See, this whole "God and Religion" thing just baffles me. All over this thread are people who are getting really heated about all of these theories. Not the least of which are the most fundamental questions: Does God exist? Did we evolve? Which religion has it right? What happens after we die? Where did we come from?
And the answer to all of these is the same: We don't know. There is no proof for any of it and the belief in your answers to these questions come from faith. Does God exist? Well, there is no proof with the exception of our own existance. The popular argument is: We are here, someone must have put us here. We'll call that an all powerful being named "God" (or various other names depending on your culture and religion). Now, that's what is being said (although I've no doubt people will argue with me on that one as well.)
We also ask: Did we evolve? Where did we come from? And in perusing all of the posts all over this board I've also seen SO MANY different theories. Some people outraged over the idea that people blindly follow creationism and others outraged over the fact that people can't see that God obviously created us all and the fact that we changed over time is silly. Well, I'll admit there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism, and I tend to go with science on this one myself for a number of reasons. Firstly, there's some proof. We have seen in generations of birds and insects that as their colony is exposed to something, it learns to adapt. Insecticides that killed previous generations of insects do not kill the later ones. Birds have been known to change entire eating habits due to changes in the food change. This doesn't happen suddenly, but over the generations. It's a simple concept: survival of the fittest. So why couldn't that be the case with humans too? Aren't we merely products of that which came before us?
The Bible is also something that has come under much debate. And I believe it is the fundamental quesitons that are most important here as well. The question is not wheter the creation story is what happened, but rather: who wrote the bible? There is documented evidence that a man named Jesus did exist, and there were people who followed him... so that explains where the new testament came from, but what about the creation story? There is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed. So, alright, it predates records... so who wrote it? I'm sure some bible expert will respond and tell me, and the answer will probably be someone who had a divine connection to "God". Alright, does that guarantee that's what happended? Not necessarily. Yet many believe it.
The Norse believe that the world came from a massive tree and a godly cow. And from the roots and udders life was created. Do people believe that? Of course not... that would be silly. But a divine being that said "Let there be..." and everything was? Yes, of course. That makes perfect sense. Or even, everything was in a tiny, massively dense atomically sized ball and it exploded and everything is around now because of it. See? All the theories sound a little silly when you think about it.
But in the end it comes down to faith. Whatever you believe in is your business. And I encourage everyone to find what they believe is the truth. Now, from what I've read of the bible and other philosophic and religious documents is this: treat everyone well, be a good person, and be caring for everyone. As far as I'm concerned, that Jesus guy was onto something. He treated everyone fairly... even the prostitutes and tax collectors... and yet some have such disdain for those who don't believe in a divine power. Why? It just doesn't make sense to me. And I'm still sitting here saying "I don't know".
Vrythramax
These are question that have always been able to tick someone off depending on thier culture, religion, beliefs, etc.. For some reason we can't just accept the fact that someone may have a differing view than we might have. This is not just in the US, but all over the world. Each race or religion believes that what they believe in is what's right and everyone else is wrong. I have seen people, in this forum, who are normally nice, good mannered people, get really heated over the subject of religion. I personally don't understand all the hostility myself. I know that not everyone is going to think the same as I do, and I wouldn't like this world very much if they did. Diversity would die as a result, and so would individualality. (spelled wrong?)
Variety is the spice of life isn't it?
gail1367
Hi all
I tend to agree with max here. We should all learn to accept the fact that everyone has their own religious beliefs and that this is ok. Just because you belong to one religion doesnt mean that the other religions is wrong. You may not agree with some beliefs but that is ok cause you dont have to but on the other hand you should still respect others beliefs aswell.
Myself for instance I don't belong to any one religion. I am a very spiritual person and my religion is made up of the fact that I have taken what feels right to me from all different religions and adapted it to myself. This world is evolving and that all religions have a bit of good in them.
The point is to respect what others believe even if you dont believe in that specific religion. And to take what ever feels good to yourself from all different religions and follow what beliefs are right for you.
Gail
shadedflame
Evolution has been proven, the fact that the earth was not craeted in 3 days was proven. religion has no proof to back it up. Science is not a religoin its a bunch of facts people live by.
Soulfire
shadedflame wrote:
Evolution has been proven, the fact that the earth was not craeted in 3 days was proven. religion has no proof to back it up. Science is not a religoin its a bunch of facts people live by.
Science in a way is religion, you put your faith into it, and that is what you believe. Evolution has NOT been proven. Things evolve yes, but the theory that we came from monkeys CANNOT be proved.
The Earth was created in 7 days, however, the Bible says that God does not count time as men do... so 7 days could've been millions of years to us, so that isn't disproven either.
Religion has an entire book to back it up, it's called The Bible. You should read it sometime, even if you don't want to be Christian, it's still a good book. We also have faith, a faith that is instilled in us from birth... some choose to ignore it, and go astray from God.
But in the end, we're all judged.
kimrei
Most aspects of science have got "one or two" books to back them up aswell, written by more reputable characters too.
Quote:
Evolution has NOT been proven. Things evolve yes, but the theory that we came from monkeys CANNOT be proved.
2 blatant proofs :
A: Unbiased step-by-step modification of a surface to improve reception of light produced a structure that looks remarkably like an eye which is proof that evolution works.
B: The sterkfontein skulls show mans step by step progression from the apes too, I've held one of the recently discovered ones and it definitely seemed real (2.4 million years old).
If you want more read Charles Darwins writings on finches.
Don't worry. Creationism has been proven too. Recently I read an article about a guy who created a Jenny who sits on irc channels and produces some very funny cybersex session logs.
PS. Yes science can be a religeon but it does not require faith as it has proof and is built of explainable thoeries that change and evolve when disproven, I'll happily admit that everything I know could be absolutely wrong and probably is but I'll know why and I'll know why many other things are wrong too. It's an growing and increasingly accurate portrayal of the world which science depicts
And there are many (scientific) theories such as the one about the world in the past being surrounded by a hydrosphere and Adam being a giant that explain away the Sterkfontein skulls as impossible.(the excess water messed up the carbon dating but Adam would have to have been supersized to survive, "scientists" have found examples of his great big footprints) (quite creative I thought)
The bible says some horrible things. Therés that first commandment that if read in full, not just partially as it is normally quoted condemns any alternatley dietied religeons worshipers potential children and grandchildren to the 3rd and 4th generation to damnation for that one worshipers deviation. Any Christian who follows that line is compelled towards missionary work. So argument is built into the thinġ
It also forbids women teaching (Timothy 1, Verse 2 I think).
But that's just stone throwinġ, I dońt care at all about those things. Though I hate that people follow them
In all honesty from my point of view as an Atheist (this sounds bad in my head already) it's absolutely disgusting that so many people go around living life for the wrong reasons, the bible tells people not to lie, to cheat or to steal, to be nice to ones neighbors and many other things, and I think that it's good that it does. But I'm not happy with that. I think that people should do those things because they want to. Not out of fear, desire for reward or because someone bigger than you tells you to, otherwise to me you dońt count as people but just empty shells following, or attempting to follow instructions.
Believe whatever you want but dońt follow it blindly.
Argue it every step of the way. If supporting a female teacher means an eternity of purgatory and you truly believe that after death for all eternity you will burn do it anyway if you think it's right.
Believe full heartedly that blue pixies will never left you rest a wink for jaywalking but do it if you see no traffic nor causė not too.
It's the wasted lives and doomed children that disgust me (It spreads to your kids, so it's not your personal beliefş raise them without religious bias if you want them to grow up their own people) a smile to a stranger for thoughts of rewards, or not commiting murder because of punishment.
Throw away the guidelines and stop caring how the universe works if all you have is faith then just live it as you see fit.[/quote]
make_life_better
Soulfire wrote:
shadedflame wrote:
Evolution has been proven, the fact that the earth was not craeted in 3 days was proven. religion has no proof to back it up. Science is not a religoin its a bunch of facts people live by.
Science in a way is religion, you put your faith into it, and that is what you believe. Evolution has NOT been proven. Things evolve yes, but the theory that we came from monkeys CANNOT be proved.
[/quote]
Science is absolutely NOT a religion. It is founded on the idea that you should question everything, and that no statement is more than opinion unless it can be backed up with hard evidence. I have NO blind faith in science, but I believe science is the best way to think about the things about us and to gain deep understanding (until something better comes along).
No-one who knows anything much about this topic would claim that we evolved from monkeys, any more than monkeys evolved from us. All that is claimed is that there was some creature that was a common ancestor to both
Soulfire wrote:
The Earth was created in 7 days, however, the Bible says that God does not count time as men do... so 7 days could've been millions of years to us, so that isn't disproven either.
In which case, as we have no way of comparing god's days to ours, it's a meaningless figure.
Soulfire wrote:
Religion has an entire book to back it up, it's called The Bible. You should read it sometime, even if you don't want to be Christian, it's still a good book. We also have faith, a faith that is instilled in us from birth... some choose to ignore it, and go astray from God.
(1) So are you equating "Religion" with Christianity? Which version of the bible are you referring to? Do the various translations (and mistranslations) matter? What about the fact that some of the words used have also changed meanings?
(2) ...and what about the Koran, Torah, and so on? There are many holy books, most of them older than the bible (so the bible is newer so its better... whoops forgot about the Koran). Are these also not good books? Have you read them too?
(3) Try walking into any local university library and look at the science shelves. You will find vast quantities of arguments and counter arguments, but the overall trend is irresistable - at the heart of science is the need for every statement to be justifiable and backed by evidence that can be replicated by anybody, anywhere, anytime.
Soulfire wrote:
But in the end, we're all judged.
Do you want to be judged for unthinkingly doing what you were told without question? If you believe that god gave you a brain that could ask questions, do you have the right to refuse to use it? Wouldn't that be a snub to god? I know I'll be judged for my thoughts and actions by any being who comes into contact with me - I try to go to bed each day with the knowledge that I made the world just a little better by what I have done each day. The fact that I try to find the right things to do without needing some religious book or priest to tell me what to do would seem (by my estimation) to count in my favor rather than against me.
startsomething
HI guys, if you have seen any of my other posts you know I am a pretty opinionated guy. First of all, there is way more proof for a higher deity, we don't have to just say the Christians God, to have created the earth than evolution. I believe evolution is dangerous religion being taught in our schools and if it is going to be taught then a peaceful religion like Christianity should have their say in the whole origin of life game. Evolution influenced the propaganda of Russian communism, the Nazi Party when Hitler was in power, Karl Marx, and many more. I love posting stuff like this. Send me your doubts and complaints at MrBeezus@aol.com. I am ready.
Che
startsomething wrote:
HI guys, if you have seen any of my other posts you know I am a pretty opinionated guy. First of all, there is way more proof for a higher deity, we don't have to just say the Christians God, to have created the earth than evolution. I believe evolution is dangerous religion being taught in our schools and if it is going to be taught then a peaceful religion like Christianity should have their say in the whole origin of life game. Evolution influenced the propaganda of Russian communism, the Nazi Party when Hitler was in power, Karl Marx, and many more. I love posting stuff like this. Send me your doubts and complaints at MrBeezus@aol.com. I am ready.
Hey there buddy... Here are some little comments to encourage your thinking...
Quote:
I believe evolution is dangerous religion being taught in our schools
What in the world are you trying to say? Evolution is not a religion, I am sure you know this, but why is it dangerous? Could you expand on that? Are you saying that this sort of scientific deliberation based observations etc could drive our society to a disaster? If so, how?
Quote:
if it is going to be taught then a peaceful religion like Christianity should have their say in the whole origin of life game.
Are you trying to say that although the idea of Christian evolution is based on pure faith, they should impose it over the current theory of evolution as a fact? What do you mean as a peaceful religion? Are the other religions not peaceful?
Quote:
Evolution influenced the propaganda of Russian communism, the Nazi Party when Hitler was in power, Karl Marx, and many more.
I find this quite interesting... are you saying that the theory of evolution is a communism propaganda? Am I missing the connection here? Can you help us out to better visualize this matter, because as far as I know the theory of evolution is a scientific hypothesis based on the recollection of facts. It's not something that was simply made up out of nothing for the sake of “faith” in Communism... In addition, a lot of supporters of the theory of evolution are not even communists. So how does this work here?
Hope I can have a better understanding of your claim, thanks for the time.
make_life_better
startsomething wrote:
HI guys, if you have seen any of my other posts you know I am a pretty opinionated guy.
There's nothing wrong in having strongly held opinions or expressing them, as long as you are happy for others to do the same. I will fight for your right to say anything you want (short of gratuitous, outrageous insults, etc) and hope that comon sense and wider wisdom will prevail.
startsomething wrote:
First of all, there is way more proof for a higher deity, we don't have to just say the Christians God, to have created the earth than evolution.
I have heard this before, and much has been posted either directly or via links. I have taken the time to read every one of those and I still maintain that there is nothing there that counts as evidence that stands up to even simple challenges. In every case, there is a perfectly good equivalent explanation that uses only known processes that have been experimentally observed many times and which can be repeated by anybody anywhere on demand. These explanations don't require any supernatural powers or forces, so again I see no evidence of any creationist origins.
startsomething wrote:
I believe evolution is dangerous religion being taught in our schools and if it is going to be taught then a peaceful religion like Christianity should have their say in the whole origin of life game.
Evolution is not a religion. It is a theory based on observation of facts and it depends on a vast collection of carefully gathered evidence from many thousands of sources. It doesn't require any belief or leap of faith. It does not claim that any one individual or species is better or has any more rights than any other. It's based on huge numbers of tiny "experiments" and straightforward statistics, and there is no bias in the underlying maths. It's the simplest, most open (and yes it is democratic) explanation for alll of the things we see about us. How is this dangerous? Why would anybody be opposed to teaching evolution?
In contrast, Christianity and most other religions are based upon faith, often codified into dogma, and usually include some safety clauses about true believers not requiring proof, and testing or challenging the articles of faith or dogma being heretical and punishable by leaders of the faith or the gods themselves. Followers are encouraged to spread the word, i.e. impose their views on others; so where different religious groups meet, clashes arise. Look back through history to see how many wars resulted from religious fervor through the centuries, and how many people have died in them. Then decide whether any religion is more peaceful than evolution. Try Buddism maybe?
Is the rise of evolution dangerous? Look for the people in the world that have most to lose if evolution is more widely accepted - those are the people who percieve the most danger. What do they personally stand to gain or lose?
Look in the scientific community by comparison - the person who gains most is probably Darwin, and he probably doesn't care much about money, fame and celebrity any more. All the other pro-evolutionists are just bit-part players by comparison. Anybody (scientist or otherwise) who managed to definitively disprove evolution would almost certainly gain huge worldwide recognition and probably substantial wealth too. So, strange as it may seem, most scientists in the field are working really hard to undermine the theory too for both personal and academic reasons.
startsomething wrote:
Evolution influenced the propaganda of Russian communism, the Nazi Party when Hitler was in power, Karl Marx, and many more. I love posting stuff like this. Send me your doubts and complaints at MrBeezus@aol.com. I am ready.
Bad people (some would use the word evil) have always been influenced by many beliefs, theories, religions, etc. so you probably can't pin individual cases on any one theory. Nazi propaganda was vastly more influenced by other issues than evolution, for example. As counter examples, what about the inquisition, witch trials, the crusades and many other cases that were driven by religious zealots. Bertrand Russell puts it better than me:
Bertrand Russell wrote:
You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
I'm sure you do love posting this stuff, and we appreciate it when you take the time to make reasoned arguments.
startsomething
make_life_better I appreciate your respect. I believe evolution is a religion because I think anything that takes faith is a religion. Look at this. www.drdino.com Go under downloads and look at the lies in the text book section. I think it addresses my evolution ideas. If not e-mail me at MrBeezus@aol.com so I can have time to write a novel on the explanation. There is a lot of info and I don't have time to reply on this post topic right now. You don't have to even go to the website if you want just e-mail me.
shadedflame
Soulfire wrote:
Science in a way is religion, you put your faith into it,
Whoa, hold up, think my religous primape think. Thats was wrong sooo wrong, science is a way of thinking civilized people, not unlike myself put thier time and effort into it, finding out more and more about the place we live daily, we don't put our faith in it because over time, missing variables get figured out, and a theory is remodled, unlike religoin is a scientific theory is modified and made law, we won't riot in the streets.
Soulfire wrote:
Evolution has NOT been proven. Things evolve yes, but the theory that we came from monkeys CANNOT be proved.
errr yes it can....let me refer you to a few databases, so you can't bring up the whole wikipedia isn't that true crap. Or that you just went google its just a search engine.
www.school.eb.com http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/chic49623 http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/cps1440
If you have taken the time to read it good for you but otherwise....
If things evolve then evolution is proven nuff said about that topic. Now as other people have stated bashing you before, the fact that we come from lesser primapes is also true. We have found specimems of roughly every evolutionary stage of human devolpment. And since we know things evolve, what other proof do you need.
Soulfire wrote:
The Earth was created in 7 days, however, the Bible says that God does not count time as men do... so 7 days could've been millions of years to us, so that isn't disproven either.
Bullcrap, plain and simple, what facts do you have to back this up. Logic disproves this, The book you are refering to does not say that this was in gods time so clearly it must've been human time. If he used a human term days, thats what a day is. This book you speak of says that he is forever, so why would he have a concept of time.
Soulfire wrote:
Religion has an entire book to back it up, it's called The Bible. You should read it sometime, even if you don't want to be Christian, it's still a good book. We also have faith, a faith that is instilled in us from birth... some choose to ignore it, and go astray from God.
Yes, yes the christian, islam, and Judaism token, your "holy book". A bunch of crap. Mere story tales made up to make you ignorant people beleive something that was forced upon you. The bible has been translated so many times no one knows what it orignally said. Nothing in the bible has any facts, no specifics. Its basicly, use context clues and find the logical place. I HAVE READ THE BIBLE. it is the reason I believe what I believe. I do not have a religion. I have made my choice I have taken my path. There is no god to begin with so you cannot stray away from him. You my friend are another product of euro-brainwashing, and christain converts. take a look at my side for I was on yours for some 15 years. Read other sources and contemplate everything you learned in school. DO not post any more untrue bull crap again like evolution hasn't been proven when indeed it has.
