusing. I am stating with passion and conviction what I think is wrong about the subject being presented. As for love and peace, Jesus is the best authority of these things.

I will state for the record once again in regards to tos. I have 100% respect for the rules and want to try to abide by them. I do not attend nor affiliate with any religion. I do not feel my opinions or views are superior to any one else’s but I have them. I do believe that God Almighty is superior to anyone here and trust in his judgements and decisions but because all men and women are his children you can be assured that he will show understanding and mercy. I do have a right to my own belief’s and do agree with this article.




How is me, pointing out that people who have an irrational feeling they are persecuted, are paranoid and may sometimes need medication inappropriate? Check out that article on Wikipedia about paranoia and you will find that it agrees with me, heck, check out the subject of paranoia in any encyclopedia and you will see that what I said was a general statement, however you took it personally which I believe is a further indicator that you may have a case of paranoia.

You also continue to avoid answering me - upon me pointing our the hypocrisy of your statements - you reply with saying that a person cannot be hypocritical and that only his statements can be hypocritical. Yet you leave my question unanswered... why is that?


You say that you completely agree to an article that professes that atheists are amoral, that they have absolutely no way of determining what is right and wrong - which I personally find VERY offending and I'm sure that many other atheists, even people of other faiths, would find that statement pretty offensive.

I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your views, but like I said, have some respect for the views of others and you might find that they'll respect your views in return.
liljp617
Bluedoll wrote:
@c’tair&Bikerman
I think the basis of your claims that I am trolling are incorrect but to be totally honest, I still do not think I have a complete definition on the word, however perhaps you do?
If this gets out of hand it gets diagnosed as paranoia and you get medication. – ctair
This hurtful remark is pointed personally at me and is totally inappropriate.

c’tair questions,
Wow, can you get any more hypocritical? - c’tair
Answer: I am not being hypocritical. Besides you are not saying my statement is hypocritical you are saying I am. There is a difference. You should understand the difference.
How can you preach love and peace whilst accusing anyone else with different view - as wrong? - c'tair
Answer: I am not preaching. I am posting. I can certainly say what I think is right or wrong. I not accusing. I am stating with passion and conviction what I think is wrong about the subject being presented. As for love and peace, Jesus is the best authority of these things.

I will state for the record once again in regards to tos. I have 100% respect for the rules and want to try to abide by them. I do not attend nor affiliate with any religion. I do not feel my opinions or views are superior to any one else’s but I have them. I do believe that God Almighty is superior to anyone here and trust in his judgements and decisions but because all men and women are his children you can be assured that he will show understanding and mercy. I do have a right to my own belief’s and do agree with this article.



Good News magazine wrote:

How Naturalism—Rejection of God—Holds Humanity Captive

Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula. A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence. Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.

Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination. According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).

Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).


Why is everything a personal attack to you?
Bluedoll
Why is everything a personal attack to you? -liljp617
Not everything is a personal attack, just when they are personal attacks. I appreciate comments on the topics. But when the comment is directed directly at my person which I think I can determine for myself, I answer it as I see it.
Why are you so interested in this?
liljp617
Bluedoll wrote:
Why is everything a personal attack to you? -liljp617
Not everything is a personal attack, just when they are personal attacks. I appreciate comments on the topics. But when the comment is directed directly at my person which I think I can determine for myself, I answer it as I see it.
Why are you so interested in this?


Could you point out a couple recent examples that were blatantly intended to degrade you personally?

I'm interested because it seems you jump around points you don't want to (or can't) answer by claiming it's a personal attack, when it's really not personal at all.
pentangeli
This is a free publication hacked out by some neanderthal (or not in this case!) American Bible-Belt New Earth Evangelical Psuedo-Christians (no offense to anyone related but they are some of the most backward and guilt by association people on earth) and you've not only subscribed to it, but you are going to transcribe it and PAY people to refute its scientific integrity???? Where's the roll eye emoticon? Forget that, where's the cat's head and crucifix? I think I need to spit on something. What's the numerical value of your name in Hewbrew, Bikerman? I do believe you gain a Dawkinseque sexual quiver from butchering all and any so called 'religious' things which should, by all accounts, be completely beneath you. I also believe this is what rappers commonly refer to as "playa hatin'" (hating for status revoking rather than substance or lack thereof of). I could be wrong, but I'm not going to go and buy a load of Jay-Z records and pay you to diss my uploads. Why? Because I know it's sh*t already. I and you don't need to. Bizarre joys you indulge in here, but whatever floats your boat. Seems like fun. I wanna play. Now, where's my copy of The Emperor's New Mind gone to?
Bikerman
Why should it be beneath me? Did you read the NCES report I posted - 25% of science teachers spending class time on this sort of nonsense and quarter of them teaching this crap as a valid alternative to evolution ? It isn't just a few hicks in the mid-west - it is about 40% of the US population and a good quarter of the UK population who believe this nonsense. I call that a bit more than a straw-man type exercise.

Check the Gallop Pole for the US

Beliefs-->
1. (Creationist) God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
2. (Theistic 'evolution') Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
3. (Evolution) Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
.................1.......2......3
1982-JUL....44%...38%...9%
1993-JUN....47%...35%...11%
1997-NOV...44%...39%...10%
1999-AUG...47%....40%...9%
2001-FEB...45%....37%...12%
2004-NOV...45%...38%...13%

That is scarey.
pentangeli
I'm somewhere between 1 and 2. However dumb you believe that to be, I'm hardly a dumb person. I guess the reluctant and often deprived scientific side of me has a hard time believing that you can grapple a living cell life form from nothing, I struggle with the noncontinuous need for various limbs, fins or wings, linkless species, unevolved or extinct primates, dna/chromosomal irregularities, the chronology and expanse of rapid initial spurt compared to the seeming delay and all bets being off about us evolving at all in the last million years. Where's my third arm? Oh and of course, the homer simpson timeline (which has to be the finest cherry pick of all time). I know I'm naive about all of these issues, but that should work in it's favor against me. And yet it doesn't. A child can see that you need more people. Maybe this scientific test of religion you're looking conduct in the other thread will be more complex than you originally thought. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But while those people who write this publication are incredibly primitive, I don't believe they were ever chimps, or single cell causeless big bangbros amoeba for that matter. Also in judging what most people think and considering it scary, that rationale might have similar things to say of the devout followers of Darwin. But it's taught in schools. I first heard about these curriculum mandatory injected principals in R.E. - in between Ganesh and Amitabha and strangely enough, the continuity of fluid transitions wasn't a problem. In science we learned how to improvise expedient cannabis pipes from biros with bunsen burners. Maybe you should attack the education system rather than the undereducated. Or better yet, the content they use to educate which is often in no way any more credible or ridiculous than the crap you'll read in Bad News up there.
Bikerman
Of course evolution is taught in schools. It is one of the three most powerful theories in science - arguably number 1.
I'm afraid I DO think it is dumb to believe in creationism or guided evolution. Many people I've met start with 'Look...I'm not stupid, but.....', rather in the same way that many bigots start with 'Look, I'm not a racist, but......'. There is no but. Evolution is a fact - yes I know that we use theories in science and I'm quite happy and secure in that, but unfortunately the average non-scientist is not and they think that 'theory' means 'possible explanation'. It is obviously way more than that,

Al the things you 'struggle with' are simply variations on the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Of course humans are not evolving much, if at all. That is obvious, predictable and trivial to explain. There is no particular selection pressure operating. Once our extelligence reached a certain point then we stopped dying in huge numbers before we could produce offspring. Therefore there is no particular selection pressure operating (though that is an oversimplification - there ARE pressures, but they tend not to be linked to the genotype/phenotype expression and therefore not very important in evolutionary terms).

The evidence is so overwhelming that the only way that I can imagine anyone finding it unconvincing is that they do not wish to accept it for other reasons - religion of course being the primary one.

I don't know what you mean by the 'homer simson timeline'. There are various details of timeline, depending on the audience. I think you are probably making the common mistake of confusing the simplified and partial models and diagrams used by non-specialists to educate non-specialists, with the models and hypotheses used by professionals and experts.
I could use the same logic to say that the car cannot possibly work, because all the diagrams in my book don't show a petrol tank...
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
Evolution is a fact


Theory. My other thread notwithstanding. You'd like it to be a fact but it's a theory. By your definition and mine.
Bikerman
O yes, but the proper definition of theory allows such a high level of probability that it is indistinguishable from fact for all intents and purposes - in the same way that the theory of Gravity predicts that the day will be a certain length. You don't really doubt it because it is so obviously true.
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:

The evidence is so overwhelming that the only way that I can imagine anyone finding it unconvincing is that they do not wish to accept it for other reasons


Would the fact of the theory being implemented and constantly chopped and changed, amended and update to fit the said evidence be a good reason? Because I know that's how science works. It's not like the theory is constantly being proved more the evidence is constantly being capitulated, often with seemingly contradictory amendments? The racist comparison you made, although I know it was based on similar conjecture, was hideous btw, just saying. Whenever I hear "Well, what we DO know is..." in response to "Why did/does the..." I feel similar heartache. I think it's a pretty amazing theory. I have a lot of respect for it's longevity, but I've never believed it. Not because it challenges my religious beliefs (it really doesn't at all) but because its about as scientifically credible to even a layman as the six degrees of separation theory. To come out of my cave for a second (pardon the pun) the cellular proofreading and error toe-checking mechanisms that ensure near perfect fidelity for DNA replication pretty much make this theory impossible. And that's not my theory. That is a fact. The beautiful part about this fact is that it was kind of error toe-checking instance implemented by Science itself, much like DNA, to root out the bullshit changes and stop it from happening altogether. What's the new update on DNA. Have we changed that to suit Evolutionist theory or are we changing Evolution again to satisfy DNA? Let us absolutists know when you've hacked something up.
Bikerman
I was not making the statement AT or about you, I was making a general point. Unfortunately the racist analogy is very close to the mark. Both are based on ignorance, sustained by lies and lead to bad consequences.
I unreservedly apologise if you took it as a personal dig and will say clearlty it was no meant as such.