Read and Reflect.
-my final words.
Vrythramax
shadedflame wrote:
DO not post any more untrue bull crap again like evolution hasn't been proven when indeed it has.
Read and Reflect.
-my final words.
Exactly how are you going to stop him??? Everyone is entitled to thier own opinions...even if they don't coincide with yours. That's one of the benenfits of a free society. Your post does beg one question...if you are so against religion why do you post in a religious forum when it's a simple task to just skip over it?
twilightmoon
Yes there is proof God exist look around you, look in the mirror, what you feel, your perosnallity God created all the things and i thank him
twilightmoon
Soulfire wrote:
shadedflame wrote:
Evolution has been proven, the fact that the earth was not craeted in 3 days was proven. religion has no proof to back it up. Science is not a religoin its a bunch of facts people live by.
Science in a way is religion, you put your faith into it, and that is what you believe. Evolution has NOT been proven. Things evolve yes, but the theory that we came from monkeys CANNOT be proved.
The Earth was created in 7 days, however, the Bible says that God does not count time as men do... so 7 days could've been millions of years to us, so that isn't disproven either.
Religion has an entire book to back it up, it's called The Bible. You should read it sometime, even if you don't want to be Christian, it's still a good book. We also have faith, a faith that is instilled in us from birth... some choose to ignore it, and go astray from God.
But in the end, we're all judged.
amen bro
twilightmoon
Soulfire wrote:
The Earth was created in 7 days, however, the Bible says that God does not count time as men do... so 7 days could've been millions of years to us, so that isn't disproven either.
In which case, as we have no way of comparing god's days to ours, it's a meaningless figure.
no your right we dont have no way of comparing to God's day becaue we are not worthy of comparing to Gods anything
lightwate
Dean_The_Great wrote:
See, this whole "God and Religion" thing just baffles me. All over this thread are people who are getting really heated about all of these theories. Not the least of which are the most fundamental questions: Does God exist? Did we evolve? Which religion has it right? What happens after we die? Where did we come from?
And the answer to all of these is the same: We don't know. There is no proof for any of it and the belief in your answers to these questions come from faith. Does God exist? Well, there is no proof with the exception of our own existance. The popular argument is: We are here, someone must have put us here. We'll call that an all powerful being named "God" (or various other names depending on your culture and religion). Now, that's what is being said (although I've no doubt people will argue with me on that one as well.)
We also ask: Did we evolve? Where did we come from? And in perusing all of the posts all over this board I've also seen SO MANY different theories. Some people outraged over the idea that people blindly follow creationism and others outraged over the fact that people can't see that God obviously created us all and the fact that we changed over time is silly. Well, I'll admit there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism, and I tend to go with science on this one myself for a number of reasons. Firstly, there's some proof. We have seen in generations of birds and insects that as their colony is exposed to something, it learns to adapt. Insecticides that killed previous generations of insects do not kill the later ones. Birds have been known to change entire eating habits due to changes in the food change. This doesn't happen suddenly, but over the generations. It's a simple concept: survival of the fittest. So why couldn't that be the case with humans too? Aren't we merely products of that which came before us?
The Bible is also something that has come under much debate. And I believe it is the fundamental quesitons that are most important here as well. The question is not wheter the creation story is what happened, but rather: who wrote the bible? There is documented evidence that a man named Jesus did exist, and there were people who followed him... so that explains where the new testament came from, but what about the creation story? There is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed. So, alright, it predates records... so who wrote it? I'm sure some bible expert will respond and tell me, and the answer will probably be someone who had a divine connection to "God". Alright, does that guarantee that's what happended? Not necessarily. Yet many believe it.
The Norse believe that the world came from a massive tree and a godly cow. And from the roots and udders life was created. Do people believe that? Of course not... that would be silly. But a divine being that said "Let there be..." and everything was? Yes, of course. That makes perfect sense. Or even, everything was in a tiny, massively dense atomically sized ball and it exploded and everything is around now because of it. See? All the theories sound a little silly when you think about it.
But in the end it comes down to faith. Whatever you believe in is your business. And I encourage everyone to find what they believe is the truth. Now, from what I've read of the bible and other philosophic and religious documents is this: treat everyone well, be a good person, and be caring for everyone. As far as I'm concerned, that Jesus guy was onto something. He treated everyone fairly... even the prostitutes and tax collectors... and yet some have such disdain for those who don't believe in a divine power. Why? It just doesn't make sense to me. And I'm still sitting here saying "I don't know".
hear, hear. I almost didn't read it entirely but this guy has a point. and I don't get it either (see his last paragraph). I was about to read everything then realized that this was way back in 2006. And somewhere over there it got off-topic and the question was never answered.
nickfyoung
shadedflame wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Science in a way is religion, you put your faith into it,
Whoa, hold up, think my religous primape think. Thats was wrong sooo wrong, science is a way of thinking civilized people, not unlike myself put thier time and effort into it, finding out more and more about the place we live daily, we don't put our faith in it because over time, missing variables get figured out, and a theory is remodled, unlike religoin is a scientific theory is modified and made law, we won't riot in the streets.
Soulfire wrote:
Evolution has NOT been proven. Things evolve yes, but the theory that we came from monkeys CANNOT be proved.
Quote:
errr yes it can
....let me refer you to a few databases, so you can't bring up the whole wikipedia isn't that true crap. Or that you just went google its just a search engine.
www.school.eb.com http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/chic49623 http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/cps1440
If you have taken the time to read it good for you but otherwise....
If things evolve then evolution is proven nuff said about that topic. Now as other people have stated bashing you before, the fact that we come from lesser primapes is also true. We have found specimems of roughly every evolutionary stage of human devolpment. And since we know things evolve, what other proof do you need.
Soulfire wrote:
The Earth was created in 7 days, however, the Bible says that God does not count time as men do... so 7 days could've been millions of years to us, so that isn't disproven either.
Bullcrap, plain and simple, what facts do you have to back this up. Logic disproves this, The book you are refering to does not say that this was in gods time so clearly it must've been human time. If he used a human term days, thats what a day is. This book you speak of says that he is forever, so why would he have a concept of time.
Soulfire wrote:
Religion has an entire book to back it up, it's called The Bible. You should read it sometime, even if you don't want to be Christian, it's still a good book. We also have faith, a faith that is instilled in us from birth... some choose to ignore it, and go astray from God.
Yes, yes the christian, islam, and Judaism token, your "holy book". A bunch of crap. Mere story tales made up to make you ignorant people beleive something that was forced upon you. The bible has been translated so many times no one knows what it orignally said. Nothing in the bible has any facts, no specifics. Its basicly, use context clues and find the logical place. I HAVE READ THE BIBLE. it is the reason I believe what I believe. I do not have a religion. I have made my choice I have taken my path. There is no god to begin with so you cannot stray away from him. You my friend are another product of euro-brainwashing, and christain converts. take a look at my side for I was on yours for some 15 years. Read other sources and contemplate everything you learned in school. DO not post any more untrue bull crap again like evolution hasn't been proven when indeed it has.
Read and Reflect.
-my final words.
Quote:
"Scientists conduct multiple experiments to test a hypothesis. If observation is reliable,
then why do they need more than one experiment? If observation is less than reliable,
then how many experiments are enough? Who decides? Ignoring this problem for now,
W. Gary Crampton explains the difficulty in formulating a scientific law by the method
of experimentation:
In the laboratory the scientist seeks to determine the boiling point
of water. Since water hardly boils at the same temperature, the
scientist conducts a number of tests and the slightly differing
results are noted. He then must average them. But what kind of
average does he use: mean, mode, or median? He must choose; and
whatever kind of average he selects, it is his own choice; it is not
dictated by the data. Then too, the average he chooses is just that,
that is, it is an average, not the actual datum yielded by the
experiment. Once the test results have been averaged, the scientist
will calculate the variable error in his readings. He will likely plot
the data points or areas on a graph. Then he will draw a curve
through the resultant data points or areas on the graph. But how
many curves, each one of which describes a different equation, are
possible? An infinite number of curves is possible. But the scientist
draws only one.
The probability of drawing the correct curve is one over infinity, which equals zero.
Therefore, there is a zero probability that any scientific law can be true. This means that it
is impossible for science to ever accurately describe anything about reality. Thus Popper
writes, "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same
probability, namely zero."
Actually this is not really much of an objection. At heart it simply says that scientific models are never the thing being modelled - something which all scientists are well aware of.
Any scientific model will have an associated 'error range' or 'range of applicability' which deals with the main objection. Our model of boiling water is correct, and the objection that it boils at different temperatures doesn't undermine that model in any way. We can say with pretty much certainty that water will boil at 100%+/-xy ('x' correction for pressure,'y' correction for impurity).
The central point about the theory of evolution by natural selection is that evolution is observed fact - the only possible room for debate is in the 'natural selection' part and alternatives have already been examined, and the theory modified accordingly - hence we now know that natural selection is not the only mechanism at work - there are various genetic mechanisms in play.
Non of this alters the FACT that the theory know more correctly known as the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' (ie including genetics) is correct in outline and pretty accurate in many, if not most, details - with a degree of uncertainty so small that it can quite safely be ignored.
And the central point about science in general is that it WORKS - reliably, predictable and effectively. It is not just the most powerful method available to examine the universe, no other method is even close enough to be called 'way off'.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
The probability of drawing the correct curve is one over infinity, which equals zero.
Therefore, there is a zero probability that any scientific law can be true. This means that it
is impossible for science to ever accurately describe anything about reality. Thus Popper
writes, "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same
probability, namely zero."
This person is completely full of shit. Not only is that flawed and incorrect (this is a stupid example; and all you'd say is that my plot is accurate within a certain error percentage), it's conclusion is absurd. A theory can only have a zero percent chance of being true if it is falsifiable and an experiment has falsified it.
These "scientific theories" that you claim have a zero percent chance of being true are so "not-true" (zero percent chance of being true *eye roll*) that they somehow brought you computers, modern buildings, electricity, radios, cars, medicine, modern agriculture, etc... everything that you have is brought to you by science - not God. Ergo science works.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Actually this is not really much of an objection. At heart it simply says that scientific models are never the thing being modelled - something which all scientists are well aware of.
Any scientific model will have an associated 'error range' or 'range of applicability' which deals with the main objection. Our model of boiling water is correct, and the objection that it boils at different temperatures doesn't undermine that model in any way. We can say with pretty much certainty that water will boil at 100%+/-xy ('x' correction for pressure,'y' correction for impurity).
Quote:
The central point about the theory of evolution by natural selection is that evolution is observed fact -
the only possible room for debate is in the 'natural selection' part and alternatives have already been examined, and the theory modified accordingly - hence we now know that natural selection is not the only mechanism at work - there are various genetic mechanisms in play.
Non of this alters the FACT that the theory know more correctly known as the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' (ie including genetics) is correct in outline and pretty accurate in many, if not most, details - with a degree of uncertainty so small that it can quite safely be ignored.
And the central point about science in general is that it WORKS - reliably, predictable and effectively. It is not just the most powerful method available to examine the universe, no other method is even close enough to be called 'way off'.
I recently read a book where several leading scientists from all major areas were interviewed and the general consensus now seems to be swinging back to intelligent design. Is that a fair comment or was it a biased work.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Actually this is not really much of an objection. At heart it simply says that scientific models are never the thing being modelled - something which all scientists are well aware of.
Any scientific model will have an associated 'error range' or 'range of applicability' which deals with the main objection. Our model of boiling water is correct, and the objection that it boils at different temperatures doesn't undermine that model in any way. We can say with pretty much certainty that water will boil at 100%+/-xy ('x' correction for pressure,'y' correction for impurity).
The central point about the theory of evolution by natural selection is that evolution is observed fact - the only possible room for debate is in the 'natural selection' part and alternatives have already been examined, and the theory modified accordingly - hence we now know that natural selection is not the only mechanism at work - there are various genetic mechanisms in play.
Non of this alters the FACT that the theory know more correctly known as the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' (ie including genetics) is correct in outline and pretty accurate in many, if not most, details - with a degree of uncertainty so small that it can quite safely be ignored.
Quote:
And the central point about science in general is that it WORKS - reliably, predictable and effectively. It is not just the most powerful method available to examine the universe, no other method is even close enough to be called 'way off'.
"Speaking of mathematics, the more I study divine omniscience and epistemology, the more striking its importance appears. I'll admit that it's hard for me to wrap my head around it." Interesting quote from our blogger.
Divine omniscience is a non-starter and always was. It cannot be logically supported, as is trivial to demonstrate.
Premise: God is omniscient.
Therefore God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.
God, therefore, cannot possibly make any new decision or change an existing decision - since that would be unforeseen, and therefore would negate omniscience.
Therefore omniscience reduces god to a deterministic influence at best, unable to alter course, make new decisions or, in fact, do anything other than the things he was always going to do.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Divine omniscience is a non-starter and always was. It cannot be logically supported, as is trivial to demonstrate.
Premise: God is omniscient.
Therefore God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.
God, therefore, cannot possibly make any new decision or change an existing decision - since that would be unforeseen, and therefore would negate omniscience.
Quote:
Therefore omniscience reduces god to a deterministic influence at best, unable to alter course, make new decisions or, in fact, do anything other than the things he was always going to do
.
I suppose if God is omniscient he wouldn't have the need to change course or make new decisions.
Bikerman
Therefore God is reduced to causality with no ability to intervene, no ability to carry through free-will. God may as well simply be the laws of nature, since they are, then, indistinguishable.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Therefore God is reduced to causality with no ability to intervene, no ability to carry through free-will. God may as well simply be the laws of nature, since they are, then, indistinguishable.
Omniscience is only related to knowledge and not ability. God has total omniscience and knows everything that can be know.
Bikerman
Errmm try again.
If God knows at time t that events p,q and r will happen, then God cannot cause p,q and r NOT to happen or he was never omniscient in the first place. It isn't a case of 'ability' - it is a case of pure logic.
Now, since omniscience means knowing EVERYTHING that will happen, it follows logically that it also means that the omniscient being CANNOT behave in a way not previously known about, which would produce outcomes that were not previously determined - ie an omniscient being is powerless to act because acting would destroy omniscience.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Errmm try again.
If God knows at time t that events p,q and r will happen, then God cannot cause p,q and r NOT to happen or he was never omniscient in the first place. It isn't a case of 'ability' - it is a case of pure logic.
Now,
Quote:
since omniscience means knowing EVERYTHING that will happen
, it follows logically that it also means that the omniscient being CANNOT behave in a way not previously known about, which would produce outcomes that were not previously determined - ie an omniscient being is powerless to act because acting would destroy omniscience.
Some believe the ability to know everything that will happen is Omnipotence.
Bikerman
Well they would just be wrong then, wouldn't they? So what? It has nothing to do with my argument above.
Bikerman
[MOD HAT]As I previously said, any extended quotes from other places MUST be enclosed in quote tags and must be properly cited. Adding quotation marks is not sufficient.
ie
[ quote] passage to be quoted [ /quote]
(obviously without the spaces in the [])
Also, simply reposting an extant article, or extract, with little or no original content added, is not something we encourage on Frih.
[/MOD HAT]
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
[MOD HAT]You still have not got it correct. Please EDIT this posting and look how I have applied quote tags to the quoted passage to see how to do it yourself.
[/MOD HAT]
Quote:
"Omniscient syllogism from a designer's perspective (This as if you are the Omniscient Entity about to design and create something into existence, such as a human being.)
I =: reference to the designer that is contemplating creation
I'm omniscient
I have an idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent
I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it, or even thought of it.
I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.
I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way. (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)
I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.
This thing I designed would only be able to do what it was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do.
Even if I wanted to state that I am only omniscient to which is knowable, 5, 6 (past, and present), and 7 would all be knowable. Omniscience would allow the said entity I to be the source of existence itself in the best case possible and everything else being the by-product of the designer's willful activity.
In this regard, we see how an omniscient being creative actions actualize his omniscience and instantiate a reality that is distinct from the being's "mind". Prior to the act of creation, all possibly created entities are said to be part of the omniscient being's mind. With the free act of creation, created beings are thus actualized (in the case of our world, in a physical form) and are thus distinct from their creator. Without the act of creation, seeming paradoxes might ensue, but the being creative action and self-limitation makes reality and individuation possible as the very act of creation is the acti of individuation itself."
The focus here is on the term infinite. You can't limit God's 'omni' bits by placing logical arguments on them. The 'omni' of God is beyond all your finite logic. In the beginning was the word. Logos means, among other things, logic. God is logic, infinite logic and your finite logic is worlds short of understanding it.
Bikerman
Quote:
The focus here is on the term infinite. You can't limit God's 'omni' bits by placing logical arguments on them. The 'omni' of God is beyond all your finite logic. In the beginning was the word. Logos means, among other things, logic. God is logic, infinite logic and your finite logic is worlds short of understanding it.
But the wiki article you quoted says the opposite - it applies strict logic to the problem.
I find the argument unpersuasive - it smells too much of theology and not enough philosophy. The act of creation itself must have been already known by the creator and thus cannot be a 'new' instantiation, and is therefore not an act of true creation, but a historical inevitability.
Afaceinthematrix
nickfyoung wrote:
The focus here is on the term infinite. You can't limit God's 'omni' bits by placing logical arguments on them. The 'omni' of God is beyond all your finite logic. In the beginning was the word. Logos means, among other things, logic. God is logic, infinite logic and your finite logic is worlds short of understanding it.
That is why it is almost pointless to debate a Creationist. Anytime you point out illogical or irrational points regarding God or the Bible, or when you point out logical contradictions in the Bible, or when you point out scientific* arguments against a God, or scientific* reasoning for how the world works, etc. you will simply get a cop out response of "You just don't understand God because he works outside of the universe and beyond our logic."
*For scientific things, you'll just hear "Well God created the science! He guided evolution! Etc."
It's such an annoying cop-out because it is not a valid argument and while rational thinkers have to actually look at claims, check the science, find the contradictions, etc., all Creationists have to do is say the same one or two lines over and over because those couple of lines work in every single situation and they believe that they are valid.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
The focus here is on the term infinite. You can't limit God's 'omni' bits by placing logical arguments on them. The 'omni' of God is beyond all your finite logic. In the beginning was the word. Logos means, among other things, logic. God is logic, infinite logic and your finite logic is worlds short of understanding it.
That is why it is almost pointless to debate a Creationist. Anytime you point out illogical or irrational points regarding God or the Bible, or when you point out logical contradictions in the Bible, or when you point out scientific* arguments against a God, or scientific* reasoning for how the world works, etc. you will simply get a cop out response of "You just don't understand God because he works outside of the universe and beyond our logic."
*For scientific things, you'll just hear "Well God created the science! He guided evolution! Etc."
Quote:
It's such an annoying cop-out
because it is not a valid argument and while rational thinkers have to actually look at claims, check the science, find the contradictions, etc., all Creationists have to do is say the same one or two lines over and over because those couple of lines work in every single situation and they believe that they are valid.
Can imagine how that would be pretty annoying but for some creationists it is probably just as annoying but you are right. They should be more responsive that the standard 'cop out' lines. The trouble is most of them don't think and only accept what they are told by their peers. They don't understand the arguments and aren't bothered to do some research. I could go get the books and look up reasonable arguments but the debate would go no where. You have your view and I have mine and we both believe we are right. I have been reading one guy who maintains he can defeat any science point of view in very short time and has never been defeated in debate. However, he has one of those steel trap minds and all the knowledge needed. Too hard for me. I came kicking and screaming into Christianity a long time ago and have been discovering stuff about ever since. Most of it is not what your traditional church is teaching. Still don't trust science in some of these matters and even believe the latest 'climate change' is a con. That is just me.
Bikerman
Science is a method - or even a philosophy, but it isn't a 'thing' which one trusts or does not trust. To say one 'distrusts' science is to say one distrusts the scientific method - and since that method obviously works so well I'd like to see evidence that it is somehow deficient.
As for climate change - that is irrelevant to the thread and is, in any case, the subject of several threads in the more appropriate science forum. Saying it is a 'con' is possibly a philosophical point, but without some evidence to substantiate the claim - which is essentially that most of the scientists in the world, including all but 2 of those working in the relevant field, are either gullible, compelled or corrupt - then I don't consider it one worth taking seriously.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Science is a method - or even a philosophy, but it isn't a 'thing' which one trusts or does not trust.
Quote:
To say one 'distrusts' science is to say one distrusts the scientific method
- and since that method obviously works so well I'd like to see evidence that it is somehow deficient.
As for climate change - that is irrelevant to the thread and is, in any case, the subject of several threads in the more appropriate science forum. Saying it is a 'con' is possibly a philosophical point, but without some evidence to substantiate the claim - which is essentially that most of the scientists in the world, including all but 2 of those working in the relevant field, are either gullible, compelled or corrupt - then I don't consider it one worth taking seriously.
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
A scientist would never call anything a fact,only a theory.
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
A scientist would never call anything a fact,only a theory.
Then you would have two different theories based on the same evidence.
Afaceinthematrix
I know that you said this is off topic, Chris... But, I just can't help it:
Quote:
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
See, you observe and gather evidence, then you create a hypothesis, and then you test it. If it consistently passes all experiments, it becomes a theory. If it is falsified in an experiment, then you go to the drawing board. A theory has to explain ALL observations and not be falsified EVER in an experiment. Climate change models have explained all phenomenon that climatologists have observed and have even been used to make future predictions that have come true! The chemistry has been done and the process is understood pretty well. Evolution actually is a fact that can be observed and is a large piece of evidence to the overall theory of evolution (the biggest piece of evidence is DNA and then after that is probably the fossil record).
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
I know that you said this is off topic, Chris... But, I just can't help it:
Quote:
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
See, you observe and gather evidence, then you create a hypothesis, and then you test it. If it consistently passes all experiments, it becomes a theory. If it is falsified in an experiment, then you go to the drawing board. A theory has to explain ALL observations and not be falsified EVER in an experiment. Climate change models have explained all phenomenon that climatologists have observed and have even been used to make future predictions that have come true! The chemistry has been done and the process is understood pretty well. Evolution actually is a fact that can be observed and is a large piece of evidence to the overall theory of evolution (the biggest piece of evidence is DNA and then after that is probably the fossil record).
"There is a general misunderstanding of the differences between “origin science” and “operation science.” Origin science is based on events which happened in the past and are, therefore, not observable today. Operation science, though, is based on science currently being done in laboratories that is observable today. While it is true that operation science can help us understand what may have happened in the past, it is an extrapolation or best guess based on the evidence that we observe today.
Origins science, because it is not testable, tends to be more influenced by a scientist's bias, and therefore tends to be more subjective rather than objective."
I would suggest that your little diagram would better fit 'operation science'.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
A scientist would never call anything a fact,only a theory.
Then you would have two different theories based on the same evidence.
Then so be it,over time one theory will become strengthened while the other will be cast aside,or may be both will be cast aside in favour of a new theory.
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
A scientist would never call anything a fact,only a theory.
Then you would have two different theories based on the same evidence.
Then so be it,over time one theory will become strengthened while the other will be cast aside,or may be both will be cast aside in favour of a new theory.
Would you like a list of some hundreds , there were too many to count, of scientists both present and past who believe different to evolution.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
"There is a general misunderstanding of the differences between “origin science” and “operation science.” Origin science is based on events which happened in the past and are, therefore, not observable today. Operation science, though, is based on science currently being done in laboratories that is observable today. While it is true that operation science can help us understand what may have happened in the past, it is an extrapolation or best guess based on the evidence that we observe today.
Origins science, because it is not testable, tends to be more influenced by a scientist's bias, and therefore tends to be more subjective rather than objective."
I would suggest that your little diagram would better fit 'operation science'.
Just a word of advice: when you try to talk about science go to science websites for your sources - not discredited Creationist sites. Get your science from scientists and maybe your religion from Creationists. What you quoted is really a load of garbage. Science is testable and has nothing to do with a bias or an opinion.
Origin science and operation science seem like Creationist terms to me - not science terms. Evolution is observable (we have observed it), testable, and falsifiable. There is no room for opinion; the fossil record is what it is, DNA links are what they are; vestigial structures are only there where they are there, etc...
nickfyoung wrote:
Would you like a list of some hundreds , there were too many to count, of scientists both present and past who believe different to evolution.
I have never met a single actual scientist who didn't believe in evolution. The idea that there's even a debate about evolution in the scientific community is an old lie constantly told by Creationists.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Science is a method - or even a philosophy, but it isn't a 'thing' which one trusts or does not trust.
Quote:
To say one 'distrusts' science is to say one distrusts the scientific method
- and since that method obviously works so well I'd like to see evidence that it is somehow deficient.
As for climate change - that is irrelevant to the thread and is, in any case, the subject of several threads in the more appropriate science forum. Saying it is a 'con' is possibly a philosophical point, but without some evidence to substantiate the claim - which is essentially that most of the scientists in the world, including all but 2 of those working in the relevant field, are either gullible, compelled or corrupt - then I don't consider it one worth taking seriously.
Depending on a preconceived ides one can look at evidence and make a conclusion and call it a fact. However, some one who looks at the same evidence with a different preconceived idea can come to a different conclusion and call it fact. So we have the same evidence, two different preconceived ideas and two different facts. Can you not make a scientific method have any outcome you want depending on your preconceived idea.
No...this is fundamentally wrong and demonstrates a basic ignorance of both terms and methods.
Firstly, the scientific method is designed to preclude personal preconceptions - which is why we normally insist on such things as repeatability. If a new result in physics is announced, the first thing that happens is dozens of labs around the world try to replicate the findings.
Secondly science deals in theory and law. A scientific law is true for all cases in scope. A scientific theory is the best current model we have for a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
AGW is a scientific theory. It is supported by OBSERVATIONS - such as a global temperature rise of around 0.6 degrees over the last century, LAWS which setout the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature for example, and models.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
"There is a general misunderstanding of the differences between “origin science” and “operation science.” Origin science is based on events which happened in the past and are, therefore, not observable today. Operation science, though, is based on science currently being done in laboratories that is observable today. While it is true that operation science can help us understand what may have happened in the past, it is an extrapolation or best guess based on the evidence that we observe today.
Origins science, because it is not testable, tends to be more influenced by a scientist's bias, and therefore tends to be more subjective rather than objective."
I would suggest that your little diagram would better fit 'operation science'.
Just a word of advice: when you try to talk about science go to science websites for your sources - not discredited Creationist sites. Get your science from scientists and maybe your religion from Creationists. What you quoted is really a load of garbage. Science is testable and has nothing to do with a bias or an opinion.
Origin science and operation science seem like Creationist terms to me - not science terms. Evolution is observable (we have observed it), testable, and falsifiable. There is no room for opinion; the fossil record is what it is, DNA links are what they are; vestigial structures are only there where they are there, etc...
nickfyoung wrote:
Would you like a list of some hundreds , there were too many to count, of scientists both present and past who believe different to evolution.
I have never met a single actual scientist who didn't believe in evolution. The idea that there's even a debate about evolution in the scientific community is an old lie constantly told by Creationists.
The problem with science today is that it is coming to realize more and more that evolution is impossible and has been a big mistake. More and more scientists are realizing this and switching to the alternative of intelligent design. They are not necessarily saying that is God or anything religious but just that evolution is not true. To keep repeating that evolution is fact and has been verified is going against the current scientific trend. Maybe it 'used' to be fact and verifiable but the thinking is changing. Catch up.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
The problem with science today is that it is coming to realize more and more that evolution is impossible and has been a big mistake.
No its not.
nickfyoung wrote:
More and more scientists are realizing this and switching to the alternative of intelligent design.
No they are not.
nickfyoung wrote:
They are not necessarily saying that is God or anything religious but just that evolution is not true. To keep repeating that evolution is fact and has been verified is going against the current scientific trend.
Again not true.
nickfyoung wrote:
Maybe it 'used' to be fact and verifiable but the thinking is changing. Catch up.
So can you point to any sources other than creation websites that back up all your above bold statements?
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
The problem with science today is that it is coming to realize more and more that evolution is impossible and has been a big mistake.
No, they really aren't. You obviously don't talk to many scientists.
Quote:
More and more scientists are realizing this and switching to the alternative of intelligent design.
Bollox, complete and utter rubbish. Intelligent Design is not and never has been science.
Quote:
They are not necessarily saying that is God or anything religious
Yes they are...do some homework..
Quote:
but just that evolution is not true. To keep repeating that evolution is fact and has been verified is going against the current scientific trend.
Baloney.
Quote:
Maybe it 'used' to be fact and verifiable but the thinking is changing. Catch up.
You are simply spouting the discredited nonsense from creationist sites. I suggest it is YOU that needs to keep-up.
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
The problem with science today is that it is coming to realize more and more that evolution is impossible and has been a big mistake.
No its not.
nickfyoung wrote:
More and more scientists are realizing this and switching to the alternative of intelligent design.
No they are not.
nickfyoung wrote:
They are not necessarily saying that is God or anything religious but just that evolution is not true. To keep repeating that evolution is fact and has been verified is going against the current scientific trend.
Again not true.
nickfyoung wrote:
Maybe it 'used' to be fact and verifiable but the thinking is changing. Catch up.
So can you point to any sources other than creation websites that back up all your above bold statements?
The problem with science today is that it is coming to realize more and more that evolution is impossible and has been a big mistake.
No, they really aren't. You obviously don't talk to many scientists.
Quote:
More and more scientists are realizing this and switching to the alternative of intelligent design.
Bollox, complete and utter rubbish. Intelligent Design is not and never has been science.
Quote:
They are not necessarily saying that is God or anything religious
Yes they are...do some homework..
Quote:
but just that evolution is not true. To keep repeating that evolution is fact and has been verified is going against the current scientific trend.
Baloney.
Quote:
Maybe it 'used' to be fact and verifiable but the thinking is changing. Catch up.
You are simply spouting the discredited nonsense from creationist sites. I suggest it is YOU that needs to keep-up.
"Darwin’s great contribution to science was that he proposed a simple, straightforward explanation for how living things evolve. Now scientists have discovered his simple explanation isn’t correct; so they are trying to replace it with a complex, chaotic explanation. "
Again, get your science from scientists and not from Creationists. Just look at that website:
Quote:
There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.
And I find it funny that scientists of the likes of Kepler, Newton, Euler (imo the greatest mathematician to ever live), etc. lived hundreds of years ago and had no access to modern science. Ah... Look, the site even admits that. Then it says, by far, the stupidest thing that I have read in quite some time:
Quote:
Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.
Do you realize that the BIGGEST piece of evidence for evolution is DNA? The discovery of DNA was an unbelievable piece of evidence for evolution because we can now see the similarities in animals and how they can share common ancestors and even furthermore, we understand exactly how traits are inherited, what mutations are, and how this can lead to evidence.
In all reality: vestigial structures, fossil record, and DNA would probably each be big enough evidence to support evolution by themselves. Having all three is just an added bonus.
Quote:
Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977).
Seeing as most of his worth was done before Watson and Cricks amazing discovery in the 1950s and that he was a Nazi rocket maker it isn't too surprising... Besides, he makes rockets and so that hardly makes him qualified to make statements that he did about evolution. And really? There are thousands and thousands of scientists alive today and since Darwin's time probably a million scientists have lived and the best your Creationist website can do to find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution is some Nazi rocket maker? Really? And you think that helps your case? If so many scientists didn't accept evolution then you'd think that they would have a better example.
On a side note, I've noticed that many of the "scientists" that they are using to argue that many scientists do not believe in evolution are not actually scientists; they are engineers. Being an engineer can be great if you have the credentials. However, I know people who have done six month programs at some "college" advertised on television and now are called engineers. Check their credentials.
One last thing that I will add: if you want to completely take away all credibility of this website, just look at their homepage. It says:
Quote:
“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”
Let me say this just once, very loudly, because it is a very common misconception:
EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE RESULTED! IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE! Evolution just talks about speciation and the change in a gene pool over time... That is a very easy way to put it without having to get too technical.
Bikerman
LOL....just because a website has the word 'science' in the title - that doesn't mean it is credible or scientific.
To show this 'growing' anti-evolution in science all you have to do is produce a few published articles on the matter. Trouble is that you CAN'T because there are none.
Let me just emphasise that - there is NOT ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific article which seriously contends that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
LOL....just because a website has the word 'science' in the title - that doesn't mean it is credible or scientific.
To show this 'growing' anti-evolution in science all you have to do is produce a few published articles on the matter. Trouble is that you CAN'T because there are none.
Let me just emphasise that - there is NOT ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific article which seriously contends that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong.
Last time I was in the Philippines I read a comprehensive work interviewing several current prominent scientists in several fields and they all agreed that the support for evolution based on recent discoveries was diminishing. Trouble is I can't remember the name of the work or have a copy. Will keep searching for you. I know, you will just say there is no such thing.
Bikerman
LOL...easy claim to make, but without some support it cannot be taken seriously.
If it was a scientific paper then I am surprised you understood it and if it wasn't then it ain't worth a damn.
There are, inevitably, some scientists who are creationists, just as some are fascists, some are contrarians, some are corrupt, some are mentally ill (up to 15%) and so on.....this is normal 'background' noise.
You will find NO support for any alternative to evolution in ANY proper scientific journal for the simple reason that there IS no alternative. Most scientists (and I mean 99.9.....% - I haven't worked it out to a good number of decimals yet, but I will) accept evolutionary theory as just about as solid as ANY scientific theory we have.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...easy claim to make, but without some support it cannot be taken seriously.
If it was a scientific paper then I am surprised you understood it and if it wasn't then it ain't worth a damn.
There are, inevitably, some scientists who are creationists, just as some are fascists, some are contrarians, some are corrupt, some are mentally ill (up to 15%) and so on.....this is normal 'background' noise.
You will find NO support for any alternative to evolution in ANY proper scientific journal for the simple reason that there IS no alternative. Most scientists (and I mean 99.9.....% - I haven't worked it out to a good number of decimals yet, but I will) accept evolutionary theory as just about as solid as ANY scientific theory we have.
But I want to add that this isn't some cult; these scientists aren't mindlessly accepting evolution. Let me tell you this: if there was ever even ONE confirmed experiment that discredited evolution (or more likely some part of it; there is too much to it to be discredited at once) then scientists would not believe it. They would move onto another hypothesis. Look at the picture that I showed you. The fact that evolution has consistently passed every experiment, explains all the observations/evidence, and is a highly successful model that explains things that we see today (viruses becoming immune to medicine for one) shows how rock-solid of a theory it really is.
Bikerman
Not to mention the fact that if any scientist COULD really cast doubt on the evolutionary synthesis, they would be in clover - a Nobel Prize would be the very least they could expect.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...easy claim to make, but without some support it cannot be taken seriously.
If it was a scientific paper then I am surprised you understood it and if it wasn't then it ain't worth a damn.
There are, inevitably, some scientists who are creationists, just as some are fascists, some are contrarians, some are corrupt, some are mentally ill (up to 15%) and so on.....this is normal 'background' noise.
You will find NO support for any alternative to evolution in ANY proper scientific journal for the simple reason that there IS no alternative. Most scientists (and I mean 99.9.....% - I haven't worked it out to a good number of decimals yet, but I will) accept evolutionary theory as just about as solid as ANY scientific theory we have.
But I want to add that this isn't some cult; these scientists are mindlessly accepting evolution. Let me tell you this: if there was ever even ONE confirmed experiment that discredited evolution (or more likely some part of it; there is too much to it to be discredited at once) then scientists would not believe it. They would move onto another hypothesis. Look at the picture that I showed you. The fact that evolution has consistently passed every experiment, explains all the observations/evidence, and is a highly successful model that explains things that we see today (viruses becoming immune to medicine for one) shows how rock-solid of a theory it really is.
a) It is an opinion piece in a newspaper, not a scientific article.
b) The author is a palaeontologist, not a biologist,
c) It is arguing that the current synthesis places too much emphasis on natural selection and not enough on accumulated gene mutation. In other words it is an argument WITHIN the evolutionary paradigm, not an attack on that paradigm. Such arguments are common and are part of the normal scientific process.