I'm afraid your knowledge of genetics is based on what you have read on creationist sites....that is not a good place to start any self-education. It isn't 'a fact' it is nonsense spouted by liars at the Discoery Institute and AnswersInGenesis and it has been refuted thoroughly hundreds of times. If you widen your search you will find out.
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
I was not making the statement AT or about you, I was making a general point. Unfortunately the racist analogy is very close to the mark. Both are based on ignorance, sustained by lies and lead to bad consequences.
I unreservedly apologise if you took it as a personal dig and will say clearlty it was no meant as such.

I'm afraid your knowledge of genetics is based on what you have read on creationist sites....that is not a good place to start any self-education. It isn't 'a fact' it is nonsense spouted by liars at the Discoery Institute and AnswersInGenesis and it has been refuted thoroughly hundreds of times. If you widen your search you will find out.


I'm gonna side-step the comparison of racists to creationists because I feel if I ask you to keep digging yourself out of that one you'd end up in Australia (or hell, depending upon who's reading this). Ignorance and evil are not synonymous. Your apparent religious reductionism does seem to exhibit an discriminate intolerance more suited to such analogies but I'd never made that particular link no matter how idiotic I viewed your opinions on science or religion to be. Anyway...moving swiftly on (like the bird wing! lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

I copy and pasted two parts of a line from Wikipedia as even bog-standard scientific jargon has never exactly been a forte of mine and I didn't want to insult you by using primitive terms to relay to you what I was referring to. Even though Wikipedia is hardly be all and end all of scientific knowledge, it's clearly not a creationist site. Not that I have anything against creationist sites in general. I would never carpet bomb an entire denomination or demographic of people like that. That would be prejudice. Or maybe even bigoted.
Bikerman
Unfortunately those of us who have been debating creationists for many years have a somewhat different take. Of course not every creationist is a liar - some are misguided and/or misled, and some just don't want to think about it carefully enough.
I'm actually quite happy to justify anything I write, including the racist analogy. A racist is one who has an unreasonable belief in the supriority of one race over another. Not all racists are hate-mongers or violent thugs.
A creationist is one who has an unreasonable belief in one version of history and one 'class' of religious belief/message. The racist would like to see the blacks go somewere else. The creationist would like the atheists to go somewhere else. There is one difference which is worth stating - colour/race is not a choice but religion is. However, aside from that, there are very few points of ethical/moral difference that i can see. Both can and do sometimes resort to acts of bigotry and violence as a result of their belief. I see very little ethical difference between a racist parent bringing up their children to fear and dislike black people and a creationist parent bringing up their children to distrust science, rationality, logical thought etc.
I know that makes uncomfortable reading for some, and if someone can explain where the moral/ethical distinction is then I'll be happy to consider it.
The following is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point I'm making.

pentangeli
bleeeh, and bollocks. You know it. Evil is what it is. And Evil requires intellect. A fool is nothing to worry about. Ignorance becomes evil through intellect. Hitler, Himmler etc. But again, an absolutely ludicrous comparison and I'm really not lowering myself to debate it. You can if you want.

I'm more interested to know what you ignorantly find ignorant about Creationists? That they believe in God? That they believe God created the Universe? That they believe they God created the Universe and the life in it? Because that's what I believe. In comparison to what you believe, it's something. You don't believe in anything. You have no 'something better' at all. The best you have is a big bang with no cause. It's but a theory, same level of ignorance as you judge mine to have. It's not smarter, more accurate or more intelligent because it's not even conflicting. It's not even finished/commenced! It's zero. Nothing. Nada. Zip! Basically you can't call something ignorant and not offer anything better. I mean you can, as science does, but it's a fool's errand. You can't disprove it, you've tried and failed many many times. You offer no explanation or even theory as to why it isn't so. You offer no plausible explanation as to why it's ignorant. You do not even have the common courtesy to offer an alternative. As much as you would spin in your chair if you could. The closest you've gotten is laughable! Comical and ignorant. Stephen Hawkings with his latest "God doesn't exist"? Why Stephen, did the aggressive aliens kill him? "No because gravity created the universe! We no longer need a God I had previously unwillingly allowed for" You mean gravity did all this? "Yes. It's what Einstein was searching for. It's called M-Theory". Wow, that sounds smart! What does it mean? "It means gravity is capable of causing the Big Bang" Really? Guess what my next question is Stephen! "No, I cannot hear you" *puts somebody else's fingers in his ears* Go on, Stephen, guess what my next question is! "No, nurr nurr nah nurr nurr! I cannot hear you!" Absolutely ignorant and horribly egotistical. God created everything until you give us something better. Or failing something better, Bikerman, anything!...Anything at all.

Fail. And do not dare call us ignorant when you can't even think why.
truespeed


Sometimes i wonder if there is any point debating theists.

Atheist: There is no God.
Theist: Yes there is,who do you think created the universe.
Atheist: Nobody,the potential for a universe to be created was always there.
Theist: Somebody had to create it,it can't come from nothing.
Atheist: So who created God?
Theist: Nobody,he was always there.
pentangeli
You're right, there is no point because it's always a fail. As soon as you ask the question "who created God" you start playing the end game which funnily enough is the alpha as well as omega. That game doesn't work well for you as you've just demonstrated. The only reason you then attempt (and fail to) double it back is because you have no answer that satisfies you. No answer to give, so you deflect and it comes back and guess what? We have an answer. We've always had an answer. The answer is the answer. It satisfies itself. If that wasn't the answer it wouldn't be that particular answer or even question to begin with. Any being capable of creating a universe and existing outside of the something (which it would have do) needs no cause or earthly universal logic to create it because that would still require the God but since we already believe in His supreme divine creation, we can extend this belief too and it sort of both warrants and demands it, logically, within it's anti logical definition, perfectly logically, and attempting to attribute any scientific earthly logic to it would diminish its very definition and also drag it down to the idealism of scientific reasoning, which in this particular case, and many others after it, falls flat on its arse attempting to unexplain the inexplicable without any kind of explanation whatsoever. How logical. So fail.
Klaw 2
Most things have been pointed out already.

But i noticed they mixed scientific naturalism and philosophic naturalism up with each other.

scientific naturalism:
The view that deals with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, metaphysical or religious views don't matter. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.

philosophical naturalism:
The position that all there is is nature no other supernatural stuff lige god.

Also the guy who wrote the book is a professor in law so i guess he doesn't know anything about social studies and science. And I doubt he knows the effects of evolution on the law. I doubt there are ANY. A lot of laws are older than since evolution has been commenly accepted by scientist, especially with constitutions. Though they have changed I doubt a lot of them have changed a lot.

Also they try to make evolution an "ism" to try to get equal footing with it, while it has not.
This is done by calling it darwinism,
By calling evolution a "creation story" it's not a story. Stories detail how something exactly happened, it has characters. nor does it detail any creation, it is about the origin of species from OTHER species.
For the beginning of life you'l have to talk about abiogenesis.

It's trying to demonize atheist, making atheist interchangeble with satan. And they pretend that atheists decide everything over there. If it were so they would REALLY be in for a shock.

Basically it says:
Evil satanist atheists are indoctrination our kids. We have to stop them, and make our children blind sheep who will do and believe whatever we say.

It's rather sad and worrying that there's a bunch of people like that allowed to be loose in a country like that. A country with the biggest stockpile of nukes.

Bluedoll wrote:

The article is written by Christians for Christians and is taking about how the false logic of naturalism interferes with Christian belief’s.


You do know what false is do you? I'm quite interesting what the false logic of naturalism is.
pentangeli
To re-cap the current standings:

Current lol, it's been this way since the beginning of time (it began?!?) and will always be this way and some people are just gonna have to lump it.

Religiously, God did it.
Scientifically, God did it.
Logically, God did it.
Atheistically, God did it.

1 is however, always open to suggestions. Especially from our biggest devotees, number 4. They're our favourites.
Klaw 2
pentangeli wrote:
To re-cap the current standings:

Current lol, it's been this way since the beginning of time (it began?!?) and will always be this way and some people are just gonna have to lump it.