I think that it is irrelevant whether a god exists or not. However, the more I look into how complex the universe is, the more I start to think that something is at least partially responsible for creating this. The most confusing thing for me is: What was there before the "god"?
nickfyoung
Haley_Madison wrote:
I think that it is irrelevant whether a god exists or not. However, the more I look into how complex the universe is, the more I start to think that something is at least partially responsible for creating this. The most confusing thing for me is: What was there before the "god"?
Yes, it seems that there must have been a start to it all. Science talks about big bangs and other such stuff. Complex is right. The more we discover the more there is to discover. The universe seems to go on and on with no end in sight getting bigger and bigger. I like the theory that when God said in the beginning of the bible 'let there be light', and there was light, he has never said to that light to stop. So as that light continues to travel at the speed of light it reveals more and more universe. I know, sounds a bit fantasy type stuff but I like it.
Afaceinthematrix
Haley_Madison wrote:
I think that it is irrelevant whether a god exists or not. However, the more I look into how complex the universe is, the more I start to think that something is at least partially responsible for creating this. The most confusing thing for me is: What was there before the "god"?
That's because you haven't done enough studying. The universe is very complex and studying it is hard but the more complex it is, the more interesting studying it gets, and the more that you study it the more you learn about naturalistic and rational explanations for our universe. What was before god is a good argument against the existence of god. If you argue that you need a god to create the universe then you must either except that something created that god - which brings us into a circular argument - or that god has just always been there - but if you accept that god (something far more complex than the universe) has always been there then why not just accept that the universe (less complex) has just always been there?
You're correct in that it is irrelevant whether or not a god exists. What is relevant, though, is that many people believe that there is a god regardless to whether there actually is a god, and many of those people are willing to care for that leap of sheer faith or do things such as try to get science (evolution) out of the classrooms which will just put us back to the dark ages.
nickfyoung wrote:
Yes, it seems that there must have been a start to it all. Science talks about big bangs and other such stuff. Complex is right. The more we discover the more there is to discover. The universe seems to go on and on with no end in sight getting bigger and bigger. I like the theory that when God said in the beginning of the bible 'let there be light', and there was light, he has never said to that light to stop. So as that light continues to travel at the speed of light it reveals more and more universe. I know, sounds a bit fantasy type stuff but I like it.
That's not a theory - it's barely a hypothesis. It surely isn't testable, falsifiable, rational, or supported by evidence.
nickfyoung
[quote="Afaceinthematrix"]
Haley_Madison wrote:
I think that it is irrelevant whether a god exists or not. However, the more I look into how complex the universe is, the more I start to think that something is at least partially responsible for creating this. The most confusing thing for me is: What was there before the "god"?
That's because you haven't done enough studying. The universe is very complex and studying it is hard but the more complex it is, the more interesting studying it gets, and the more that you study it the more you learn about naturalistic and rational explanations for our universe. What was before god is a good argument against the existence of god. If you argue that you need a god to create the universe then you must either except that something created that god - which brings us into a circular argument - or that god has just always been there - but if you accept that god (something far more complex than the universe) has always been there then why not just accept that the universe (less complex) has just always been there?
Quote:
You're correct in that it is irrelevant whether or not a god exists.
Relevant to those who believe that there is a god though. Why can't that relevance to them be just as relevant as in isn't to you.
What is relevant, though,
Quote:
is that many people believe that there is a god regardless to whether there actually is a god, and many of [/quote
If they believe there is a god then there is to them regardless if you believe there isn't.
]those people are willing to care for
Quote:
that leap of sheer faith
They would see evolution as a shear leap of faith too.
or do things such as
Quote:
try to get science (evolution) out of the classrooms
If creation was taught in the classroom wouldn't you be doing all you could to get it out.
which will just put us back to the dark ages.
nickfyoung wrote:
Yes, it seems that there must have been a start to it all. Science talks about big bangs and other such stuff. Complex is right. The more we discover the more there is to discover. The universe seems to go on and on with no end in sight getting bigger and bigger. I like the theory that when God said in the beginning of the bible 'let there be light', and there was light, he has never said to that light to stop. So as that light continues to travel at the speed of light it reveals more and more universe. I know, sounds a bit fantasy type stuff but I like it.
Quote:
That's not a theory - it's barely a hypothesis. It surely isn't testable, falsifiable, rational, or supported by evidence.
Yes but it sounds good doesn't it. Try and imagine that context happening. Imagine all those crazy people who actually believe that.
Afaceinthematrix
nickfyoung wrote:
Relevant to those who believe that there is a god though. Why can't that relevance to them be just as relevant as in isn't to you.
No; what is relevant is their belief in God. If they believe that God exists and go their whole life doing the actions of worshiping that God then it doesn't really make a difference if there is actually a god or not. The belief in God is important to many people.
Quote:
Because if you accept that God has always been there then why couldn't he have created the universe. It is much more feasible than saying that the universe has always been there or it somehow created itself.
It is more feasible? Tell me, what is the difference between the feasibility of these two statements:
1) God has always been there. Nothing created God.
2) The universe has always been there. Nothing created it.
Both of them require the same lack of understanding of what happened before the point that we understand. However, the difference is that we have zero evidence for a god yet we are discovering more and more about the early universe by the day. The universe is something that we can study and learn more about; God isn't.
Quote:
If they believe there is a god then there is to them regardless if you believe there isn't
No; there isn't a god to them regardless if I believe or not. There is or isn't a god simply by there being a god or not. Both of our opinions are irrelevant, really. All that matters is what the actual truth is. I just go with the hypothesis that is backed by evidence.
Quote:
They would see evolution as a shear leap of faith too.
Then they are wrong. A shear leap of faith is something that is not based on evidence. Evolution has magnitudes of evidence.
Quote:
If creation was taught in the classroom wouldn't you be doing all you could to get it out.
Hell yeah! There's a difference, though. Creationism is not science and so it does not belong in a science classroom. Science belongs in a science classroom; math belongs in a math classroom; history belongs in a history classroom; English belongs in an English classroom; Spanish belongs in a Spanish classroom; religion belongs in a church. The government has no business promoting any religion because we have freedom of religion and it seems like a no-brainer that you teach science in a science classroom. What else would you teach in a science classroom besides science?
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Relevant to those who believe that there is a god though. Why can't that relevance to them be just as relevant as in isn't to you.
No; what is relevant is their belief in God. If they believe that God exists and go their whole life doing the actions of worshiping that God
Quote:
then it doesn't really make a difference if there is actually a god or not.
It does matter to them otherwise they would be worshipping a god that doesn't exist.
The belief in God is important to many people.
Quote:
Because if you accept that God has always been there then why couldn't he have created the universe. It is much more feasible than saying that the universe has always been there or it somehow created itself.
It is more feasible? Tell me, what is the difference between the feasibility of these two statements:
1) God has always been there. Nothing created God.
2) The universe has always been there. Nothing created it.
Quote:
Both of them require the same lack of understanding of what happened before the point that we understand. However, the difference is that we have zero evidence for a god yet we are discovering more and more about the early universe by the day. The universe is something that we can study and learn more about; God isn't.
Those who believe in this God would say that there is plenty of evidence for God and he is something we can study and learn more about. They would say that they have all the knowledge they need about the universe because God has told them so they would say your evidence, because it contradicts Gods must be flawed.
Quote:
If they believe there is a god then there is to them regardless if you believe there isn't
Quote:
No; there isn't a god to them regardless if I believe or not. There is or isn't a god simply by there being a god or not. Both of our opinions are irrelevant, really. All that matters is what the actual truth is. I just go with the hypothesis that is backed by evidence.
Of course they would say that the evidence points to God and he is the truth.
Quote:
They would see evolution as a shear leap of faith too.
Quote:
Then they are wrong. A shear leap of faith is something that is not based on evidence. Evolution has magnitudes of evidence.
So you are saying then that there is no evidence for the existence of God and they are saying that there is no evidence for evolution.
Quote:
If creation was taught in the classroom wouldn't you be doing all you could to get it out.
Hell yeah! There's a difference, though. Creationism is not science and so it does not belong in a science classroom. Science belongs in a science classroom; math belongs in a math classroom; history belongs in a history classroom; English belongs in an English classroom; Spanish belongs in a Spanish classroom; religion belongs in a church. The government has no business promoting any religion because we have freedom of religion and it seems like a no-brainer that you teach science in a science classroom. What else would you teach in a science classroom besides science?
Of course they would say again that creation is science and not just religion but then they also say that Christianity is the only true religion and all others are false. Some big claims.
Bikerman
Well, if they say it is science then they are either ignorant or lying. It really isn't a matter of opinion.
Afaceinthematrix
nickfyoung wrote:
It does matter to them otherwise they would be worshipping a god that doesn't exist.
But they would not know that. They never will. Nobody will ever know if God actually exists because it is something that you cannot prove or disprove. Therefore, it is only the belief in God that matters; not the existence of God.
Quote:
Those who believe in this God would say that there is plenty of evidence for God and he is something we can study and learn more about. They would say that they have all the knowledge they need about the universe because God has told them so they would say your evidence, because it contradicts Gods must be flawed.
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about the difference between opinion and fact. They can say that there is plenty of evidence for God but there is zero, nada, NONE. What they have is a "hunch" or an emotional desire to know that there is a god. This is not actual evidence and would stand up in absolutely no scientific pape
Quote:
Of course they would say that the evidence points to God and he is the truth.
Again, there is zero evidence for a God. The belief in a god is irrational in itself but the somewhat more rational Christians that I know at least admit that their religion is based on faith and not evidence because they realize that they have to accept it on pure faith because science just doesn't agree with it.
Quote:
So you are saying then that there is no evidence for the existence of God and they are saying that there is no evidence for evolution.
I am saying that because it is a fact. I can clearly show that there is evidence for evolution.
1) Fossil Record
2) DNA
3) Vestigial Structures
4) Actual observed evolution
There, I just listed four pretty damn solid pieces of evidence for evolution. Name one piece of evidence for a god. Just one... I'll be happy with only one actual piece of solid evidence that can be tested and falsified.
Quote:
Of course they would say again that creation is science and not just religion but then they also say that Christianity is the only true religion and all others are false. Some big claims.
OMG... Wow... I posted this picture earlier and you even quoted my post with the picture that proves that you acknowledged that you saw the picture. Science requires the scientific method i.e. it requires THIS (which, I didn't noticed until right now, was actually taken from the website of my Alma Mater):
If there is no scientific method then there is no science. It is that freakin' simple! Creationism can never be tested or falsified and so, therefore, by DEFINITION, is not science.
Plus you have to look at the fact that Creationism has done nothing but hold science and society back (such as in the dark ages) where science (specifically biology - where evolution is studies) is responsible for medicine, three times longer life spans, better and healthier food, more food, etc... and science as a whole is responsible for everything from that computer that you are using to modern agricultural methods which feed the majority of the world. Science actually works and increases all of our lives and is something that will actually advance society. Try praying for all of the stuff that science has given us and you'll be disappointed. Since religion doesn't work and science does then science is the one that is doing it correctly...
P.S. PLEASE learn to use quote tags correctly; responding to your posts is a long and tedious process because I have to figure out who posted what because you consistently use them incorrectly.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if they say it is science then they are either ignorant or lying. It really isn't a matter of opinion.
I don't think they are lying so they must be ignorant. There is really a lot of them, do think they are all ignorant, even the highly educated ones and the ones who profess to be scientists even.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
It does matter to them otherwise they would be worshipping a god that doesn't exist.
But they would not know that. They never will. Nobody will ever know if God actually exists because it is something that you cannot prove or disprove. Therefore, it is only the belief in God that matters; not the existence of God.
Quote:
Those who believe in this God would say that there is plenty of evidence for God and he is something we can study and learn more about. They would say that they have all the knowledge they need about the universe because God has told them so they would say your evidence, because it contradicts Gods must be flawed.
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about the difference between opinion and fact. They can say that there is plenty of evidence for God but there is zero, nada, NONE. What they have is a "hunch" or an emotional desire to know that there is a god. This is not actual evidence and would stand up in absolutely no scientific pape
Quote:
Of course they would say that the evidence points to God and he is the truth.
Again, there is zero evidence for a God. The belief in a god is irrational in itself but the somewhat more rational Christians that I know at least admit that their religion is based on faith and not evidence because they realize that they have to accept it on pure faith because science just doesn't agree with it.
Quote:
So you are saying then that there is no evidence for the existence of God and they are saying that there is no evidence for evolution.
I am saying that because it is a fact. I can clearly show that there is evidence for evolution.
1) Fossil Record
2) DNA
3) Vestigial Structures
4) Actual observed evolution
There, I just listed four pretty damn solid pieces of evidence for evolution. Name one piece of evidence for a god. Just one... I'll be happy with only one actual piece of solid evidence that can be tested and falsified.
Quote:
Of course they would say again that creation is science and not just religion but then they also say that Christianity is the only true religion and all others are false. Some big claims.
OMG... Wow... I posted this picture earlier and you even quoted my post with the picture that proves that you acknowledged that you saw the picture. Science requires the scientific method i.e. it requires THIS (which, I didn't noticed until right now, was actually taken from the website of my Alma Mater):
If there is no scientific method then there is no science. It is that freakin' simple! Creationism can never be tested or falsified and so, therefore, by DEFINITION, is not science.
Plus you have to look at the fact that Creationism has done nothing but hold science and society back (such as in the dark ages) where science (specifically biology - where evolution is studies) is responsible for medicine, three times longer life spans, better and healthier food, more food, etc... and science as a whole is responsible for everything from that computer that you are using to modern agricultural methods which feed the majority of the world. Science actually works and increases all of our lives and is something that will actually advance society. Try praying for all of the stuff that science has given us and you'll be disappointed. Since religion doesn't work and science does then science is the one that is doing it correctly...
P.S. PLEASE learn to use quote tags correctly; responding to your posts is a long and tedious process because I have to figure out who posted what because you consistently use them incorrectly.
I will try and respond at the bottom as I do get confused with the working of the quote tags.
Can I ask again then. What are your thoughts on an extra dimension, ie a 4th dimension or spiritual dimension.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if they say it is science then they are either ignorant or lying. It really isn't a matter of opinion.
I don't think they are lying so they must be ignorant. There is really a lot of them, do think they are all ignorant, even the highly educated ones and the ones who profess to be scientists even.
Any scientist who says that ID/creationism is science is probably lying. Some, like Dembski, are so screwed-up that it is difficult to know if THEY know they are lying - but to NOT know involves a level of intellectual dishonesty which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
Can I ask again then. What are your thoughts on an extra dimension, ie a 4th dimension or spiritual dimension.
We live in Euclidean space. The dimension of a space is the number of elements in its basis. A basis is a linearly independent set of vectors that spans the entire space. So in other words, the term dimension simply refers to the amount of elements that you need to describe any point in your space. For most practical purposes, the space that we live in is three dimensions because to describe any point in that space, you need three coordinates (commonly referred to as x, y, and z). For some problems in physics, you may need further dimensions. Sometimes you need to define some vector space that might have another coordinate - such as a time coordinate - so that you can view certain points of this space at a specific time. I remember one problem that I was working on recently was related to trying to predict traffic flow on a certain highway after an accident and I had to look at traffic density, x, y, z coordinates, and time.
However, spirituality is something that is not needed to describe any point in our space. It is quite irrelevant to any point in our space and if we include it in our basis vectors then we will still need our actual coordinates to describe our points and so we get a linearly dependent (because we still get [x,y,z,t,spiritual] and since spiritual describes nothing you can essentially just choose any value for it) set of vectors spanning our space and so by the definition of what dimension actually is, it does not exist.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
Can I ask again then. What are your thoughts on an extra dimension, ie a 4th dimension or spiritual dimension.
We live in Euclidean space. The dimension of a space is the number of elements in its basis. A basis is a linearly independent set of vectors that spans the entire space. So in other words, the term dimension simply refers to the amount of elements that you need to describe any point in your space. For most practical purposes, the space that we live in is three dimensions because to describe any point in that space, you need three coordinates (commonly referred to as x, y, and z). For some problems in physics, you may need further dimensions. Sometimes you need to define some vector space that might have another coordinate - such as a time coordinate - so that you can view certain points of this space at a specific time. I remember one problem that I was working on recently was related to trying to predict traffic flow on a certain highway after an accident and I had to look at traffic density, x, y, z coordinates, and time.
However, spirituality is something that is not needed to describe any point in our space. It is quite irrelevant to any point in our space and if we include it in our basis vectors then we will still need our actual coordinates to describe our points and so we get a linearly dependent (because we still get [x,y,z,t,spiritual] and since spiritual describes nothing you can essentially just choose any value for it) set of vectors spanning our space and so by the definition of what dimension actually is, it does not exist.
I thought there were lots of people operating in that dimension, fortune tellers, witches etc. So you are saying that it does not exist.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if they say it is science then they are either ignorant or lying. It really isn't a matter of opinion.
I don't think they are lying so they must be ignorant. There is really a lot of them, do think they are all ignorant, even the highly educated ones and the ones who profess to be scientists even.
Any scientist who says that ID/creationism is science is probably lying. Some, like Dembski, are so screwed-up that it is difficult to know if THEY know they are lying - but to NOT know involves a level of intellectual dishonesty which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
You are lumping a huge mass of people in that classification.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if they say it is science then they are either ignorant or lying. It really isn't a matter of opinion.
I don't think they are lying so they must be ignorant. There is really a lot of them, do think they are all ignorant, even the highly educated ones and the ones who profess to be scientists even.
Any scientist who says that ID/creationism is science is probably lying. Some, like Dembski, are so screwed-up that it is difficult to know if THEY know they are lying - but to NOT know involves a level of intellectual dishonesty which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
You are lumping a huge mass of people in that classification.
Hardly. The number of creationist scientists is not very large.
However, how many people believe something is not a good indicator of the truth of that something.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if they say it is science then they are either ignorant or lying. It really isn't a matter of opinion.
I don't think they are lying so they must be ignorant. There is really a lot of them, do think they are all ignorant, even the highly educated ones and the ones who profess to be scientists even.
Any scientist who says that ID/creationism is science is probably lying. Some, like Dembski, are so screwed-up that it is difficult to know if THEY know they are lying - but to NOT know involves a level of intellectual dishonesty which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
You are lumping a huge mass of people in that classification.