Religiously, God did it.
Scientifically, God did it.
Logically, God did it.
Atheistically, God did it.

1 is however, always open to suggestions. Especially from our biggest devotees, number 4. They're our favourites.


Could you care to explain the bottem three? How you figered that out. I'd like to know.

But seriously where did you get that from? that's just stupid, no even more stupid that stupid. It just looks like your spouting ****.

here's a better version.

Religiously deists, God(s) did it.
Or the world has always existed or

Religiously deists, God(s) did it.

Scientifically, big bang before that we don't know.
But because the total energy is zero in our universe it is possible that it was caused by quantumn fluctuations. These fluctuations exists because certain "laws" exist.
Now I may have gotten it wrong because honestly I know very little about it. I've read/heard it somewhere and may have gotten some facts wrong.
And even if science doesn't know it that doesn't mean that god must have done it.
If we don't know that means that we don't know kothing more nothing less.

Logically, wel if you want to aproach this logically you can do it with science and wel .... see above. How to do it logically in any other way well I don't know if you can.

Atheistically (is that even a word?), some go with science but not all.
Take buddhists they bevlieve the world has always existed. And there are others who believe in something else.
Ankhanu
pentangeli wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Evolution is a fact


Theory. My other thread notwithstanding. You'd like it to be a fact but it's a theory. By your definition and mine.


Grrr!

No, evolution is fact. The processes by which evolution occurs are theory. There is a BIG difference there. It must also be noted that a scientific theory is the best, most robust explanation thus far figured... it is not just some simple guess with no weight to it.

I'll pull the classic example: do you refer to gravity as "just a theory"?? Probably not, but a theory it is.

pentangeli wrote:
To re-cap the current standings:

Current lol, it's been this way since the beginning of time (it began?!?) and will always be this way and some people are just gonna have to lump it.

Religiously, God did it.
Scientifically, God did it.
Logically, God did it.
Atheistically, God did it.

1 is however, always open to suggestions. Especially from our biggest devotees, number 4. They're our favourites.


Can you explain that little point-form list in a more compelling way? As it stands, I can't make it make any kind of sense.
Ankhanu
pentangeli wrote:
As soon as you ask the question "who created God" you start playing the end game which funnily enough is the alpha as well as omega.


I don't see how "who created god" is a fallacious question; it seems quite reasonable to me if one asserts that everything came from god, that one should then seek to understand god. If god is the answer, shouldn't one strive to know the answer??
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
Fail. And do not dare call us ignorant when you can't even think why.

Your last rant is a perfect illustration of ignorance. You don't understand the basics of scientific theory and yet feel that you are competent to dismiss it. Textbook example.

I suggest you read back over the thread and consider who has been making fallacious points, and who has not. It reads pretty clearly to me.
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
Fail. And do not dare call us ignorant when you can't even think why.

Your last rant is a perfect illustration of ignorance. You don't understand the basics of scientific theory and yet feel that you are competent to dismiss it. Textbook example.


You're the one who reads textbooks. But I'm a textbook example of dismissal you say? You? hahahaha! That's like the pot calling the kettle a Creationist. I like how you avoided that entire last post. I kind of expected you to break up every line into refutable dismissals, but alas, you'd need something better right?

Here's my understanding of your "scientific theory", I got this from a science book (I hope that's sufficient):

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

From the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", by Arthur C. Clarke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

The above illustrates why and how number 4 was arrived at. How a-theist comes into the equation and last but no where near least, how we own your every thought simply by allowing for the improbable.

Seeing how the Philosophy and Religion forums are predominantly populated, regulated, moderated and effectively bullied by Psuedo Scientists and Athiests, I was wondering, how are we all feeling about "Credo ut Intelligam" lately?

By the way, I realize I'm probably the last "religious philosopher" you haven't chased out of here yet. Fine work! But woe art thou, you see you may need more people. See, one of these days you guys are do some thinking of your own volition (probably right after I tire of the nostalgic 1994esque web 1-0 message board bickering futility), and you'll come to a conclusion maybe, that you need Religion and Philosophy - NEED IT (that's why it's your favourite hang out on here right?) You need it like you need this post and posters like me to define yourselves by. You need to subscribe to "Good News". You need Creationists. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. "If there was no God they'd be no Atheists" - Still resounding with more truth than ever. What are you even doing in here? I mean I don't post in the Health and Beauty forums... Never even considered it. So that leads the scientific theorist to arrive at one of two conclusions: 1) You're blatantly looking for an argument. 2) You're blatantly looking for God.

Shocked

You are by the way. All of you.
watersoul
pentangeli wrote:
1) You're blatantly looking for an argument. 2) You're blatantly looking for God.

Shocked

You are by the way. All of you.


You might think that but please avoid making statements such as that as if it were a fact.
"I believe all of you are" would be more correct as you have no idea what is actually motivating anyone reading these forums. I'm neither looking for an argument or looking for "God/s", I'm here enjoying the debate.

Nothing you believe can be proven, and equally, nothing you believe about the rest of humanity's thoughts/intentions can be stated as absolute fact - so your statement about "all of you" is unfortunately mistaken, if only because it does not apply to me.
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
You're the one who reads textbooks. But I'm a textbook example of dismissal you say? You? hahahaha! That's like the pot calling the kettle a Creationist. I like how you avoided that entire last post. I kind of expected you to break up every line into refutable dismissals, but alas, you'd need something better right?
There was nothing in the last posting that required dismissal because there was nothing of real content.
Quote:
Here's my understanding of your "scientific theory", I got this from a science book (I hope that's sufficient):
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

From the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", by Arthur C. Clarke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
Nothing that I would disagree with there.
Quote:
The above illustrates why and how number 4 was arrived at. How a-theist comes into the equation and last but no where near least, how we own your every thought simply by allowing for the improbable.
Nope that is a complete non-sequitur. Theists do not 'allow' for the impossible, they STATE the improbable as fact. There is a huge difference. If you can demonstrate something is true then that is one thing. To assert it without evidence is another.
Quote:
Seeing how the Philosophy and Religion forums are predominantly populated, regulated, moderated and effectively bullied by Psuedo Scientists and Athiests, I was wondering, how are we all feeling about "Credo ut Intelligam" lately?
Since I do not moderate this forum any more then this is simply wrong. The description 'pseudo scientists' needs to be justified and so far you have no justification for using it. The word 'bullied' cannot apply since all I have done is reply to your postings and refute the inaccuracies. That is not bullying, it is simply not letting you get away with posting nonsense.
Quote:
By the way, I realize I'm probably the last "religious philosopher" you haven't chased out of here yet. Fine work!
Is that a self-declared title or one which has some formal recognition?
Quote:
But woe art thou, you see you may need more people. See, one of these days you guys are do some thinking of your own volition ...........<snip>

Another rant. Without God? I believe we are currently without God so clearly the statement that there would be no atheists is wrong.
I don't need creationists. I would be quite content if they all vanished tomorrow, then i could get on with discussing some serious philosophy.
deanhills
pentangeli wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I was not making the statement AT or about you, I was making a general point. Unfortunately the racist analogy is very close to the mark. Both are based on ignorance, sustained by lies and lead to bad consequences.
I unreservedly apologise if you took it as a personal dig and will say clearlty it was no meant as such.

I'm afraid your knowledge of genetics is based on what you have read on creationist sites....that is not a good place to start any self-education. It isn't 'a fact' it is nonsense spouted by liars at the Discoery Institute and AnswersInGenesis and it has been refuted thoroughly hundreds of times. If you widen your search you will find out.


I'm gonna side-step the comparison of racists to creationists because I feel if I ask you to keep digging yourself out of that one you'd end up in Australia (or hell, depending upon who's reading this). Ignorance and evil are not synonymous. Your apparent religious reductionism does seem to exhibit an discriminate intolerance more suited to such analogies but I'd never made that particular link no matter how idiotic I viewed your opinions on science or religion to be. Anyway...moving swiftly on (like the bird wing! lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

I copy and pasted two parts of a line from Wikipedia as even bog-standard scientific jargon has never exactly been a forte of mine and I didn't want to insult you by using primitive terms to relay to you what I was referring to. Even though Wikipedia is hardly be all and end all of scientific knowledge, it's clearly not a creationist site. Not that I have anything against creationist sites in general. I would never carpet bomb an entire denomination or demographic of people like that. That would be prejudice. Or maybe even bigoted.
Pentangeli, this is awesome stuff. I have not laughed like this in a very longtime. Wonderful light relief. Sort of the subtlety of a PG Wodehouse "thriller"! And the debates also of really great quality.

I was nodding my head up and down with everything you said and what I particularly liked is the global thinking cap which leaves room for an infinitesimal world of possibilities. For me science seems to focus very narrowly only on what they can see, measure and prove, and I totally agree, they even select what they want to prove, by putting the theory first, then going out to gather data to fit the theory. Then testing the theory. Problem is of course they have not been able to prove there is no God. That has to be a great challenge for them. Even for engineers, they do have to have their science basics completely mastered, but when it comes to designing something new, their heads have to move into a creative mode with plenty of imagination in it as well. The ability to design great things, to compose amazing music, to write fine poetry, for me is a microcosmos of the Universe. Perhaps scientists can have a few theories about it and squeeze aspects of the "creativity" into a test tube, but they can't even get close to the essence of creativity.
Bikerman
Talk about the blind leading the blind? ROFLMAO
It has been explained many times but one more won't hurt:
You can't prove that God doesn't exist just like you cannot prove that there is no teapot in orbit around Saturn. You CAN disprove specific assertions about God and science has been doing that for centuries (the age of the earth, the date of creation, the order of creation, most of the rest of the creation myth...etc).
Scientists do not 'gather the data to fit the theory' unless they are dishonest and most scientists are not dishonest. Those that are get found out - just like those that make dishonest comments here normally get found out.

If you really think that the contributions of pentangeli bear comparison to the works of Wodehouse then I would suggest lessons in English Literature to go with the ones you need on science and philosophy.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
If you really think that the contributions of pentangeli bear comparison to the works of Wodehouse then you could do with lessons in English Literature to go with the ones you need on science and philosophy.
I was referring to "sense of humour", not to philosophy or religion. But hopefully pentangeli with the much broader mind AND a sense of humour may better understand my reference to Wodehouse.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
... For me science...

See, this is a major problem with your understanding. Science is not a "for me" sort of discipline, it is what it is and nothing more, nothing less. Science is a process, whether you agree with the process or not is immaterial, it is what it is. "For me" doesn't come in to play, as science is objective and not subjective.

What a scientist CHOOSES to study through science can be subjectively chosen, based on their interests and expertise, but the process and the results gleaned from it should be objective... the data is the data, and you can only conclusively say what it tells you, nothing more. You also can't ignore it if it gives you a result you didn't want.

deanhills wrote:
I was nodding my head up and down with everything you said and what I particularly liked is the global thinking cap which leaves room for an infinitesimal world of possibilities. For me science seems to focus very narrowly only on what they can see, measure and prove, and I totally agree, they even select what they want to prove, by putting the theory first, then going out to gather data to fit the theory. Then testing the theory.


You have a poor understanding of the scientific process.
We select the questions we want to ask, not the theories we want to prove. This is called an hypothesis; the question we wish to ask. The hypothesis comes in two forms, the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null tends to be the "no difference" assumption, while the alternate proposes that there is a difference, or a result that would not be expected through random chance alone; it may include an attempt at explanation for the result found, but it is, at this point, an educated guess. Null -> existing theory is right; Alternate -> Theory needs adjustment based on data

Then an experiment is conducted and data collected.

The data is analyzed and checked against the hypothesis.

If the data fits the current theory, it sits as corroborating evidence to the theory's strength. If the data says something else, the theory should be adjusted to compensate. Sometimes this means developing a whole new theory, which must better fit ALL of the existing evidence.

The results then must be checked by other scientists, who are experts in the field, for errors, inconsistencies, biases, and all other forms of subjectivity... the theory should stand regardless of one's vantage point.

Science builds the most robust explanations for the processes of the universe, from the cosmological to sub-atomic and everything in between (and a little beyond that too). There are no questions that science as a discipline shies away from; the god question is not "too difficult" and is one that's been addressed for centuries, in fact, from several directions. There are questions that specific scientists shy away from, but that is different from science as a discipline.


deanhills wrote:
Problem is of course they have not been able to prove there is no God. That has to be a great challenge for them.


The fact is, the god concept has not put forward enough corroborating evidence to be taken seriously in the light of other theories. If a theory doesn't have enough clout to stand on its own, it should be discarded.
This does not mean that elements of the theory don't have strength, but the concept as a whole does not stand and does not cover all of the data.

As has been said innumerable times, you cannot prove non-existence, but you CAN prove existence. Believe you me, scientists and theologians alike have been trying to prove god's existence for as long as science has been around, and longer. So far, no one has been able to do so. If god does exist, it's a rather conniving and obfuscative creature with a strong intent to deceive. Otherwise, it would provide or leave behind some sort of evidence of its existence. If god exists, it's gone through a lot of trouble to make sure we don't know it.

deanhills wrote:
Even for engineers, they do have to have their science basics completely mastered, but when it comes to designing something new, their heads have to move into a creative mode with plenty of imagination in it as well. The ability to design great things, to compose amazing music, to write fine poetry, for me is a microcosmos of the Universe. Perhaps scientists can have a few theories about it and squeeze aspects of the "creativity" into a test tube, but they can't even get close to the essence of creativity.


Keep in mind that psychology is a fairly young science. It hasn't had time to address all aspects of human congnition; they've barely scratched the surface. I have full confidence that, in time (perhaps not in our lifetimes), these processes will be understood. We've only just begun to understand the brain, and there is MUCH yet to learn.
deanhills
Ankhanu. Thank you for your detailed explanations, which I value very much. And I am not saying this sarcastically. I am obviously not a scientist. Not even close to it. I don't have a handle on the jargon you use. But are you really saying that all of us have to go out now and study all the jargon and get with it so we can talk EXACTLY your language, and your language only? Isn't that restricting you a little? As basically it would then mean that scientists would only be able to talk to other scientists, not to any of the other people out there, or if you do talk to them, since they can't understand your language, they can't possibly know? Doesn't that put you into an ivory tower of sorts and exclude most of the rest of the world from your Universe?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
If you really think that the contributions of pentangeli bear comparison to the works of Wodehouse then you could do with lessons in English Literature to go with the ones you need on science and philosophy.
I was referring to "sense of humour",
So was I.
Quote:
not to philosophy or religion.
Nor was I - those are other things you need education in.
Quote:
But hopefully pentangeli with the much broader mind AND a sense of humour may better understand my reference to Wodehouse.
Oh I know and like Wodehouse pretty well - got his complete works upstairs somewhere.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
But are you really saying that all of us have to go out now and study all the jargon and get with it so we can talk EXACTLY your language, and your language only?

No, I presume he is saying that if you want to talk intelligently, rather than foolishly, about science then you should at least know the very basics about it.
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But are you really saying that all of us have to go out now and study all the jargon and get with it so we can talk EXACTLY your language, and your language only?

No, I presume he is saying that if you want to talk intelligently, rather than foolishly, about science then you should at least know the very basics about it.


Pretty much.

Honestly, a mark of a good scientist is being able to communicate scientific findings in plain language, at least on a basic level (obviously more complex explanations require more complex or comprehensive language). However, some basic terms must be understood contextually. Words like theory have more than one meaning, so their context is important. In lay terms, theory frequently means "guess", in science, however, it is "the explanation most/all evidence confirms". These are VERY different concepts. If you're going to condemn something, do it in context. Theory is a weak word colloquially. In science, theory is probably the second strongest word in terms of validity, second to "law", which is applied extremely sparingly.

It really comes back to the same sort of thing as "bear" being used as a noun or a verb in the "Scientific analysis of religion...possible?" thread. If a word is used in the wrong context its meaning can change dramatically, and can cause a lot of confusion.

In order to discuss concepts within a certain context, it is important to understand those concepts within that context. It may even require some internal translation.

From now on, perhaps when referring to science, instead of reading "theory" as it gets used by layfolk
you cold substitute in "best explanation" or "strongest explanation" instead. I.E. The theory of evolution -> The best explanation of evolution. Rather than reading it as "The guess of evolution"
Bikerman
It won't work unfortunately.
Deanhills is well aware of the meaning - it has been explained numerous times, in great detail - by myself on many occasions. He also knows why a negative cannot be proved/disproved - again this has been explained in great detail in other threads, as has the scientific method.
The confusion is deliberate.
Indi
Ankhanu wrote:
In science, theory is probably the second strongest word in terms of validity, second to "law", which is applied extremely sparingly.

Actually, i'd say theory is stronger than law. A law is just a statement of what should happen in a given situation. A theory is an explanation of why things happen. Theories lead to laws, but laws don't lead to theories.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But are you really saying that all of us have to go out now and study all the jargon and get with it so we can talk EXACTLY your language, and your language only?

No, I presume he is saying that if you want to talk intelligently, rather than foolishly, about science then you should at least know the very basics about it.
But then this is not a science Forum Bikerman. Or is it? And my point was that if you want to insist that those who discuss religion and philosophy with you do that on scientists' terms including using exact terminology that scientists are happy with, that you will exclude quite a large number of people from the discussions.
Bikerman
And my point was that you have already had the terms explained to you many times, so saying 'scientists can't prove God exists' is rather asinine.
Ankhanu
My point is that it's important to understand that which you renounce. Otherwise, you operate in ignorance.
Bikerman
I don't have a problem taking time to explain concepts if a poster is genuinely unsure or ignorant about those concepts. What I DO have a problem with is repeating the explanation again and again for the same poster.
Bluedoll
Quote:
Honestly, a mark of a good scientist is being able to communicate scientific findings in plain language, at least on a basic level (obviously more complex explanations require more complex or comprehensive language). However, some basic terms must be understood contextually. Words like theory have more than one meaning, so their context is important. In lay terms, theory frequently means "guess", in science, however, it is "the explanation most/all evidence confirms". These are VERY different concepts. If you're going to condemn something, do it in context. Theory is a weak word colloquially. In science, theory is probably the second strongest word in terms of validity, second to "law", which is applied extremely sparingly.