Hardly. The number of creationist scientists is not very large.
However, how many people believe something is not a good indicator of the truth of that something.
What then are your thoughts on a 4th dimension. Your colleague says that the spiritual dimension does not exist.
Bikerman
The 4th dimension exists, no doubt. We call it time.
I don't know what 'spiritual dimension' is supposed to mean.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
The 4th dimension exists, no doubt. We call it time.
I don't know what 'spiritual dimension' is supposed to mean.
So what dimension are the clairvoyants operating in, or the Buddhist monk who levitates etc. Is there a demonic realm. What about Satanism or the world of voodoo.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The 4th dimension exists, no doubt. We call it time.
I don't know what 'spiritual dimension' is supposed to mean.
So what dimension are the clairvoyants operating in, or the Buddhist monk who levitates etc. Is there a demonic realm. What about Satanism or the world of voodoo.
There is no "dimension are the clairvoyants operating in, or the Buddhist monk who levitates etc. Is there a demonic realm. What about Satanism or the world of voodoo" because we do not need any of that nonsense to describe any point in the space that we are living in. To describe where you are right now in space-time you would only need four dimensions: [x,y,z,t] and for most physical applications you really only need three dimensions.
P.S. Magic isn't real. No one has ever been able to replicate any act of magic in a controlled scientific experiment. I can levitate. If you're standing at the right angle I can push my body up with my toes and lift my other foot at the correct height to make it appear that I am levitating. This is an old child's trick. Would it stand up in any scientifically controlled environment? Of course not...
There is no "dimension are the clairvoyants operating in, or the Buddhist monk who levitates etc. Is there a demonic realm. What about Satanism or the world of voodoo" because we do not need any of that nonsense to describe any point in the space that we are living in. To describe where you are right now in space-time you would only need four dimensions: [x,y,z,t] and for most physical applications you really only need three dimensions.
P.S. Magic isn't real. No one has ever been able to replicate any act of magic in a controlled scientific experiment. I can levitate. If you're standing at the right angle I can push my body up with my toes and lift my other foot at the correct height to make it appear that I am levitating. This is an old child's trick. Would it stand up in any scientifically controlled environment? Of course not...
Can't get into a debate on dimensions and relativity being a layman so are you saying that you discount all , what to call it now, areas where people appear to be operating in some sort of supernatural realm. A Buddhist monk will generally levitate from a sitting position and in a seance say, people will get information that could not be know by anyone else. Is it all trickery and there is no such area of this other 'realm'.
Afaceinthematrix
It is trickery. I have read articles about scientific organizations offering millions of dollars to people who can perform feats of magic in controlled settings yet nobody has come to claim all of this money? Surprised?
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
It is trickery. I have read articles about scientific organizations offering millions of dollars to people who can perform feats of magic in controlled settings yet nobody has come to claim all of this money? Surprised?
Not talking about magic. Magic is just sleight of hand.
Afaceinthematrix
nickfyoung wrote:
Not talking about magic. Magic is just sleight of hand.
Yes you are.
Wikipedia wrote:
Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
That is exactly what you are talking about. "Magic tricks" really should be called (and many people do call them this) "illusions" and the people who do these illusions should be called (and some people do call them this) "illusionists" instead of "magicians."
You are talking about the supernatural and so you are talking about magic and magic is not real.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Not talking about magic. Magic is just sleight of hand.
Yes you are.
Wikipedia wrote:
Magic is the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
That is exactly what you are talking about. "Magic tricks" really should be called (and many people do call them this) "illusions" and the people who do these illusions should be called (and some people do call them this) "illusionists" instead of "magicians."
You are talking about the supernatural and so you are talking about magic and magic is not real.
Since we are quoting Wiki you will note they also have articles on the Supernatural.
No, it simply doesn't accept it, the whole "lack of evidence" and all that... plus, once there's evidence, it enters the realm of super and becomes natural.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Does science reject the supernatural outright.
No, it simply doesn't accept it, the whole "lack of evidence" and all that... plus, once there's evidence, it enters the realm of super and becomes natural.
Something is not quite making sense here. There is no supernatural because there is no evidence. However, if there was evidence then it would become natural. So evidence to prove supernatural in fact negates supernatural. To prove it is to negate it. Have I got that right.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
Something is not quite making sense here. There is no supernatural because there is no evidence. However, if there was evidence then it would become natural. So evidence to prove supernatural in fact negates supernatural. To prove it is to negate it. Have I got that right.
Yup. Just read the very first sentence in that Wikipedia page that YOU posted a link to:
Quote:
The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD)[1][2] is that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.
So once something is subject to the laws of nature it is no longer supernatural.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
Something is not quite making sense here. There is no supernatural because there is no evidence. However, if there was evidence then it would become natural. So evidence to prove supernatural in fact negates supernatural. To prove it is to negate it. Have I got that right.
Yup. Just read the very first sentence in that Wikipedia page that YOU posted a link to:
Quote:
The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD)[1][2] is that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.
So once something is subject to the laws of nature it is no longer supernatural.
Of course. So are you saying that science can accept that which is not subject to the laws of nature and is therefore supernatural.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
Of course. So are you saying that science can accept that which is not subject to the laws of nature and is therefore supernatural.
'Science' is not a thing or a person, so the question of 'science accepting' makes no sense.
The laws of science tell us that some things should not be observed to happen. If those things ARE observed to happen then, of course, one can examine them scientifically. That is how science works.
Science tells us that people cannot levitate without somehow applying a force sufficient to overcome gravitational attraction. Therefore, if someone levitates, we look for such a force. Science also tells us that there are only a few candidates - in this case they would be electromagnetism or 'wind'. If those are ruled out then the scientist must propose another force - the woo-woo force.
Now, in the REAL world, no such scenario has EVER arisen because ALL such claims are bogus.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Of course. So are you saying that science can accept that which is not subject to the laws of nature and is therefore supernatural.
'Science' is not a thing or a person, so the question of 'science accepting' makes no sense.
The laws of science tell us that some things should not be observed to happen. If those things ARE observed to happen then, of course, one can examine them scientifically. That is how science works.
Science tells us that people cannot levitate without somehow applying a force sufficient to overcome gravitational attraction. Therefore, if someone levitates, we look for such a force. Science also tells us that there are only a few candidates - in this case they would be electromagnetism or 'wind'. If those are ruled out then the scientist must propose another force - the woo-woo force.
Now, in the REAL world, no such scenario has EVER arisen because ALL such claims are bogus.
Still trying to get my head around this. So the laws of science don't include anything supernatural. There is nothing supernatural covered under the laws of science. So if there was a supernatural then science would try to rule it out by all scientific laws. Then, because all such claims are bogus...Are they bogus because science has ruled them out with scientific laws or have they all been proved to be bogus using the laws of science. It all boils down to scientists not accepting anything supernatural as plausible because it does not fit into any law of science. Am I starting to understand it.
TheLimey
The Earth was not created within 3 days... hmm doesn't evolution state it was created in split second from something smaller than the period at the end of this sentence? well that was a question mark. Point is the Earth was created very quickly even in evolution?so that was a weak argument there.. I am not a religious person anyway. I have had my bad experiences in Religion and now don't listen to any of it from Creation to Scientology to Evolution.
Afaceinthematrix
TheLimey wrote:
The Earth was not created within 3 days... hmm doesn't evolution state it was created in split second from something smaller than the period at the end of this sentence? well that was a question mark. Point is the Earth was created very quickly even in evolution?so that was a weak argument there.. I am not a religious person anyway. I have had my bad experiences in Religion and now don't listen to any of it from Creation to Scientology to Evolution.
You're seriously misinformed and not educated when it comes to science. For one, you said, "I have had my bad experiences in Religion and now don't listen to any of it from Creation to Scientology to Evolution." Evolution is NOT a religion as you classified it. Is it a model that explains speciation and is supported by an abundance of evidence including fossil records, DNA, vestigial structures, and actual observation. Evolution is also an observed fact and something that we see happen in nature.
Another point is that evolution does NOT state that the earth was created in a split second from something smaller than a period. Evolution says NOTHING about how the earth was created - at all. It says absolutely nothing about how the earth was created. We cover that in almost every topic that arises here about evolution. It gets really annoying explaining the same shit over and over because people don't actually bother to read the current discussions or even spend five minutes reading the Wikipedia page on a subject. Evolution can get very tricky because you have to understand how DNA works and how mutations occur and how traits are passed down etc. But knowing the basic idea is something that isn't too hard to spend a small amount of time reading on so that when you talk about it you actually know what you're talking about and not just saying that evolutionary theory says something that it doesn't and then looking bad in front of the people you're debating (that will usually have no problem correcting you).
loremar
nickfyoung wrote:
Still trying to get my head around this. So the laws of science don't include anything supernatural. There is nothing supernatural covered under the laws of science. So if there was a supernatural then science would try to rule it out by all scientific laws. Then, because all such claims are bogus...Are they bogus because science has ruled them out with scientific laws or have they all been proved to be bogus using the laws of science. It all boils down to scientists not accepting anything supernatural as plausible because it does not fit into any law of science. Am I starting to understand it.
What I've learn is that it's never simple to include something as scientific. Something that can't be verified through observation or experimentation can't be Science, much more something that can be verified to be false. If something is verifiably observed to defy the laws of nature which is by the way a big IF, then the laws have to be revised to cover every observable phenomenon including past and present/new observations. That's where hypotheses comes in to explain this new observation. Every hypothesis is contested until the last man standing, the one which is proven to predict every observation. It's important that it can predict that such phenomena can occur, otherwise any explanation that can't predict an observation isn't worthy to be even considered in science. Accuracy is most vital in Science hence the adage "SCIENCE WORKS" because it's so accurate and so precise even to the slightest centavo. It's safe to say that anything outside science can not be accurate because whatever is accurate is definitely scientific.
The moral lesson here is that Scientists work so that NOTHING can defy the laws of nature, formulate laws that are tried and tested and are irrefutable. In fact as Matrix said some people offered some HUGE money for anyone who can show something that defies a law of nature. So far, I've yet to discover a news that someone successfully done so.
Supernatural stuffs like ghosts can not be scientific because all the stuffs about it are either proven false or not verifiable. Many said to be evidence is either debunked or unverifiable. There's a huge impact to people on the reliability of science, and any intelligent person should rely on it. For example, should you expect to encounter ghosts on a said haunted house and be afraid about it? Scientists can't even verify such things and most of it are even debunked. How much more an ordinary person invading a haunted house on a random day?
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
Still trying to get my head around this. So the laws of science don't include anything supernatural. There is nothing supernatural covered under the laws of science. So if there was a supernatural then science would try to rule it out by all scientific laws. Then, because all such claims are bogus...Are they bogus because science has ruled them out with scientific laws or have they all been proved to be bogus using the laws of science. It all boils down to scientists not accepting anything supernatural as plausible because it does not fit into any law of science. Am I starting to understand it.
Science is a process, it's not a static body of knowledge. Science is the process by which we examine the universe around us (and ourselves) and how the various elements interact, and through examination, build explanations of HOW/WHY things interact the way they do. As such, science is constantly changing as we observe new information, and/or reexamine old information in new light... nothing is sacred in science, everything is in question... only those explanations (read this as "theory") that stand up are accepted, and only insofar as they continue to stand. Contradictions require a theory, no matter how well liked, or how well established, to be changed, or, in some cases completely replaced.
Science is bound by that which exists, that which can be observed... if it cannot be observed, science cannot comment upon it, and for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.
There are many things which could not previously been observed which we can observe now. Look at germ theory; in the past illnesses were believed to have supernatural cause (gods, spirits, etc), we didn't know how diseases were passed between individuals, we didn't know where they originated, we just knew that people got sick. In recent centuries we've come to understand that many diseases have microscopic causes, many of which are, in fact, living things, and we understand how they proliferate, and pass between individuals. Disease has gone from supernatural to natural as we've come to observe and understand the phenomena at its heart... the reality is that it was always a natural phenomenon, we just didn't understand it.
It's not that science rejected disease, because it was supernatural, but it sought an actual explanation. Most appeals to the supernatural are an admittance of defeat, simply saying "I don't know" and making something, ANYTHING, up, rather than seeking truth. It's switching off, disengaging from reality... more often than not it also involves giant leaps of reasoning/logic; accepting something as true, not because it's supported, but because you have rejected other avenues... it's fallacious.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Evolution can get very tricky because you have to understand how DNA works and how mutations occur and how traits are passed down etc. But knowing the basic idea is something that isn't too hard to spend a small amount of time reading on so that when you talk about it you actually know what you're talking about and not just saying that evolutionary theory says something that it doesn't and then looking bad in front of the people you're debating (that will usually have no problem correcting you).
Chucky D. would disagree
You really don't need to know anything about the mechanics of evolution to understand the concepts. The bulk of the theory was developed without such knowledge, and Mendell's work allowed us to refine the theory to include such concepts... but they're not needed to discuss evolution or even get a good grasp of the basics. For most people it really doesn't need to be any more detailed than: a) individuals vary, b) some variations are heritable, c) individuals with variations that allow them to compete better in some way tend to have more offspring, d) advantageous traits become more common within the population based on this difference in reproductive success. No need for anything deeper, that's evolution in a nutshell.
One, such as TheLimey, might notice that there is absolutely ZERO mention of how life originated, zero mention of how the Earth formed, and also zero mention of how the universe came to exist... It only addresses the changes in the occurrence rates of traits within populations (which, yes, leads into topics like speciation, but applies before that point of discussion as well, and through it).
You do need a solid understanding of DNA, mutation, heredity, etc. when you start getting into the details and where any actual "controversy" might arise concerning the theory, but, that's beyond the level of understanding of most lay folk, and really is the domain of the educated.
Afaceinthematrix
Ankhanu wrote:
Chucky D. would disagree ;)
You really don't need to know anything about the mechanics of evolution to understand the concepts. The bulk of the theory was developed without such knowledge, and Mendell's work allowed us to refine the theory to include such concepts... but they're not needed to discuss evolution or even get a good grasp of the basics. For most people it really doesn't need to be any more detailed than: a) individuals vary, b) some variations are heritable, c) individuals with variations that allow them to compete better in some way tend to have more offspring, d) advantageous traits become more common within the population based on this difference in reproductive success. No need for anything deeper, that's evolution in a nutshell.
That's essentially what I said. I said that the "But knowing the basic idea is something that isn't too hard to spend a small amount of time reading on so that when you talk about it you actually know what you're talking about and not just saying that evolutionary theory says something that it doesn't and then looking bad in front of the people you're debating (that will usually have no problem correcting you)." Looking back, that was very poor sentence structure but I was in a hurry (as I usually am when I am posting) and I didn't proof-read what I said. However, the basic idea is still there. I said that knowing the basic idea is simple and spending a small amount of time reading about it is all that is needed because the basic idea is simple.
However, I still stand by what I said in that the subject can get very tricky. Studying something like the eye or stomach and learning how it evolved, or conducting experiments in it, studying the fossil record and dating the fossils to make sure that they are in the right area, using DNA evidence to support evolution (such as noticing that chimps share something like 97% of our DNA or seeing other DNA links between animals) does get tricky.
However, the basics are something that you only need a small amount of time to read up on (as I mentioned).
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Still trying to get my head around this. So the laws of science don't include anything supernatural. There is nothing supernatural covered under the laws of science. So if there was a supernatural then science would try to rule it out by all scientific laws. Then, because all such claims are bogus...Are they bogus because science has ruled them out with scientific laws or have they all been proved to be bogus using the laws of science. It all boils down to scientists not accepting anything supernatural as plausible because it does not fit into any law of science. Am I starting to understand it.
Science is a process, it's not a static body of knowledge. Science is the process by which we examine the universe around us (and ourselves) and how the various elements interact, and through examination, build explanations of HOW/WHY things interact the way they do. As such, science is constantly changing as we observe new information, and/or reexamine old information in new light... nothing is sacred in science, everything is in question... only those explanations (read this as "theory") that stand up are accepted, and only insofar as they continue to stand. Contradictions require a theory, no matter how well liked, or how well established, to be changed, or, in some cases completely replaced.
Science is bound by that which exists, that which can be observed... if it cannot be observed, science cannot comment upon it, and for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.
There are many things which could not previously been observed which we can observe now.
Quote:
Look at germ theory; in the past illnesses were believed to have supernatural cause
(gods, spirits, etc), we didn't know how diseases were passed between individuals, we didn't know where they originated, we just knew that people got sick. In recent centuries we've come to understand that many diseases have microscopic causes, many of which are, in fact, living things, and we understand how they proliferate, and pass between individuals. Disease has gone from supernatural to natural as we've come to observe and understand the phenomena at its heart... the reality is that it was always a natural phenomenon, we just didn't understand it.
It's not that science rejected disease, because it was supernatural, but it sought an actual explanation. Most appeals to the supernatural are an admittance of defeat, simply saying "I don't know" and making something, ANYTHING, up, rather than seeking truth. It's switching off, disengaging from reality... more often than not it also involves giant leaps of reasoning/logic; accepting something as true, not because it's supported, but because you have rejected other avenues... it's fallacious.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Evolution can get very tricky because you have to understand how DNA works and how mutations occur and how traits are passed down etc. But knowing the basic idea is something that isn't too hard to spend a small amount of time reading on so that when you talk about it you actually know what you're talking about and not just saying that evolutionary theory says something that it doesn't and then looking bad in front of the people you're debating (that will usually have no problem correcting you).
Chucky D. would disagree
You really don't need to know anything about the mechanics of evolution to understand the concepts. The bulk of the theory was developed without such knowledge, and Mendell's work allowed us to refine the theory to include such concepts... but they're not needed to discuss evolution or even get a good grasp of the basics. For most people it really doesn't need to be any more detailed than: a) individuals vary, b) some variations are heritable, c) individuals with variations that allow them to compete better in some way tend to have more offspring, d) advantageous traits become more common within the population based on this difference in reproductive success. No need for anything deeper, that's evolution in a nutshell.
One, such as TheLimey, might notice that there is absolutely ZERO mention of how life originated, zero mention of how the Earth formed, and also zero mention of how the universe came to exist... It only addresses the changes in the occurrence rates of traits within populations (which, yes, leads into topics like speciation, but applies before that point of discussion as well, and through it).
You do need a solid understanding of DNA, mutation, heredity, etc. when you start getting into the details and where any actual "controversy" might arise concerning the theory, but, that's beyond the level of understanding of most lay folk, and really is the domain of the educated.
"Look at germ theory; in the past illnesses were believed to have supernatural cause"
So the supernatural is a possible alternative to scientific thought, until it can come up with a natural explanation. There is a believe in many scientific circles that the supernatural and the natural can co-exist side by side, the natural being the realm of science and the supernatural whatever, but not delved into by science.
YONATAN I. FISHMAN, PHD
Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461 USA. has presented an article along those lines, "Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?"
http://www.naturalism.org/Can%20Science%20Test%20Supernatural%20Worldviews-%20Final%20Author's%20Copy%20(Fishman%202007).pdf
Ankhanu
No, what I'm saying is that some of what is thought to be supernatural is, well, not
Some of what is thought to be supernatural simply doesn't exist.
Here's a thought experiment for you: what's the difference (in our frame of reference) between something supernatural, which doesn't interact with our reality, and something that doesn't exist?
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that some of what is thought to be supernatural is, well, not
Some of what is thought to be supernatural simply doesn't exist.
Here's a thought experiment for you: what's the difference (in our frame of reference) between something supernatural, which doesn't interact with our reality, and something that doesn't exist?
What about something supernatural which does interact with our reality. if something doesn't exist then it only interacts with our reality in the form of superstition etc. That then is delving into actions of the mind. But if something which is supernatural does interact with our reality then science and the scientist doesn't want to touch it because it is outside the bounds of science and therefore does not exist. However, it does exist for those to whom it is reacting with their reality. Are there not then two classes of people here. Those that claim to have this interaction are classified as delusional because science can't explain it.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that some of what is thought to be supernatural is, well, not
Some of what is thought to be supernatural simply doesn't exist.
Here's a thought experiment for you: what's the difference (in our frame of reference) between something supernatural, which doesn't interact with our reality, and something that doesn't exist?
What about something supernatural which does interact with our reality. if something doesn't exist then it only interacts with our reality in the form of superstition etc. That then is delving into actions of the mind. But if something which is supernatural does interact with our reality then science and the scientist doesn't want to touch it because it is outside the bounds of science and therefore does not exist. However, it does exist for those to whom it is reacting with their reality. Are there not then two classes of people here. Those that claim to have this interaction are classified as delusional because science can't explain it.
If it interacts with our reality, there must be a mechanism... that falls under the eye of scientific inquiry. If it is "supernatural" and interacts with reality, then we must adjust what is "natural" to include it.
If something exists and science cannot explain it, it simply means we do not have an explanation, and science must be applied to develop one. It's not easy, but, that is science at its core. However, if there is no clear evidence, it is folly to accept that something exists. That does NOT mean that one should not be open to the possibility that something exists, but that basic acceptance that it DOES is fallacious. Harkening back to germ theory, before we had the evidence of germs, it was not rational to accept that there were tiny organisms too small to be seen that caused disease... it was TRUE, but it wasn't necessarily a rational stance at that point.
There is NOTHING that scientists don't want to tackle. There are topics individuals aren't comfortable with, but, as a discipline, all lines of inquiry are of interest to science. We're a curious lot, we want to know, we want to discover, we want to explore... that which isn't known by science excites the scientist... it doesn't scare us away. Many of us don't separate the pursuit of understanding reality and understanding the "supernatural" (there are those who subscribe to the "separate magesteria" idea, but I don't think they're particularly prominent), but we do separate "likely" and "unlikely"... that is what we do, really.
Ultimately, the "supernatural" falls into two categories: a) that which can (perhaps eventually) be explained, and b) that which is false. Science is the process by which we investigate and separate the two.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that some of what is thought to be supernatural is, well, not
Some of what is thought to be supernatural simply doesn't exist.
Here's a thought experiment for you: what's the difference (in our frame of reference) between something supernatural, which doesn't interact with our reality, and something that doesn't exist?
What about something supernatural which does interact with our reality. if something doesn't exist then it only interacts with our reality in the form of superstition etc. That then is delving into actions of the mind. But if something which is supernatural does interact with our reality then science and the scientist doesn't want to touch it because it is outside the bounds of science and therefore does not exist. However, it does exist for those to whom it is reacting with their reality. Are there not then two classes of people here. Those that claim to have this interaction are classified as delusional because science can't explain it.
If it interacts with our reality, there must be a mechanism... that falls under the eye of scientific inquiry. If it is "supernatural" and interacts with reality, then we must adjust what is "natural" to include it.
If something exists and science cannot explain it, it simply means we do not have an explanation, and science must be applied to develop one. It's not easy, but, that is science at its core. However, if there is no clear evidence, it is folly to accept that something exists. That does NOT mean that one should not be open to the possibility that something exists, but that basic acceptance that it DOES is fallacious. Harkening back to germ theory, before we had the evidence of germs, it was not rational to accept that there were tiny organisms too small to be seen that caused disease... it was TRUE, but it wasn't necessarily a rational stance at that point.
There is NOTHING that scientists don't want to tackle. There are topics individuals aren't comfortable with, but, as a discipline, all lines of inquiry are of interest to science. We're a curious lot, we want to know, we want to discover, we want to explore... that which isn't known by science excites the scientist... it doesn't scare us away. Many of us don't separate the pursuit of understanding reality and understanding the "supernatural" (there are those who subscribe to the "separate magesteria" idea, but I don't think they're particularly prominent), but we do separate "likely" and "unlikely"... that is what we do, really.
Ultimately, the "supernatural" falls into two categories: a) that which can (perhaps eventually) be explained, and b) that which is false. Science is the process by which we investigate and separate the two.
Scientists generally don't accept the notion of god and yet many people, because god is in the supernatural realm, interact with this god in the supernatural realm. Many people move in and out of this realm regularly as they interact with their god. While scientists are not the only people who don't accept the notion of god there are enough who do, including some scientists, but science generally has lumped them all into your "unlikely" section. Would this be fair comment.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
Scientists generally don't accept the notion of god and yet many people, because god is in the supernatural realm, interact with this god in the supernatural realm. Many people move in and out of this realm regularly as they interact with their god. While scientists are not the only people who don't accept the notion of god there are enough who do, including some scientists, but science generally has lumped them all into your "unlikely" section. Would this be fair comment.
No, scientists who don't accept the notion of a god don't accept it due to the lack of evidence for it existing. It's not that the topic is "supernatural", it's the fact that there is no evidence, so far all evidence is anecdotal, which simply doesn't fly. The lack of evidence, combined with the greatness of the claims that are made without said evidence, puts the topic pretty firmly in the "highly unlikely" category.
One piece of solid evidence could flip that whole situation on its head, though. We've yet to see any such evidence.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Scientists generally don't accept the notion of god and yet many people, because god is in the supernatural realm, interact with this god in the supernatural realm. Many people move in and out of this realm regularly as they interact with their god. While scientists are not the only people who don't accept the notion of god there are enough who do, including some scientists, but science generally has lumped them all into your "unlikely" section. Would this be fair comment.
No, scientists who don't accept the notion of a god don't accept it due to the lack of evidence for it existing. It's not that the topic is "supernatural", it's the fact that there is no evidence, so far all evidence is anecdotal, which simply doesn't fly. The lack of evidence, combined with the greatness of the claims that are made without said evidence, puts the topic pretty firmly in the "highly unlikely" category.
One piece of solid evidence could flip that whole situation on its head, though. We've yet to see any such evidence.
I guess that such evidence is not out there in the public realm for all to see. One would need to be a student of theology to understand the evidence anyway. The evidence is probably there but it is only revealed to a few which is now getting into the esoteric. All theological thought has it's foundation in the Bible and theologians still debate over that. The original theology taught that God had selected a few and it is these that see and understand the evidence. That, however, has been changed in the last couple of hundred years and theologians advocate that instead of a few, all are selected, if they so desire. So it is doubtful that while this debate is going on within theological circles we will see that evidence surface as there are too many claims and counter claims being made by many who perhaps are delusional. Suffice to say, those who are among those chosen few, have their own personal evidence, but of course, to the uninitiated, that evidence is anecdotal and doesn't fit science. So back to our point, this evidence is all in the supernatural realm as that is where God is. Those chosen have to enter that realm to interact with their God which they do on a regular basis. So now we have a double 'whammy' for science which places the whole thing in that highly unlikely basket because to the uninitiated it does look like complete who ha. You will appreciate though the frustration of those who are in 'the know' of trying to communicate such apparent 'dribble'.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
I guess that such evidence is not out there in the public realm for all to see. One would need to be a student of theology to understand the evidence anyway.
Nonsense. If there is evidence it should be apparent to anyone who looks for it.
Quote:
The evidence is probably there but it is only revealed to a few which is now getting into the esoteric.
No, there is no evidence. The apologists cannot come-up with any convincing evidence and neither can the 'theologians'.
Quote:
All theological thought has it's foundation in the Bible and theologians still debate over that.
Except, of course, for Jewish theology, Muslim theology, Hindi theology....and every theology except Christian theology.
Quote:
The original theology taught that God had selected a few and it is these that see and understand the evidence. That, however, has been changed in the last couple of hundred years and theologians advocate that instead of a few, all are selected, if they so desire.
Theologians do not agree on this.
Quote:
Suffice to say, those who are among those chosen few, have their own personal evidence, but of course, to the uninitiated, that evidence is anecdotal and doesn't fit science.
It has nothing to do with being 'initiated' or 'uninitiated'. The evidence is either anecdotal or it isn't - in the case in point it is ENTIRELY anecdotal.
Quote:
So back to our point, this evidence is all in the supernatural realm as that is where God is. Those chosen have to enter that realm to interact with their God which they do on a regular basis.
No, they THINK they interact with God. The delusional nature of this is easily demonstrated when one realises that each has a different interaction in which God 'tells them' different, often contradictory things. Therefore either God is a trickster or these people are delusional.
Quote:
So now we have a double 'whammy' for science which places the whole thing in that highly unlikely basket because to the uninitiated it does look like complete who ha. You will appreciate though the frustration of those who are in 'the know' of trying to communicate such apparent 'dribble'.
You seem convinced that some people are in a special position of knowledge - being 'in the know'. There is no evidence that this is true - in fact most of the very 'convinced' Christians I have come across have a lamentable ignorance of their own theology and scriptures.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I guess that such evidence is not out there in the public realm for all to see. One would need to be a student of theology to understand the evidence anyway.
Nonsense. If there is evidence it should be apparent to anyone who looks for it.
Quote:
The evidence is probably there but it is only revealed to a few which is now getting into the esoteric.
No, there is no evidence. The apologists cannot come-up with any convincing evidence and neither can the 'theologians'.
Quote:
All theological thought has it's foundation in the Bible and theologians still debate over that.
Except, of course, for Jewish theology, Muslim theology, Hindi theology....and every theology except Christian theology.
Quote:
The original theology taught that God had selected a few and it is these that see and understand the evidence. That, however, has been changed in the last couple of hundred years and theologians advocate that instead of a few, all are selected, if they so desire.
Theologians do not agree on this.
Quote:
Suffice to say, those who are among those chosen few, have their own personal evidence, but of course, to the uninitiated, that evidence is anecdotal and doesn't fit science.
It has nothing to do with being 'initiated' or 'uninitiated'. The evidence is either anecdotal or it isn't - in the case in point it is ENTIRELY anecdotal.
Quote:
So back to our point, this evidence is all in the supernatural realm as that is where God is. Those chosen have to enter that realm to interact with their God which they do on a regular basis.
No, they THINK they interact with God. The delusional nature of this is easily demonstrated when one realises that each has a different interaction in which God 'tells them' different, often contradictory things. Therefore either God is a trickster or these people are delusional.
Quote:
So now we have a double 'whammy' for science which places the whole thing in that highly unlikely basket because to the uninitiated it does look like complete who ha. You will appreciate though the frustration of those who are in 'the know' of trying to communicate such apparent 'dribble'.
You seem convinced that some people are in a special position of knowledge - being 'in the know'. There is no evidence that this is true - in fact most of the very 'convinced' Christians I have come across have a lamentable ignorance of their own theology and scriptures.
That is very true mainly because, like I said, the Arminian view point was adopted by Wesley a couple hundred years ago and indoctrinated most of the modern church. If you look at the theology of Paul and the reformers you will see what I am talking about. It is very clear that God selected a group of people to be his own and persevere to the end of it all. Because Arminian theology changed all that we now have many claiming to be Christian who aren't at all hence the confusion.
Bikerman
Ermm...not really. Paul was the one who went AGAINST the notion of the 'chosen few'. He was anxious to open his new religion to as many as possible - gentiles as well as Jews.
Paul made a special point of this - in fact he described it as a 'mystery' revealed to him alone. Hence we see in Ephesians:
Paul wrote:
The mystery is that through the Gospels, the gentiles are heirs, together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise of Christ Jesus.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Ermm...not really. Paul was the one who went AGAINST the notion of the 'chosen few'. He was anxious to open his new religion to as many as possible - gentiles as well as Jews.
Paul made a special point of this - in fact he described it as a 'mystery' revealed to him alone. Hence we see in Ephesians:
Paul wrote:
The mystery is that through the Gospels, the gentiles are heirs, together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise of Christ Jesus.
Not all Israel are included here as are not all gentiles. He is addressing the elect of Israel and gentiles. Most of Paul's stuff is addressed to the church which is made up of the elect of god. He was quickly down too on any false teaching or teachers, not so today.
Bikerman
I think you are making this up as you go along. Paul was famously inclusive:
Acts 13:39 wrote:
Through Him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified for by the laws of Moses
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
I think you are making this up as you go along. Paul was famously inclusive:
Acts 13:39 wrote:
Through Him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified for by the laws of Moses
Of course, everyone who believes. If you dig deeper you will find that those whom God elected 'before the foundation of the world', will believe and those who were elected for eternal damnation can not believe and in fact are prevented from believing. 'I will harden whom I will harden". Paul was very specific in his Theology which was far from inclusive.
Bikerman
Please supply the references to support this view...
because what I see is different:
Paul wrote:
For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just.
Paul wrote:
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome
Quote:
="Paul"]I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Please supply the references to support this view...
I will give you one theological viewpoint here that has some references included.
Nonono...I don't want some nobody telling what THEY think, I want the scriptural references to support the notion that Paul believed salvation was only for a special group.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Nonono...I don't want some nobody telling what THEY think, I want the scriptural references to support the notion that Paul believed salvation was only for a special group.
Ephesians 1;3-14 for a start.
Bikerman
Quote:
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
That simply confirms that his audience are amongst the saved because they 'believed'. It says nothing about salvation being limited to a special group.
Moreover, he clearly says
Quote:
But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation —if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
I think you are confused and are really thinking about Paul's stance on predestination. He certainly believed that God pre-ordained everything - and that would include those saved and those damned. That is a different and distinct issue, however.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
That simply confirms that his audience are amongst the saved because they 'believed'. It says nothing about salvation being limited to a special group.
Moreover, he clearly says
Quote:
But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation —if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
I think you are confused and are really thinking about Paul's stance on predestination. He certainly believed that God pre-ordained everything - and that would include those saved and those damned. That is a different and distinct issue, however.
Predestination is the same issue. The elect were chosen before the world and predestined to be saved. The gospel is preached to every creature because that is the means by which God's grace calls his elect. The elect, the special group, are the ones that have the evidence of the supernatural.
Couple of passages.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:4
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you
You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…" Romans 9(v. 22-23)
Bikerman
Of course it isn't the same issue....THINK about it.
Saying that there is a chosen number of people being saved means that you are either in or out and, presumably, the 'in' know it.
Saying that God already knows who is saved is simply acknowledging his/its omnipotence - God MUST already know - even if it is not entirely deterministic - otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent would it?
As far as the humans are concerned they have no clue whether they are saved or not - for all intents and purposes it is the same as being 'unknown'.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Of course it isn't the same issue....THINK about it.
Saying that there is a chosen number of people being saved means that you are either in or out and, presumably, the 'in' know it.
Saying that God already knows who is saved is simply acknowledging his/its omnipotence - God MUST already know - even if it is not entirely deterministic - otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent would it?
As far as the humans are concerned they have no clue whether they are saved or not - for all intents and purposes it is the same as being 'unknown'.
You have lost me a bit there. You say that the 'in' know it yet humans have no clue whether they are saved or not. There is the argument that God fore ordains based on his foreknowledge, he knows who are going to get saved so elects them but that doesn't wash with scripture.
God decided to create. He chose a group of people to be saved and a larger group, or the rest, to be damned. Then he set up the system from the fall to the crucifixion to the calling by grace of his elect. This was all done before anything was started.
truespeed
Nick,are you in or out? Will you be saved? If so why?
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
God decided to create. He chose a group of people to be saved and a larger group, or the rest, to be damned. Then he set up the system from the fall to the crucifixion to the calling by grace of his elect. This was all done before anything was started.
If that is true then God is certainly a Monster. He condemns people who were already known to be certainly going to fail, to eternal torment. And you think this is a good God? I can't think of anything worse myself - it is just about the wickedest thing imaginable - like keeping a badly wounded dog alive just so that you can torture it some more tomorrow....
Actually I don't read the scriptures like that, Paul doesn't, and I don't think many theologians do.
Gof did not 'decide' who to save - because God is omniscient he already KNEW who would be saved. Tbere are some possible ways in which this can be just about qualified (semantically at least) to mean that the people still had free will and could, had they exercised it, have changed torment to paradise.
If you believe otherwise then......wow......I think you would be worshipping the most evil possible entity.....with no hope of redemption, no point to your prayers and good works, and no hope...
And people think atheists must have a bleak worldview - jeez, we are cheerleaders on amphetamines compared with this outlook......
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
God decided to create. He chose a group of people to be saved and a larger group, or the rest, to be damned. Then he set up the system from the fall to the crucifixion to the calling by grace of his elect. This was all done before anything was started.