It really comes back to the same sort of thing as "bear" being used as a noun or a verb in the "Scientific analysis of religion...possible?" thread. If a word is used in the wrong context its meaning can change dramatically, and can cause a lot of confusion.

In order to discuss concepts within a certain context, it is important to understand those concepts within that context. It may even require some internal translation. - Ankhanu
That works for me on all scientific subjects and happy that I can keep such good company. Not all topics need to be related to though in the terms of Scientific as in analysis of religion.
I could refrain from these kind of topics.
When I see denouncement being applied “Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking” –Good News? and this demented logic openly being supported, I do refrain from science.
I for one will continue to offer my thoughts with words on these subjects in a non-science context.

My point is that it’s important to understand that which you renounce. Otherwise, you operate in ignorance. - Ankhanu
It is clear it is not science that needs to be renounced. Anytime, anyone turns anyone else away from the opportunity to learn about God by brainwashing them into believing that science holds the truth and the bible does not can be challenged. The good news is the bible does contain the truth using words of non-scientific context.
Bikerman
Quote:
It is clear it is not science that needs to be renounced. Anytime, anyone turns anyone else away from the opportunity to learn about God by brainwashing them into believing that science holds the truth and the bible does not can be challenged. The good news is the bible does contain the truth using words of non-scientific context.
If I understand that correctly, you are saying that you can challenge the statement that science is true and the bible is not. How are you going to do that? Simply asserting it doesn't count as a challenge. It is trivially easy to demonstrate that the bible contains much which simply cannot be true, and I'll be interested to see you challenge it.
Here's a starter for 10 points.
Where was Jesus born? Obviously Luke's account is a fabrication. The romans didn't require people to return to the 'home of their fathers' for a census - the census was carried out where people lived, so that they could be taxed on property and land. So Luke has invented a story just to get Jesus born in Bethlehem to fit with the Old Testament. There are more problems with the various accounts:
Quote:
"Luke told a tale of angels and shepherds, bringing some of the humblest people in society to Bethlehem with news of Jesus’ future.
Instead of shepherds, Matthew brought Wise Men, following a star in the East and bringing gifts…In one version, there are simple shepherds, the other, learned Wise Men.

Quote:
Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth from where they traveled to Bethlehem for the Roman census (Luke 1:26; 2:4). After Jesus was born, Joseph took his family from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for up to 40 days (Luke 2:22), and from there straight back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).

But Matthew says Jesus was born in a "house" where Joseph’s family lived in Bethlehem. And after the birth of Jesus they lived there for up to two years (Matt 2:16)! After the Magi leave them, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt and stay there until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph was told in a dream to return to the land of Israel, and he headed for his home in Bethlehem of Judea. But since he was afraid to go there, he settled in Nazareth (Matt. 2:21-23), for the first time!


Then none of this actually fits with the facts that we do know. The only census around that period was the Census of Quirinius in 6/7CE, yet Luke has it during the reign of Herod the Great.
Herod the Great died in 4 BCE - ten years earlier. These are solid facts.

So, who do you believe?
Bluedoll
No you are understanding me incorrectly. Challenge science no.
I hope this is makes it clear.

I did not mean, I would challenge science versus the bible. What I meant specifically and clearly was I would not go down this road with you. You need to travel it alone or with others that choose to go with you.
No, I am will not challenge the statement that science is true and the bible is not from a scientific point of view. I meant I will simply not do this with you on these biblical questions.

I believe in God. There is nothing you can do or say to persuade me otherwise. Perhaps another word for challenge in this case would be better so that clarity does not suffer. I object. I object to your posts about biblical questions because of the intention to mislead. I am serious about my belief in God and for these kinds of subjects, this is all that really concerns me.

I do not mind saying I do not know! I do not know why there is a discrepancy. Is it a translation thing? Is it as you suggest something is wrong regarding Luke or could it be it was put there for a reason? I am not sure I know but that is an excellent question, one to ask a bible scholar. There are lots of questions.
Why was a traitor picked as one of the apostles? Why does God pick fallible common men and not a religious genius? There are thousand of questions a person could ask and all good questions. I do not have the answer to each and every question but can say that I trust in Jesus Christ even without a scientific explanation.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
...There are thousand of questions a person could ask and all good questions. I do not have the answer to each and every question but can say that I trust in Jesus Christ even without a scientific explanation.


...again the blind faith in Jesus, i truly envy your apparent enlightened position in life, all I know is that everything I've achieved in the last 20 yrs has been through my own hard work and never through any divine intervention, lucky you Smile
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
No you are understanding me incorrectly. Challenge science no.
I hope this is makes it clear.

I did not mean, I would challenge science versus the bible. What I meant specifically and clearly was I would not go down this road with you. You need to travel it alone or with others that choose to go with you.
No, I am will not challenge the statement that science is true and the bible is not from a scientific point of view. I meant I will simply not do this with you on these biblical questions.
But what you SAID was:
"Anytime, anyone turns anyone else away from the opportunity to learn about God by brainwashing them into believing that science holds the truth and the bible does not can be challenged."

Now, I admit that it is difficult to extract the exact meaning from that, but I took it to mean:

"Anytime anyone turns anyone else away from the opportunity to learn about God, by brainwashing them into believing that science holds the truth and the bible does not, they can be challenged."

Is that an unfair interpretation?

If not then who is supposed to do the challenging if not you? If not you then why commit someone else to do the challenging?- that seems a bit presumptuous.

Quote:
I believe in God. There is nothing you can do or say to persuade me otherwise. Perhaps another word for challenge in this case would be better so that clarity does not suffer. I object. I object to your posts about biblical questions because of the intention to mislead. I am serious about my belief in God and for these kinds of subjects, this is all that really concerns me.
Your objection is noted and disregarded. It has been explained many times that this is a debating forum. You also were passionately arguing that posters should be free to post anything they like within the TOS. Your objection is therefore puzzzling and apparently contradicts your previous position.

If you think I am misleading then you should say why and where. If you can't then it is simply an untrue assertion. There is nothing in my posting, that I know of, that is factually incorrect. You seem to think that facts mislead - I beg to differ.
Quote:
I do not mind saying I do not know! I do not know why there is a discrepancy. Is it a translation thing? Is it as you suggest something is wrong regarding Luke or could it be it was put there for a reason? I am not sure I know but that is an excellent question, one to ask a bible scholar. There are lots of questions.
But this is a simple matter of fact and the only possible conclusion is that Luke made it up - no other explanation can possibly account for the facts. Jesus cannot have both been born in 6/7 CE and in 4 BCE can he?

PS - I did make one mistake which I just spotted reading back.
Luke puts the date of birth during the Census of Quininius (6/7CE) and Matthew puts it in the reign of Herod The Great (in or before 4BCE). I mistakenly swapped them at the end of the previous posting - careless error.
Bluedoll
There are good hearted people looking for comfort or maybe answers to thier spirtual questions. They are looking for God. They want to understand the truth.
Those that go out of thier way to convince people to not believe in God are in serious trouble. A persons personal spirtuality is none of thier business, they can hurt someone by doing so and they may have to answer for it. Sooner or later God will deal with this in his own way and time.

Quote:
Dr. Phillip Johnson, retired emer­itus professor at Boalt School of Law at the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, wrote an insightful book, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (1995). His book helps us understand how easily influenced we are by agnostics and atheists, who write many of our school textbooks and dominate many of our classrooms and school curri­cula. A Christian society can be badly corrupted by educating its young people in Darwinian evolution. Dr. Johnson describes how an entire societal culture is shaped by Darwinists:

Darwinian evolution is not primarily important as a scientific theory but as a culturally dominant creation story. Every culture must have a creation story as a basis for things like philosophy, education and law. If we want to know how we ought to lead our lives and relate to our fellow creatures, the place to begin is with knowledge about how and why we came into existence. Where there is radical disagree­ment in a commonwealth about the creation story, the stage is set for intense conflict, the kind of conflict that is known as a 'culture war'.

Dr. Johnson shows that natural­ism has corrupted Western societ­ies:

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a very different creation story replaced the traditional one, first among the most highly educated elites and gradually in the society as a whole. The new creation story said it is not true that God created us; on the contrary, our ancestors created God out of their prescientific imagination. According to the new story, all living creatures evolved by an unguided, purposeless material process of random genetic change and natural selection.{pp. 12-13).

Thus, the logic goes, God doesn't exist and there is no need to allow for or consider Him in our thinking. Satan the devil would have us believe that we came into being by random chance from primordial slime and that there is no all-powerful Cre­ator or laws to live by—so that we conclude we can do whatever we feel like doing without moral restriction.