If that is true then God is certainly a Monster. He condemns people who were already known to be certainly going to fail, to eternal torment. And you think this is a good God? I can't think of anything worse myself - it is just about the wickedest thing imaginable - like keeping a badly wounded dog alive just so that you can torture it some more tomorrow....
Actually I don't read the scriptures like that, Paul doesn't, and I don't think many theologians do.
Gof did not 'decide' who to save - because God is omniscient he already KNEW who would be saved. Tbere are some possible ways in which this can be just about qualified (semantically at least) to mean that the people still had free will and could, had they exercised it, have changed torment to paradise.
If you believe otherwise then......wow......I think you would be worshipping the most evil possible entity.....with no hope of redemption, no point to your prayers and good works, and no hope...
And people think atheists must have a bleak worldview - jeez, we are cheerleaders on amphetamines compared with this outlook......
This the very reason that the doctrine of freewill etc was introduced. Us mere humans took objection to God and tried to make him appear in a better light. The doctrine was first introduced in about 400 and was known as Palaganism. In about 1630 the followers of Arminism tried to introduce it to the church and it was examined by the council if Dorte and thrown out as heresy. It was re-introduced by Wesley in the 1700 something when he took the gospel to the US and it has permeated most modern churches ever since.
Paul says, who are we to judge God, can the potter not make some pots for noble purposes and some for not noble purposes from the same lump of clay. Scripture makes the doctrines quite clear and it is only people with the same attitude as yours that create all the problems for the church by introducing man made doctrines to try and help God out. Thank goodness there is still a core of Biblically correct churches around that haven't given way to the liberal and modernist attitudes.
Bikerman
Err....this is fascinating but it is fantasy.
Quote:
Scripture makes the doctrines quite clear and it is only people with the same attitude as yours that create all the problems for the church by introducing man made doctrines to try and help God out. Thank goodness there is still a core of Biblically correct churches around that haven't given way to the liberal and modernist attitudes.
Why would an atheist introduce any doctrines? Odd thing to do if you ask me.....
Anyway - you have badly mixed-up your reading. The doctrine of free-will (it isn't a doctrine - it is actually a 'fiddle') was NOT introduced as 400 CE - you are thinking of the trinity.
I have never heard of 'plaganism' and I don't think it actually means anything - you made it up. The only possible meaning I can see would be from the Spanish - Plago - the verb form of 'plague' as in ' infests/infects/plagued'
eg. si plago de comida y bebida - he is plagued by food & drink.....
It has no theological or religious meaning that I know of - and I know a good bit more than you do I dare say.....
The 'free-will' idea was introduced to explain how a 'good' God could be responsible for evil - it was a bad attempt at the time and it has not improved with age. where you get this notion of 'objection to God' I don't know......you seem to be making most of it up and sticking in the odd copied reference from wiki or other sources without actually understanding (or even reading) the source first. In short - gibberish.
The idea that people were created, with only eternal torment possible, is as evil as one could possibly imagine. God would be responsible for creating creatures simply to torture them eternally - I can think of no greater crime.
If you 'thank goodness' for foolish zealots who espouse that then you are a very odd person. But we both know that you haven't a clue what you are on about - trolling in other words.
As for 'biblically correct' - ridiculous. The bible is selected from a wider source material - so it is biased before we even start to look at translations, forgeries and mistakes in copying....
There IS NO original - like all such works the bible is an 'evolved' text.
Like all Christians you are actually making a hypocritical point and yet can't even see it. The 'original' is the Hebrew Bible - yet you are quick to dismiss that. Instead you call some badly written, largely unknown and undated scribbles 'biblically correct' - a nonsense idea to start with.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Err....this is fascinating but it is fantasy.
Quote:
Scripture makes the doctrines quite clear and it is only people with the same attitude as yours that create all the problems for the church by introducing man made doctrines to try and help God out. Thank goodness there is still a core of Biblically correct churches around that haven't given way to the liberal and modernist attitudes.
Why would an atheist introduce any doctrines? Odd thing to do if you ask me.....
Anyway - you have badly mixed-up your reading. The doctrine of free-will (it isn't a doctrine - it is actually a 'fiddle') was NOT introduced as 400 CE - you are thinking of the trinity.
I have never heard of 'plaganism' and I don't think it actually means anything - you made it up. The only possible meaning I can see would be from the Spanish - Plago - the verb form of 'plague' as in ' infests/infects/plagued'
eg. si plago de comida y bebida - he is plagued by food & drink.....
It has no theological or religious meaning that I know of - and I know a good bit more than you do I dare say.....
The 'free-will' idea was introduced to explain how a 'good' God could be responsible for evil - it was a bad attempt at the time and it has not improved with age. where you get this notion of 'objection to God' I don't know......you seem to be making most of it up and sticking in the odd copied reference from wiki or other sources without actually understanding (or even reading) the source first. In short - gibberish.
The idea that people were created, with only eternal torment possible, is as evil as one could possibly imagine. God would be responsible for creating creatures simply to torture them eternally - I can think of no greater crime.
If you 'thank goodness' for foolish zealots who espouse that then you are a very odd person. But we both know that you haven't a clue what you are on about - trolling in other words.
As for 'biblically correct' - ridiculous. The bible is selected from a wider source material - so it is biased before we even start to look at translations, forgeries and mistakes in copying....
There IS NO original - like all such works the bible is an 'evolved' text.
Like all Christians you are actually making a hypocritical point and yet can't even see it. The 'original' is the Hebrew Bible - yet you are quick to dismiss that. Instead you call some badly written, largely unknown and undated scribbles 'biblically correct' - a nonsense idea to start with.
Sorry, my spelling is off. The term is Pelagianism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism, Pelagianism was refuted by Augustine and replaced with semipelagianism which too, was labelled as heresy. It was reinvented by Jacobus Arminius, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius, who's theological views became known as Arminianism and were shot down and declared heresy at the Synod of Dorte in 1618, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort.
"John Wesley (1703–1791), the founder of the Methodist movement, embraced Arminian theology and became its most prominent champion.[19] Today, the majority of Methodists remain committed to Arminian theology, and Arminianism itself has become one of the dominant theological systems in the United States, thanks in large part to the influence of John and Charles Wesley".
Source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius
I didn't say that an atheist would introduce any doctrines but that people with the same attitude as you, ie believing that a god who would condemn people to hell is in some way a bad god.
Paul explains why God creates some to be condemned,
Romans 9:19, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" , "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). : "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21).
, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…" (v. 22-23).
As for the Bible. It is recognized that the 66 books that we have as the Bible are the inspired word of God. The 20 odd books of the new testament were put there from some 300 letters, mostly by Paul, that were circulating in the early church. The correlation between the old and new testament over many years by many authors has been shown, by greater scholars than us, to be impossible by human hand.
Do you dispute Homers 'Illiad'. The oldest book we have apart from the Bible.
Trolling. Simply showing you that a select few have evidence of supernatural.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
I didn't say that an atheist would introduce any doctrines but that people with the same attitude as you, ie believing that a god who would condemn people to hell is in some way a bad god.
This is the third or fourth time I've said that you need to enclose quotes in QUOTE tags. I'll remove any further postings that do not do so...please learn how to do it, it is essential.
I'm an ATHEIST - ie I don't believe there is ANY God. I'm merely pointing out that IF there was a God similar to the one Christians think is real then he would be a monster.
Quote:
Paul explains why God creates some to be condemned,
Really? I doubt it....
Quote:
Romans 9:19, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" , "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). : "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21).
Explanation? Nah - that is a typical bit of Pauline nonsense.
If Paul is really saying that he sees no difference between an inanimate and non-sessile lump of clay, and an intelligent, feeling and aware person then he is a fool. I don't think he is a fool - but this is a foolish argument.
If I breed dogs then I can mould and shape them as I see fit over the generations.
Does that mean it is OK for me to torture those dogs for an infinite period (or at all...) ?
Of course it doesn't. We KNOW that such behaviour is disturbed - and immoral. We are not talking about re-throwing a pot on a wheel, we are talking about God creating people who are destined - whatever they do - to be tortured for an infinite time.
As I said, this is about as immoral as it is possible to imagine - I would actually challenge anyone to come up with a behaviour that is more monstrous and less moral than this - I've tried and I've failed.
Quote:
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…" (v. 22-23).
This is rubbish as well. The 'objects of his wrath' have no choice - it isn't their choice or their doing - God created them specifically to be as they are. Pointing out to the poor sods that he is equally over-the-top (but in the other direction) with another bunch of people - who also had no choice, but are destined for infinite reward - well that is hardly balancing the books, it just indicates a bi-polar monster who can't make his mind up.
Quote:
As for the Bible. It is recognized that the 66 books that we have as the Bible are the inspired word of God.
LOL.....it is amazing how people can spout sentences like that without any apparent hint of shame at, or even awareness of, just how silly and wrong it is.
Of course it has NOT been 'recognised' that the 66 books are any such thing, and it is rather ridiculous to suggest that the books chosen are not just better, but a different class of thing altogether - divinely inspired my ass. ALL the books contain errors, many contain downright lies. I could point out about 100 from memory - there are more. There are mutual contradictions, errors of historical fact, errors of cultural record, and just plain inventions all over the place.
I'm currently compiling a section of a website which goes into this in some detail. It shows the contradictions and errors, explains how and why they probably were written, references writings and media from some of the world-leading biblical and historical/archaeological scholars, and shows just how wrong and, frankly, crap most of the bible is when compared with much better written, morally consistent and historically interesting works from other religions - such as the Chinese Confucian & Taoist texts, or the Indian Vedic texts. Compared to them the bible is childish nonsense fit only for giving children nightmares, giving clerics and theologians endless opportunities to 'reinterpret', and giving bigots ammunition for their bigotry.
Quote:
The 20 odd books of the new testament were put there from some 300 letters, mostly by Paul, that were circulating in the early church. The correlation between the old and new testament over many years by many authors has been shown, by greater scholars than us, to be impossible by human hand.
Bullshit. The books of the Old Testament were gradually written, then selected for inclusion in the cannon, over nearly a century. Paul just happens to have written the earliest surviving pieces. Over three centuries some books were brought in (Revelations and some epistles for example) and some thrown out (such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Diatessaron) until we get the canonical form by the council of Nicea.
There is NO 'correlation' between old and new testament. What you have is people who knew the OT - probably by heart - writing passages which seem to confirm or tie in with some passages in the OT. It is very easy to do - after the fact.
And the 'great scholars' are pretty clear in their judgements of the 'possibilities' - have you actually READ any of the great bible scholars? Ehrman? Barth? Bultmann? Harrisville? Freeman? No, of course you haven't. Here's the news - most bible scholars know damn well that the NT is, at best, a great deal of wishful thinking and invention, and many of them seriously question whether Jesus existed at all. The Jesus Project, for example, disbanded because the great scholars were finding less and less that they were prepared to say was actually genuine - to the point where they agreed that Jesus did not, and could not, say about 70% of the things which the various NT books claim he did.
Quote:
Do you dispute Homers 'Illiad'. The oldest book we have apart from the Bible.
What the hell does that mean (aside from being wrong - the Gilgamesh epic is older and there are books, from the Summerians and the Etruscans, which are older than the Iliad).
But so what? Do I dispute that they were written? Of course not - we have the evidence to show it. Do I dispute that they are historically accurate accounts? - of course I bloody well do. Have you READ the Iliad? (I have - in the Latin - it was beaten into me at school by Monks).
The Iliad is NOT a work of historical record, it is an epic yarn. In fact it is similar to the bible in that regard, but it is MUCH better written and it is a MUCH better read.
(Actually, the Iliad has much more historical significance than the bible. Although it is fiction - an Odyssey - many of the references are historically accurate - unlike much of the bible which is historically misleading at best and often 'witnesses' things, times and places that not only did not happen, but could not have happened).
Quote:
Trolling. Simply showing you that a select few have evidence of supernatural.
No, you still don't seem to get what words like 'evidence' mean. It does not mean a private belief. It means tangible, verifiable facts. In over 4000 years of written history we have NO evidence of the supernatural - just many gullible people believing what other, rather less honest and ingenuous people have told them.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I didn't say that an atheist would introduce any doctrines but that people with the same attitude as you, ie believing that a god who would condemn people to hell is in some way a bad god.
This is the third or fourth time I've said that you need to enclose quotes in QUOTE tags. I'll remove any further postings that do not do so...please learn how to do it, it is essential.
I'm an ATHEIST - ie I don't believe there is ANY God. I'm merely pointing out that IF there was a God similar to the one Christians think is real then he would be a monster.
Quote:
Paul explains why God creates some to be condemned,
Really? I doubt it....
Quote:
Romans 9:19, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" , "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). : "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21).
Explanation? Nah - that is a typical bit of Pauline nonsense.
If Paul is really saying that he sees no difference between an inanimate and non-sessile lump of clay, and an intelligent, feeling and aware person then he is a fool. I don't think he is a fool - but this is a foolish argument.
If I breed dogs then I can mould and shape them as I see fit over the generations.
Does that mean it is OK for me to torture those dogs for an infinite period (or at all...) ?
Of course it doesn't. We KNOW that such behaviour is disturbed - and immoral. We are not talking about re-throwing a pot on a wheel, we are talking about God creating people who are destined - whatever they do - to be tortured for an infinite time.
As I said, this is about as immoral as it is possible to imagine - I would actually challenge anyone to come up with a behaviour that is more monstrous and less moral than this - I've tried and I've failed.
Quote:
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…" (v. 22-23).
This is rubbish as well. The 'objects of his wrath' have no choice - it isn't their choice or their doing - God created them specifically to be as they are. Pointing out to the poor sods that he is equally over-the-top (but in the other direction) with another bunch of people - who also had no choice, but are destined for infinite reward - well that is hardly balancing the books, it just indicates a bi-polar monster who can't make his mind up.
Quote:
As for the Bible. It is recognized that the 66 books that we have as the Bible are the inspired word of God.
LOL.....it is amazing how people can spout sentences like that without any apparent hint of shame at, or even awareness of, just how silly and wrong it is.
Of course it has NOT been 'recognised' that the 66 books are any such thing, and it is rather ridiculous to suggest that the books chosen are not just better, but a different class of thing altogether - divinely inspired my ass. ALL the books contain errors, many contain downright lies. I could point out about 100 from memory - there are more. There are mutual contradictions, errors of historical fact, errors of cultural record, and just plain inventions all over the place.
I'm currently compiling a section of a website which goes into this in some detail. It shows the contradictions and errors, explains how and why they probably were written, references writings and media from some of the world-leading biblical and historical/archaeological scholars, and shows just how wrong and, frankly, crap most of the bible is when compared with much better written, morally consistent and historically interesting works from other religions - such as the Chinese Confucian & Taoist texts, or the Indian Vedic texts. Compared to them the bible is childish nonsense fit only for giving children nightmares, giving clerics and theologians endless opportunities to 'reinterpret', and giving bigots ammunition for their bigotry.
Quote:
The 20 odd books of the new testament were put there from some 300 letters, mostly by Paul, that were circulating in the early church. The correlation between the old and new testament over many years by many authors has been shown, by greater scholars than us, to be impossible by human hand.
Bullshit. The books of the Old Testament were gradually written, then selected for inclusion in the cannon, over nearly a century. Paul just happens to have written the earliest surviving pieces. Over three centuries some books were brought in (Revelations and some epistles for example) and some thrown out (such as 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Diatessaron) until we get the canonical form by the council of Nicea.
There is NO 'correlation' between old and new testament. What you have is people who knew the OT - probably by heart - writing passages which seem to confirm or tie in with some passages in the OT. It is very easy to do - after the fact.
And the 'great scholars' are pretty clear in their judgements of the 'possibilities' - have you actually READ any of the great bible scholars? Ehrman? Barth? Bultmann? Harrisville? Freeman? No, of course you haven't. Here's the news - most bible scholars know damn well that the NT is, at best, a great deal of wishful thinking and invention, and many of them seriously question whether Jesus existed at all. The Jesus Project, for example, disbanded because the great scholars were finding less and less that they were prepared to say was actually genuine - to the point where they agreed that Jesus did not, and could not, say about 70% of the things which the various NT books claim he did.
Quote:
Do you dispute Homers 'Illiad'. The oldest book we have apart from the Bible.
What the hell does that mean (aside from being wrong - the Gilgamesh epic is older and there are books, from the Summerians and the Etruscans, which are older than the Iliad).
But so what? Do I dispute that they were written? Of course not - we have the evidence to show it. Do I dispute that they are historically accurate accounts? - of course I bloody well do. Have you READ the Iliad? (I have - in the Latin - it was beaten into me at school by Monks).
The Iliad is NOT a work of historical record, it is an epic yarn. In fact it is similar to the bible in that regard, but it is MUCH better written and it is a MUCH better read.
(Actually, the Iliad has much more historical significance than the bible. Although it is fiction - an Odyssey - many of the references are historically accurate - unlike much of the bible which is historically misleading at best and often 'witnesses' things, times and places that not only did not happen, but could not have happened).
Quote:
Trolling. Simply showing you that a select few have evidence of supernatural.
No, you still don't seem to get what words like 'evidence' mean. It does not mean a private belief. It means tangible, verifiable facts. In over 4000 years of written history we have NO evidence of the supernatural - just many gullible people believing what other, rather less honest and ingenuous people have told them.
I can't find any of my quotes that are not in tags. Can you be more specific.
Bikerman
Yes - the quotes from wiki at the start are in quote MARKS but not tags - first two paras.
It may seem picky - but there is a good reason for this insistence on tags...
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Yes - the quotes from wiki at the start are in quote MARKS but not tags - first two paras.
It may seem picky - but there is a good reason for this insistence on tags...
[/quote= "Forum Rules"]...The following are not allowed, regarding quoted or copied material:
Using anything other than
Code:
Quote:
or
user wrote:
for quoting.
Failure to use QUOTE tags at all (i.e. copying and pasting material from another site as if it were your own).
Failure to state the source of quoted material.
Posting quoted material, even if properly marked, without providing any original content of your own...[/quote]
Is that something like it.
OK - LOOK at your message now by clicking edit. You will see how I have applied a variety of quote tags, demonstrating the different ways you can use them. I've also thrown in some url links so you can see how to use them.
Quote:
This, for example, is an unattributed quote - I would need to provide the source beneath.