Naturalism—disbelief in anything beyond the natural world around us—is a subtle way to reeducate peo­ple, freeing them from feeling guilty over sin by substituting immorality or amorality for godly morality. With no real standards of right and wrong, we truly are in a position of survival of the fittest and everyone for himself. The Holy Bible rebukes natural­ism: "Let God be true but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). That has never stopped Satan, who cunningly has taken humanity hostage through "philosophy and empty deceit" (Colossians 2:8 ).
Bikerman
What arrogance.
I suppose it never occurred to you that there may be good-hearted people being conned into believing in something that doesn't exist by parasites who prey on the vulnerable? No, clearly you cannot contemplate that. Well I can, and it isn't happening here.
You have no right to use words like truth, much less claim it for yourself and your mythology - you don't even know how to go about establishing what is true. All you have is blind faith.

The majority of people in this world do not share your belief and your threats of divine retribution are both offensive and ridiculous. If you use ridiculous language then expect ridicule.
If you don't want your views exposed to criticism then keep them to yourself. If you post them here then they WILL be critically analysed.

PS - I don't think your God likes people telling him what he will or will not do...tut tut.

luke 6 wrote:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


The real God IPU is pretty angry with you. She doesn't like arrogant people - it makes her horn itch.
Fortunately for you it is another Holy day today - the Feast of the one true Pizzza (31/10 = 41, plus 1 ham and pineapple pizza - 42). No pizza for you, though. IPU says you can go suck a lemon off the top of a mushroom and pepperoni pizza.
c'tair
I've always wondered why people hold blind faith to be such a virtue when it should be condemned as one of the greatest sins - speaking technically.

There is nothing good or glorious about blind faith, it is actually a pretty gruesome things because faith can be changed and someone who just believes blindly can be made to do very bad things. I think that you, Bluedoll, are an excellent example of this - you believe you are doing much good, but you're actually putting forth much hatred towards anything and anyone who doesn't agree with you ie. naturalism, atheists or people with different beliefs because they are "wrong, can't know what's right and wrong and are led by satan". Your words affect everyone - are you saying that me, Bikerman and all the other nonbelievers on this board have no morals PLUS we have no way to even conceive of morals ie. right and wrong because we aren't part of your faith? That's a pretty offensive statement, so I find it hard to believe You, when you speak about love and peace and then you offend people by telling them they are not only immoral, they just can't be moral because they believe something different than you do.
Bluedoll
It is not blind faith that I trust in God though in some things I do need faith. I know without any doubt God does exist.

I agree with this passage in the bible and never said nor feel I am perfect but God is. I am not arrogant and I am really hurt by people on this board calling me names like arrogant , misquoting and twisting my words around. Sad

It is not attacking to call for divine intervention. I would never tell God what to do.

By writing

“Sooner or later God will deal with this in his own way and time.” – Bluedoll

does not imply I am attacking. Yet you wrote I did.


This is very hurtful twisting people’s words around. I also feel it is hurtful and wrong to use scripture for the purpose of running someone down which is what is happening . This is the very reason you say is why you are against clergy.

It is made clear you do not believe in the bible or believe in God yet you use it to try to control others. You try to shame them so you can win your argument on this board. That is really morally wrong.

I never told anyone they could not have a belief. I will say though that expressing your opinion about clergy (religion) is one thing and may sometimes even be justified. The fact is some people go beyond that and actually attack God calling him down, attacking his name and not only that but going out of their way to convince people they come into contact with not to believe in God. This practice is hurtful and wrong. That kind of practice really acts like a counter religion.

I do pray for divine intervention for God’s will to be done. Anyone reading this please pray for it as well. Let God decide what is wrong and right in these matters. -Bluedoll Very Happy

I am not concerned that you believe something different or do philosophy but I do believe you should leave people be. You go out of your way to misquote and try to manipulate, attacking them personally with name slinging if they disagree with you and also most importantly purposely try to undermine their spirituality by twisted logic. A persons faith is none of your business. It is God’s business.
Ankhanu
bluedoll wrote:
The fact is some people go beyond that and actually attack God calling him down, attacking his name and not only that but going out of their way to convince people they come into contact with not to believe in God. This practice is hurtful and wrong


How could questioning god be in any way wrong? It seems to be an important aspect of both belief and non-belief through the centuries; questioning belief leads to enlightenment, whether that enlightenment be found in recognizing the lack of a god, or in greater understanding of your form of divinity. Some of the greatest works on the subject of religion have been penned after a period of questioning.

Questioning the existence of god is absolutely a right thing to do, it reveals much about both your own and god's character.

I'll address this more later, I've run out of time...
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
And my point was that you have already had the terms explained to you many times, so saying 'scientists can't prove God exists' is rather asinine.
Ankhanu went to a lot of trouble to explain the basics to me earlier in this thread. And I thanked him for it. No one else has explained the terminology to me. It could have been explained in general terms to others, but not directly to me. So that claim is false.

By the way, first you take over Ankhanu and my discussion, and then you don't respond to the main point I was making in my discussion with him. So basically you hijacked and nixed Ankhanu and my discussion at the same time.

With regard to your last sentence, scientists can deliver plenty of arguments but they cannot present irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of doubt that there is no God. Calling my position "asinine" (stupid) is also not factual proof. And not very scientific either.
liljp617
Bluedoll wrote:
It is not blind faith that I trust in God though in some things I do need faith. I know without any doubt God does exist.

I agree with this passage in the bible and never said nor feel I am perfect but God is. I am not arrogant and I am really hurt by people on this board calling me names like arrogant , misquoting and twisting my words around. Sad

It is not attacking to call for divine intervention. I would never tell God what to do.

By writing

“Sooner or later God will deal with this in his own way and time.” – Bluedoll

does not imply I am attacking. Yet you wrote I did.


This is very hurtful twisting people’s words around. I also feel it is hurtful and wrong to use scripture for the purpose of running someone down which is what is happening . This is the very reason you say is why you are against clergy.

It is made clear you do not believe in the bible or believe in God yet you use it to try to control others. You try to shame them so you can win your argument on this board. That is really morally wrong.

I never told anyone they could not have a belief. I will say though that expressing your opinion about clergy (religion) is one thing and may sometimes even be justified. The fact is some people go beyond that and actually attack God calling him down, attacking his name and not only that but going out of their way to convince people they come into contact with not to believe in God. This practice is hurtful and wrong. That kind of practice really acts like a counter religion.

I do pray for divine intervention for God’s will to be done. Anyone reading this please pray for it as well. Let God decide what is wrong and right in these matters. -Bluedoll Very Happy

I am not concerned that you believe something different or do philosophy but I do believe you should leave people be. You go out of your way to misquote and try to manipulate, attacking them personally with name slinging if they disagree with you and also most importantly purposely try to undermine their spirituality by twisted logic. A persons faith is none of your business. It is God’s business.


You whine a lot Confused
Bluedoll
@Ankhanu I appreciate your quality posts. Questions are never wrong, I agree. Make no mistake on what clearly I am about to do for demonstration purposes only.

Do you have a father Ankhanu?
What is he like?
What does he do?

The above questions are all questions and respectfully asked. Alternately . . . Twisted Evil

So you little bastard where is your mythical dad?
He sounds like a prick to me, is he like invisible?
What good is he?

The above questions are not respectful.

______________________


These exact question are not to be found on this board. You can be assured though that these kinds of questions are to be found. In fact they are worse. They are asked with disrespect to God. The person on the board is disrespected as well.

I agree it is enlightening to ask/answer questions but in these spaces there are questions I would care not to answer! I will continue to challenge/whine about it! @Liljp617 Puff
liljp617
Respect is earned. I don't respect your god nor do I respect your specific religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not worthy of being placed on a pedestal. Learn to deal with it.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Respect is earned. I don't respect your god nor do I respect your specific religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not worthy of being placed on a pedestal. Learn to deal with it.
Therefore, you are only willing to discuss religious beliefs (that you don't respect) on your terms only? If you don't respect religious beliefs, why are you discussing those with the religious at all? Won't it be better to exclude the religious from discussions about religion (since you don't have respect for their beliefs and they don't seem to respond on your terms), and only discuss religion with other atheists? Or do you really need to not respect their beliefs, in order to authenticate your own beliefs?
catscratches
Respect and tolerance are different things. I'll tolerate your beliefs as long as they don't harm anyone. I won't respect them, though, unless that respect is earned.
Ankhanu
I'm with lil and catscratches, actually. Respect is earned; though a modicum of respect should be afforded all beings intrinsically. That said, religion should not be afforded any more respect by its nature of "belief" than any other concept, and should be subject to the same level of criticism as any other belief or behaviour. If it can stand to criticism, so be it; if it cannot, it should not be given undue respect simply because it is believed.

If religion should be respected, so should things like Holocaust denial. It's a slippery slope, and potentially just as dangerous.

Excluding the religious from religious discussion is absolutely ridiculous. Religion, whether one believes in gods or not, is a fascinating topic. At the very least, religions make for some crazy and interesting stories and concepts. Genuine belief is also pretty interesting… understanding why people believe what they do, and encouraging those who don't know why they believe what they believe to actually think about it can be very satisfying, whether they find strengthened faith, or find a lack of faith. When someone can articulate their beliefs, it's a very enlightening thing, though it is unfortunately rare.

Bluedoll wrote:
Do you have a father Ankhanu?
What is he like?
What does he do?


This is, in my opinion, a flawed comparison to religious belief. You're working with concrete ideas to parallel the supernatural. Accepting one does not reasonably superimpose upon the other.

Now, on to what I had to leave behind this morning…
Bluedoll wrote:
I know without any doubt God does exist.


I am very interested in an articulation of how you can know, without any doubt, of god's existence... and I'm not talking about purely subjective reasons like "I've felt it" or "I know in my heart", unless those reasons are further explained in some more objective manner; something that can be understood by people who aren't you.

Personally, I can't relate to "I just know", except in terms of something like food preferences. I've just known that I didn't like certain foods for years, only for it to be revealed later that I was wrong. Likewise, "I just know" is just as fallible in questions of religion and belief.

Likewise, I'm sure you would also agree that "I just know" or "it's been revealed to me" just doesn't cut it. You don't accept it from others, how could you expect it to be accepted from you? You don't accept that god doesn't exist based on "I know it's true", you also don't accept the religion of the ancient Greeks (or the slightly modified Romans) because they knew it was true; you don't accept the existence of the Norse gods based on it either, nor the Japanese gods... Chinese? There are countless examples.

Though I'm talking to Bluedoll here, I absolutely open this up to any believer of any faith. I'm genuinely curious… and I genuinely encourage you to think about your belief, though I care not whether you find strengthened or weakened faith; what I'm interested in is personal honesty and the sharing of experiences.

Bluedoll wrote:
I also feel it is hurtful and wrong to use scripture for the purpose of running someone down which is what is happening .[/b] This is the very reason you say is why you are against clergy.

It is made clear you do not believe in the bible or believe in God yet you use it to try to control others. You try to shame them so you can win your argument on this board. That is really morally wrong.


I disagree. Scripture is fair game, and exploring its contradictions and its darker aspects not disrespectful, but revealing. Again, this goes back to the first part of this post concerning respect, and it comes back to the last sentence of the prior section, honesty. Ignoring the negative passages while highlighting the positive to make a point is, well, dishonest. The Bible says a lot of things, and many of them are self-contradictory… pointing this out is not a means of "winning an argument", but bringing the full spectrum of the subject to light for consideration. It's true that it can be very difficult to reconcile these discrepancies, but, well, this is a part of religion and should be addressed and assessed in its discussion.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Respect is earned. I don't respect your god nor do I respect your specific religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not worthy of being placed on a pedestal. Learn to deal with it.
Therefore, you are only willing to discuss religious beliefs (that you don't respect) on your terms only? If you don't respect religious beliefs, why are you discussing those with the religious at all? Won't it be better to exclude the religious from discussions about religion (since you don't have respect for their beliefs and they don't seem to respond on your terms), and only discuss religion with other atheists? Or do you really need to not respect their beliefs, in order to authenticate your own beliefs?


The difference between tolerance and respect has been explained to you close to a million times on these forums. The difference between respecting a specific belief and respecting the right to belief(s) has been explained to you more than a million times on these forums. They are not difficult concepts to understand. If you think they are, well, you've had them explained to you many times, so you should be quite familiar with the differences by now.

The overall point is a religious belief is no more inherently deserving of respect than the belief that your favorite sports team is the best in [insert professional league] or a certain brand of shoe is the most comfortable. The overall point is that a religious belief is rightfully subject to as much criticism as any other belief. If you put your beliefs out in the open, then expect some people to disagree with you and place them under scrutiny...if a person can't handle this scrutiny, then they should keep their beliefs in their mind or share them only with people who 100% agree with them. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, so they say.

Until it can be shown why I should respect specific Christian beliefs, I'll withhold my respect. Until it can be shown why I should respect a being such as the Abrahamic god, I will withhold my respect. Again, respect is earned. You don't get placed on a pedestal or held in high-regard simply by being. If that was the case, "respect" would no longer be an ideal to really strive for.

This has also been explained a million times on these forums.

Yes, I'm aware of the exaggeration of using a million.
Bluedoll
@ Ankhanu

I agree with the respect thing being earned – “what are the facts”. I get that.

I also agree with respect should be afforded all beings intrinsically as well.

I relate well to catscratches comment but poorly to liljp617. Why?
I do not detect any common respect coming from that direction and not taking anything off him or want to learn anything from him either.. so he can deal with that!

I agree with Dean’s comments and ask why are absolutely non-believers discussing God in the first place? It does not make sense to me. I wrote, let God set this right. Am I not allowed to write this in their view so that they need to argue with that? I get back I am attacking them? How can I be attacking if they do not believe in God? Then, I get scripture aimed at me from someone who states they do not believe in it? Do not tell me this is for discussion. This is only arguing horse manure.

Mad The truth is zero common respect has been shown here and then it is called good debate? I agree it is a fascinating topic but that opportunity does get killed big time in p/r. Keep in mind if you disagree here (which is what they say should be done) you get personal comments thrown at you with a lot of attitude, not towards the debate but directly at you! I am not talking about respecting a thesis, I am talking about a little common respect for a human being using a message board. Just deal with it they say and do not dare utter a sound or be labeled a whiner and be told to leave the board and go somewhere else! This is not debate!

Smile You seem sincere Ankhanu. Sharing of experiences to explain why I know God does exist and it is not just some vague belief, might be possible. But first respect must be established. I never once said anything about respecting religion nor would I want to. It has shown its ugly head much too often. I will never discuss God without respect for God. It is just is not possible.

I understand your last paragraph and it is hopeful because it contains the element of respect for if nothing else - - - - truth, honesty, but lost confidence concerning “Scripture is fair game” for this is not a game, it is very real, really serious where God is concerned, not something to be toyed with.

I have time constraints too. I also need to as well see some changes occurring on this board or will not be sharing any of my personal experiences. Right now, I have just too much distaste for the ugly abuse.
Ankhanu
I used "game" in this sense not as in an amusement or light activity, but in the "quarry" sense, a target which is open to pursuit. "Fair game" as in it is not beyond reproach or discussion.
liljp617
Bluedoll wrote:
I relate well to catscratches comment but poorly to liljp617. Why?
I do not detect any common respect coming from that direction and not taking anything off him or want to learn anything from him either.. so he can deal with that!


I'd appreciate it if you would respect what I say and think and not tell me to just "deal with it." I think you should respect my posts and want to learn from the things I write.
tingkagol
Bluedoll wrote:
Those that go out of thier way to convince people to not believe in God are in serious trouble. A persons personal spirtuality is none of thier business, they can hurt someone by doing so and they may have to answer for it. Sooner or later God will deal with this in his own way and time.

First of all, please don't be offended.

Second, I'm sorry to say it can be everyone's business in this forum if they choose to or should they feel the need to comment on it. That's how forums work, and this is a philosophy forum- no less. I know everyone has been saying this, but yes, if you don't want anyone to discuss, question, and criticize your beliefs, then don't post them. That's simple enough I guess.

Third, I know the above quote was directed at someone else, and I'm definitely not one to go out of my way to convince religious people what or what not to believe. But I have to say that implying people who do "may answer for it" or that "sooner or later (they) will be dealt with by God in His own way and time" is rather offensive, especially to people who do not share your beliefs and are just genuinely questioning / debating your assertions.

Follow the questions / critiques and answer them if you can. Rejoice if you are proven correct, likewise, concede if you have been proven wrong. Do not whine about how the questions or counter-arguments are too hard to refute or supposedly 'hurtful'. They are not- and honestly I find the whining and false accusations in this forum really annoying to read.

Again, please don't take offense. I just hate how the majority of the recent topics have sidetracked or come to an abrupt end because the other party takes offense.

That is all and thanks for reading. Smile
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
It is not blind faith that I trust in God though in some things I do need faith. I know without any doubt God does exist.

I agree with this passage in the bible and never said nor feel I am perfect but God is. I am not arrogant and I am really hurt by people on this board calling me names like arrogant , misquoting and twisting my words around. Sad
I have never misquoted you. Any quote I use is exactly what you said.
Quote:
It is not attacking to call for divine intervention. I would never tell God what to do.
By writing
“Sooner or later God will deal with this in his own way and time.” – Bluedoll
does not imply I am attacking. Yet you wrote I did.
No I didn't. I said that you were threatening Divine retribution, which is what you wrote.
Quote:
This is very hurtful twisting people’s words around. I also feel it is hurtful and wrong to use scripture for the purpose of running someone down which is what is happening . This is the very reason you say is why you are against clergy.
Again that is YOUR opinion and it is wrong. Where have I said that I am against the clergy because they run people down using scripture? Who is twisting words here?
Quote:
It is made clear you do not believe in the bible or believe in God yet you use it to try to control others. You try to shame them so you can win your argument on this board. That is really morally wrong.
No it isn't. Pointing out to another person that they are going against their own professed beliefs is not morally wrong at all. I have absolutely no interest in controlling anyone. When people make assertions, however, I am very interested in challenging them. You do not get to select those who reply to postings - especially considering that I started this thread. You keep saying that everyone should be free to post (within the TOS) and then objecting when people do just that. Do you not see the double standards in play? It isn't up to you to determine what my motivation is, or is not, and it doesn't really matter in any case.
Quote:

I never told anyone they could not have a belief. I will say though that expressing your opinion about clergy (religion) is one thing and may sometimes even be justified. The fact is some people go beyond that and actually attack God calling him down, attacking his name and not only that but going out of their way to convince people they come into contact with not to believe in God. This practice is hurtful and wrong. That kind of practice really acts like a counter religion.
I believe that God doesn't exist so I am not attacking him. I am attacking a particular mythical version of God that appears in the Old Testament. Again, you don't get to choose what is and is not posted, and nor do I think you have the right to decide what is and is not wrong. You can do that for your own postings and actions, but nobody gave you the right to decide on the postings and actions of others. If you find them unacceptible then that is YOUR opinion
Quote:

I do pray for divine intervention for God’s will to be done. Anyone reading this please pray for it as well. Let God decide what is wrong and right in these matters. -Bluedoll Very Happy
Why would I do that? What name does God post under? I hope he is registered. I didn't see him listed in the moderator's forum, I must say...
I'll be very interested to see if God DOES intervene and what he says.
(IPU is whispering in my ear that she wants to bet you two ham and pineapple Pizzas that God doesn't post anything in this thread, but she can't today because it is a Holy Day - the Feast of the Banishment of the Purple Oyster - 2/11/2010 = 20-10=10. 10+11=21. 21*2=42)).
Quote:

I am not concerned that you believe something different or do philosophy but I do believe you should leave people be. You go out of your way to misquote and try to manipulate, attacking them personally with name slinging if they disagree with you and also most importantly purposely try to undermine their spirituality by twisted logic. A persons faith is none of your business. It is God’s business.
If they write about it here then it is my business and I will comment on it. If you don't like it, I'm afraid that is tough. There is nothing 'twisted' about my logic. You complain about people making personal comments and yet your postings are full of personal comment. What 'name slinging' have I done? Point to an example. Where have I ever misquoted you? Point to an example.
Here's a hint - personal attacks are normally of the form 'bluedoll is xxxxx'.
Comment's on postings will refer to the part of the posting and put another view or challenge to that.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
And my point was that you have already had the terms explained to you many times, so saying 'scientists can't prove God exists' is rather asinine.
Ankhanu went to a lot of trouble to explain the basics to me earlier in this thread. And I thanked him for it. No one else has explained the terminology to me. It could have been explained in general terms to others, but not directly to me. So that claim is false.
Would you like a list of the postings where it has been explained to you over the last years? Fair enough - I'll compile one later and we'll see what is 'false'.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
I agree with Dean’s comments and ask why are absolutely non-believers discussing God in the first place? It does not make sense to me. I wrote, let God set this right. Am I not allowed to write this in their view so that they need to argue with that? I get back I am attacking them? How can I be attacking if they do not believe in God? Then, I get scripture aimed at me from someone who states they do not believe in it? Do not tell me this is for discussion. This is only arguing horse manure.

a) You are allowed to make any posting you like that conforms to the TOS.
b) It is quite possible to attack people using concepts that they do not believe in. You apparently do not believe in IPU and yet you seem to find reference to her insulting...
c) I did not state that I do not 'believe in' scripture. I think much of it is invention, certainly. I have also said that some of it seeems to contain some useful thoughts and concepts. I don't 'believe in' Moby Dick, Discworld or 'the Shire' but that does not make the allusions, metaphors and concepts contained in those creations either invalid or redundant.
d) The notion that atheists have nothing useful to say about religion is rather odd, since it seems to me that some the atheists on this board know more about Christian scripture than the Christians do. Christianity is a religion that evangelises - tries to convert others. In that sense it has a direct impact on the life of non-Christians. It is therefore quite important, I believe, for non-Christians to have an input into discussions about Christianity (and other religions that seek to control or change the life of everyone).
Quote:
I am talking about a little common respect for a human being using a message board. Just deal with it they say and do not dare utter a sound or be labeled a whiner and be told to leave the board and go somewhere else! This is not debate,
Once again you state that which is untrue. Nobody has said you may not 'utter a sound' and nobody has told you to leave the board.
Quote:
I have time constraints too. I also need to as well see some changes occurring on this board or will not be sharing any of my personal experiences. Right now, I have just too much distaste for the ugly abuse.
Well, as far as I am concerned there will be no changes to this board, in the sense that people will remain free to post what they like within the TOS. If you don't like that then you are free to post or not post.
pentangeli
Thanks, Mr Hills for appreciating my posts. Forgive me if I shy away from the back patting and team/side forming though, as I feel this forum already suffers horribly from it, often at the price of anything of value being said. But thanks for recognizing that there's obviously a lot of intended humor in my postings, although questionably funny, I do believe a lot of truth is said in jest and sometimes the self deprecating approach is the only way to get certain heated issues across to complete A-1 delusional egotists with apparently none. Albeit, in my attempt to defend/explain my Christian beliefs to the infidel-inside™ operating systems, I often later assess myself and view myself (as I'm doing now) to be behaving at my most unchristian. I acknowledge that flaw and admit my wrongdoing. I should just let them get on with it, forgive them and go about my day. Contrary to failed communications, however, and yet also quite fitting, I wasn't saying people interested in Science shouldn't 'congregate' here. I think it's a good thing. I would encourage more dialogue between believers and non believers, dogmatic and pragmatic, as much as possible. I would just simply question motive and objective (from both parties). Especially in Creationist Piñata threads like this one. You're a smart guy, Bikerman. There's no disputing that. But you're smart on a message forum. And no matter how smart-ass my retorts to your 'intellectual msgs' become, I'm still doing so on a message forum myself. I don't think beatification or the nobel prize awaits either of us. In laymens, you're kinda dumb. But no offense, it takes one to know one.

Pater, dimitte illis; non enim sciunt quid faciunt.
Bikerman
Quote:
You're a smart guy, Bikerman. There's no disputing that. But you're smart on a message forum. And no matter how smart-ass my retorts to your 'intellectual msgs' become, I'm still doing so on a message forum myself. I don't think beatification or the nobel prize awaits either of us. In laymens, you're kinda dumb. But no offense, it takes one to know one.
Beatification would horrify me and Nobel prizes should be given to those who work much harder than I do.
I am 'smart' in the sense that I have a slightly above average IQ and I do a lot of reading and thinking. I have a pretty good general knowledge and reasonably good knowledge of science in general. I also have a reasonable facility with English than permits me to express concepts and ideas coherently (sometimes).
I am dumb in the sense that I know many people who are much 'smarter' than I am, and my knowledge is that of the generalist rather than the specialist. Thus I can discuss quantum physics intelligently with any non-specialist audience, but I cannot get into the details of the time-independant Schroedinger equation with a specialist.
Such is generally the case with teachers.

Quote:
Pater, dimitte illis; non enim sciunt quid faciunt.
Hmm..That is non-classical Latin (as used in the Vulgate). If you want to write it as it would have been written around the year 0 then it would be :
Pater, ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quod faciunt.
deanhills
pentangeli wrote:
Thanks, Mr Hills for appreciating my posts. Forgive me if I shy away from the back patting and team/side forming though, as I feel this forum already suffers horribly from it, often at the price of anything of value being said.
I actually regretted that posting the moment when I saw the response to it. The intention when I wrote it was not to take sides. I was speaking spontaneously and freely as I was admiring your writing. Long time since I have been entertained as I have been and just could not hold myself back!

pentangeli wrote:
I do believe a lot of truth is said in jest and sometimes the self deprecating approach is the only way to get certain heated issues across to complete A-1 delusional egotists with apparently none.
Totally agreed. For me one of the benefits of humour is that it somehow sets one up for much easier learning and absorbing of what is being communicated in comparison with a serious monologue or dialogue that can put one to sleep or make one lose concentration. I sometimes find that I have to read through serious stuff more than once whereas with humour I seem to get it the first time round. For example, I remember when I was doing a course on stocks in Canada (they call it securities there) and the guy who was teaching the boring theory brought in a little light relief here and there, enough to have us in stitches. I can't remember last when I retained so much of a course. Could it be that humour expands one's ability to learn by opening one's mind a little, whereas serious monologues closes it and puts it to sleep? And aren't people at their most creative and genius when they are having fun and/or laughing? Mozart versus Salieri.
Related topics
[OFFICIAL] What are you currently reading?
If Hardly Davidson made Computers instead of Motorcycles...
News Corp to buy MySpace.com owner for $580 million
That's so amazing, the news about ukraine
Justification for War in Iraq
Medical Absolutism, Cary Angell
Choosing a Distro
Very old news...but Michelle Branch writes angry letter
Google News Finally Leaves Beta
Finally, some news from intel
Katie Couric Moving to CBS Evening News from Today's Show
Google Suggest and Google News Integrated
Music and Film Industry Gossip, News and More (May 21st)
oob news
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.