(This material came from Frih Postings and was written by C.Snowdon)
Chris wrote:
This is semi attributed - I have put my name on it, but not given the source
This is a fully attributed quote giving the person and the source for the material
That should help.
C.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Do you dispute Homers 'Illiad'. The oldest book we have apart from the Bible.
What the hell does that mean (aside from being wrong - the Gilgamesh epic is older and there are books, from the Summerians and the Etruscans, which are older than the Iliad).
But so what? Do I dispute that they were written? Of course not - we have the evidence to show it. Do I dispute that they are historically accurate accounts? - of course I bloody well do. Have you READ the Iliad? ([i]I have - in the Latin -
Quote:
it was beaten into me at school by Monks
I think I have an inkling of where you are coming from. You have a background of Catholic teaching. Maybe you trained to be a priest. Maybe you where a priest for a while. I can't blame you for becoming an atheist after that. Catholicism is far removed form Christianity and will turn you off quickly. My wife is from the Philippines and was a Catholic before becoming a Christian. There may be a few Christians within Catholicism but by and large their teachings, while they claim to be Christian as many others do, are far removed from it. That is basically why it was necessary to have the Reformation. So anyway, you will have their company when you spend eternity...[quote/]
[MOD - I've sorted this posting for you, but I can't keep doing it so please look and learn.
Bikerman]
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
I think I have an inkling of where you are coming from. You have a background of Catholic teaching. Maybe you trained to be a priest. Maybe you where a priest for a while. I can't blame you for becoming an atheist after that. Catholicism is far removed form Christianity and will turn you off quickly. My wife is from the Philippines and was a Catholic before becoming a Christian. There may be a few Christians within Catholicism but by and large their teachings, while they claim to be Christian as many others do, are far removed from it. That is basically why it was necessary to have the Reformation. So anyway, you will have their company when you spend eternity...
As I already explained, Catholics ARE Christian - in fact they would claim to be the original Christians.
You seem to think that Calvinism is the true Christianity but that is clearly bollox, since it was essentially invented by Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer.
I don't think you really know much about Christian history or dogmas judging from the conversation to date - you rely over-much on wiki and other quick web-sources which leads me to believe you are simply trying to research on the fly - something, like plagiarism, that I'm pretty expert in spotting as a teacher. In fact Calvinism is, as I said, a particularly obnoxious form of Christianity - the five 'pillars' of Calvinism are clearly invented and paint a picture of a witless, clueless mankind, unable to do anything unless God already decided they could. It isn't just depressingly defeatist, it is logically incoherent.
Calvinism holds that there is nothing that anyone can do to 'earn' salvation. Good works don't count (but, by the same token neither does evil). God decided who was saved long before anyone was born and that is that.
The obvious corollary is that one may as well spend one's life in hedonistic pleasure and debauchery since it will have no influence on whether one burns or not.
It is also dishonest to pretend that this is some 'original and correct' form of Christianity. Calvinists today have already fundamentally changed the original teachings of Calvinism, so even if the original Calvinism WAS 'true' (which it clearly was not) then today's Calvinists have obviously departed from the 'truth' by changing fundamental parts - the abandonment of Calvinist prohibition on graven image worship and music/entertainment for example.
Calvinism is, as I said, a particularly obnoxious reinterpretation of a religion that was already pretty obnoxious (Luther was clearly an anti-Semitic bigot, and a hypocrite, rather than some 'truth-speaking saviour of the faith' as is very evident when you read what he actually said and wrote instead of the cleaned-up and edited version that modern Protestants like to believe is true. And Calvinism was a departure from Luther's teachings. So what we have is Luther re-writng Catholicism, Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer re-writing Lutheranism, and finally modern neo-Calvinists re-writing Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer's version.
Modern Reformed Protestantism (the label which covers all the different forms of Calvinism and derivatives) is thus not only NOT original Christianity, it is, at best, three steps removed from anything that could even be considered to be such. Not only is it obnoxious and incoherent, it is essentially a bad copy of a bad copy of a bad copy - degenerate.
PS I notice that you are unwilling or unable to address the actual points I made - this posting is what we call an ad-hominem fallacy - and a pretty poor example of the type.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
I think I have an inkling of where you are coming from. You have a background of Catholic teaching. Maybe you trained to be a priest. Maybe you where a priest for a while. I can't blame you for becoming an atheist after that. Catholicism is far removed form Christianity and will turn you off quickly. My wife is from the Philippines and was a Catholic before becoming a Christian. There may be a few Christians within Catholicism but by and large their teachings, while they claim to be Christian as many others do, are far removed from it. That is basically why it was necessary to have the Reformation. So anyway, you will have their company when you spend eternity...
As I already explained, Catholics ARE Christian - in fact they would claim to be the original Christians.
You seem to think that Calvinism is the true Christianity but that is clearly bollox, since it was essentially invented by Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer.
I don't think you really know much about Christian history or dogmas judging from the conversation to date - you rely over-much on wiki and other quick web-sources which leads me to believe you are simply trying to research on the fly - something, like plagiarism, that I'm pretty expert in spotting as a teacher. In fact Calvinism is, as I said, a particularly obnoxious form of Christianity - the five 'pillars' of Calvinism are clearly invented and paint a picture of a witless, clueless mankind, unable to do anything unless God already decided they could. It isn't just depressingly defeatist, it is logically incoherent.
Calvinism holds that there is nothing that anyone can do to 'earn' salvation. Good works don't count (but, by the same token neither does evil). God decided who was saved long before anyone was born and that is that.
The obvious corollary is that one may as well spend one's life in hedonistic pleasure and debauchery since it will have no influence on whether one burns or not.
It is also dishonest to pretend that this is some 'original and correct' form of Christianity. Calvinists today have already fundamentally changed the original teachings of Calvinism, so even if the original Calvinism WAS 'true' (which it clearly was not) then today's Calvinists have obviously departed from the 'truth' by changing fundamental parts - the abandonment of Calvinist prohibition on graven image worship and music/entertainment for example.
Calvinism is, as I said, a particularly obnoxious reinterpretation of a religion that was already pretty obnoxious (Luther was clearly an anti-Semitic bigot, and a hypocrite, rather than some 'truth-speaking saviour of the faith' as is very evident when you read what he actually said and wrote instead of the cleaned-up and edited version that modern Protestants like to believe is true. And Calvinism was a departure from Luther's teachings. So what we have is Paul rewriting Judaism and inventing Catholicism, Luther re-writng Catholicism, Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer re-writing Lutheranism, and finally modern neo-Calvinists re-writing Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer's version.
Modern Reformed Protestantism (the label which covers all the different forms of Calvinism and derivatives) is thus not only NOT original Christianity, it is, at best, four steps removed from anything that could even be considered to be such. Not only is it obnoxious and incoherent, it is essentially a bad copy of a bad copy of a bad copy - degenerate Judaism.
PS I notice that you are unwilling or unable to address the actual points I made - this posting is what we call an ad-hominem fallacy - and a pretty poor example of the type.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I think I have an inkling of where you are coming from. You have a background of Catholic teaching. Maybe you trained to be a priest. Maybe you where a priest for a while. I can't blame you for becoming an atheist after that. Catholicism is far removed form Christianity and will turn you off quickly. My wife is from the Philippines and was a Catholic before becoming a Christian. There may be a few Christians within Catholicism but by and large their teachings, while they claim to be Christian as many others do, are far removed from it. That is basically why it was necessary to have the Reformation. So anyway, you will have their company when you spend eternity...
.
.
.
Quote:
As I already explained, Catholics ARE Christian - in fact they would claim to be the original Christians.
.
.
.
[quote...'nick'...]...No doubt they would claim to be the original Christians but they are certainly not Christian. You obviously don't know what 'Christian' means.
.
.
.
Quote:
You seem to think that Calvinism is the true Christianity
.
.
.
[ quote...'Nick' ]...Who mentioned Calvinism. You obviously don't know what Calvinism is either.
The five points of Calvinism were put together in response to the five points of the Arminians put to the synod of Dorte. Calvin was long since dead by then.
.
.
.
Quote:
but that is clearly bollox, since it was essentially invented by Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer.
.
.
.
[ quote...'Nick'...] Actually, Calvin drew most of his writings from the earlier writings of Augustine. You must know him, the father of Catholicism [/quote]
.
I don't think you really know much about Christian history or dogmas judging from the conversation to date -
Quote:
you rely over-much on wiki and other quick web-sources
[ quote...'Nick'...] If one needs to make a simple reference to dispel an obvious wrong comment it is easily done with Wiki. [/quote]
which leads me to believe you are simply trying to research on the fly - something, like plagiarism, that I'm pretty expert in spotting as a teacher. In fact Calvinism is, as I said, a particularly obnoxious form of Christianity - the five 'pillars' of Calvinism are clearly invented and paint a picture of a witless, clueless mankind, unable to do anything unless God already decided they could. It isn't just depressingly defeatist, it is logically incoherent.
Quote:
Quote:
Calvinism holds that there is nothing that anyone can do to 'earn' salvation. Good works don't count
[ quote...'Nick'...] That was Paul, not Calvin
(but, by the same token neither does evil). God decided who was saved long before anyone was born and that is that.
The obvious corollary is that one may as well spend one's life in hedonistic pleasure and debauchery since it will have no influence on whether one burns or not.[/quote]
[ quote...'Nick'...] Typical ignorant interpretation of Calvinism. [/quote]
Quote:
It is also dishonest to pretend that this is some 'original and correct' form of Christianity. Calvinists today have already fundamentally changed the original teachings of Calvinism, so even if the original Calvinism WAS 'true' (which it clearly was not) then today's Calvinists have obviously departed from the 'truth' by changing fundamental parts - the abandonment of Calvinist prohibition on graven image worship and music/entertainment for example.
Calvinism is, as I said, a particularly obnoxious reinterpretation of a religion that was already pretty obnoxious (Luther was clearly an anti-Semitic bigot, and a hypocrite, rather than some 'truth-speaking saviour of the faith' as is very evident when you read what he actually said and wrote instead of the cleaned-up and edited version that modern Protestants like to believe is true. And Calvinism was a departure from Luther's teachings. So what we have is Luther re-writng Catholicism, Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer re-writing Lutheranism, and finally modern neo-Calvinists re-writing Zwingli, Bullinger and Bucer's version.
Modern Reformed Protestantism (the label which covers all the different forms of Calvinism and derivatives) is thus not only NOT original Christianity, it is, at best, three steps removed from anything that could even be considered to be such. Not only is it obnoxious and incoherent, it is essentially a bad copy of a bad copy of a bad copy - degenerate.
PS I notice that you are unwilling or unable to address the actual points I made - this posting is what we call an ad-hominem fallacy - and a pretty poor example of the type.
[/quote]
Who brought up Calvinism. Certainly wasn't me. I don't strictly follow Calvinism although it is a more accurate interpretation than Arminianism. I would probably classify myself as a reformed Charismatic. So you can give Calvin a break, you obviously don't understand him, and give the Charismatics a go. You should have fun there.
Bikerman
Well, the confusion comes because you previously talked about the Calvinist belief that the saved/condemned are already decided in advance by God.
Saying, now, that you are a Charisma6tic actually doesn't say much at all - there is a huge spread of people who call themselves that, from baptists, Pentecostalists, , Anglicans through to modern Lutherans, and even those 'unchristian' Catholics....
The only thing that all Charismatics share is a belief in 'baptism by the holy spirit'...and far from being
Quote:
....a core of Biblically correct churches around that haven't given way to the liberal and modernist attitudes
, Charismatics are actually a modern offshoot of Pentecostalism - which is itself only about a century old.
Of course, like ALL Christian sects, Charismatics believe that only THEY have the 'true' meaning of scriptures worked-out and (applying simple logic again) like all sects they are almost certainly wrong.*
As for my interpretation of Calvinism being 'ignorant' - hardly. I know that some Christians don't see logic as a useful tool, but my 'interpretation' is nothing more than the application of logic to the 5 core pillars of Calvinism - and far from being 'ignorant' it is based on a fairly good understanding of the sects, born of quite a lot of theological instruction and research - I studied theology for a couple of years in my late teens.
I'm not an ex-priest and I'm not a recently 'lapsed' Catholic. I was educated from 8-18 (32 years ago) by Jesuit and Salesian monks, but I had already worked out, by about 16, that it was a crock. After a bit more study I worked out that Christianity in general is so twisted, confused and fundamentally silly that it held no real interest for anyone who valued intellectual honesty highly.
Since all those years ago I have studied other religions and belief systems a little - Buddhism, Hinduism etc, and, whilst many are much less confused than Christianity, found non of them had much worth saying that was not already available via non-dogmatic and non-sectarian sources and thinkers.
* There are, last count, about 38,000 different Christian sects/movements. Each believes that it has the 'truth' of scripture. Since non of them have any factual evidence to back that claim that is better than any other, we can safely say that non have any better claim than any other. This means that the chances of any particular sect actually HAVING a true interpretation is about 1 in 40,000 *(and here I make the unwarranted and generous assumption that one of them actually DOES have the truth - something which I doubt). Odds of 40 thousand to one are not good and can, for most purposes, be approximated to Zero.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Well, the confusion comes because you previously talked about the Calvinist belief that the saved/condemned are already decided in advance by God.
[quote...'nick...] It may be a Calvinist belief but is primarily a teaching of scripture.
Quote:
Saying, now, that you are a Charisma6tic actually doesn't say much at all
-
[ quote...'Nick'...] I actually said that I was a Reformed Charismatic in the sense of believing the biblical teaching of the reformers with the exception of their Cessationism teaching which can not be justified from scripture. Cessationism teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are finished. The move now is towards the freedom of the Spirit while retaining the solid Biblical teaching of the reformers. [/quote]
there is a huge spread of people who call themselves that, from baptists, Pentecostalists, , Anglicans through to modern Lutherans, and even those 'unchristian' Catholics....
Quote:
The only thing that all Charismatics share is a belief in 'baptism by the holy spirit'...
[ quote...'Nick'...] And the belief that other gifts still operate in the church, ie healings etc. [/quote]
Quote:
and far from being
Quote:
....a core of Biblically correct churches around that haven't given way to the liberal and modernist attitudes
,
[ quote...'Nick'...] The liberal and modernist attitudes refer more to the teachings of Armianism than Pentecostal. [/quote]
Quote:
Charismatics are actually a modern offshoot of Pentecostalism - which is itself only about a century old.
[ quote...'Nick'...] Pentecostalism is a distinct movement as in 'Assemblies of God' whereas Charismatics are generally those who have embraced the Baptism of the Spirit etc. and decided to stay within their own denominations ie, Charismatic Catholics. [/quote]
Of course, like ALL Christian sects, Charismatics believe that only THEY have the 'true' meaning of scriptures worked-out and (applying simple logic again) like all sects they are almost certainly wrong.*
As for my interpretation of Calvinism being 'ignorant' - hardly. I know that some Christians don't see logic as a useful tool, but my 'interpretation' is nothing more than the application of logic to the 5 core pillars of Calvinism - and far from being 'ignorant' it is based on a fairly good understanding of the sects, born of quite a lot of theological instruction and research -
Quote:
I studied theology for a couple of years in my late teens.
[ quote...'Nick'...] There is theology and theology. Most theology taught in the last 100 years in seminaries has been Arminianism, certainly not Biblical. [/quote]
I'm not an ex-priest and I'm not a recently 'lapsed' Catholic. I was educated from 8-18 (32 years ago) by Jesuit and Salesian monks, but I had already worked out, by about 16, that it was a crock. After a bit more study I worked out that
Quote:
Christianity in general is so twisted, confused and fundamentally silly
[ quote...'Nick'...] Once again, you have not shown a basic understanding of Christianity or what it means to be a Christian. [/quote]
that it held no real interest for anyone who valued intellectual honesty highly.
Since all those years ago I have studied other religions and belief systems a little - Buddhism, Hinduism etc, and, whilst many are much less confused than Christianity, found non of them had much worth saying that was not already available via non-dogmatic and non-sectarian sources and thinkers.
*
Quote:
There are, last count, about 38,000 different Christian sects/movements. Each believes that it has the 'truth' of scripture. Since non of them have any factual evidence to back that claim that is better than any other, we can safely say that non have any better claim than any other. This means that the chances of any particular sect actually HAVING a true interpretation is about 1 in 40,000 *(and here I make the unwarranted and generous assumption that one of them actually DOES have the truth - something which I doubt). Odds of 40 th
ousand to one are not good and can, for most purposes, be approximated to Zero.[/quote]
Very true, but as I have said, calling oneself Christian does not make one a Christian. We get back to those chosen few again.
Bikerman
I see you still haven't managed to sort out quote tags....I have to ask this, and I don't mean this as an attack - are you dyslexic? (I only ask because I have taught children and adults with reading difficulties and there are strategies I can use to make it easier)....otherwise I'm really quite surprised that you haven't managed to suss this yet, despite individual tuition.....
You keep claiming to have some special scriptural accuracy for your sect (or tendency) but, as I said, every sect claims that, so it can be discounted. You also seem very hung-up on Arminianism - by which you seem to mean the belief that salvation can be earned and is not predetermined - without either knowing or acknowledging that the alternative Augustinian view is, if anything, LESS biblically correct, nor more, and is NOT what became Calvinism (Calvin didn't invent Calvinism - it was invented by the three theologians I already mentioned, plus a couple of others).
Neither did Augustine say that salvation or damnation was predetermined by God (yes I am very familiar with Augustine and his writings).
Augustine said
Quote:
There is absolutely no kind of human beings, dearly beloved, who need to despair of their vocation; Christ suffered for all. It was truly written, it is he "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth."
which pretty much contradicts the notion that only SOME are saved and the rest can do nothing about it....Augustine believed that the 'destination' of the soul was decided at death - not before birth.
Augustine is held in high regard by Catholics, for sure, but I regard him as one more monster in a long line. His teachings on original sin, in particular, are positively evil, his view of instantaneous creation is just mad, his invention of the Virgin Mary still haunt many deluded believers and his twisted notions of human sexuality have been one of the great evils promoted and developed by all Christian sects over the centuries.
Anyway, this is getting boring - you haven't really dealt with the central issues (the fact that the belief in pre-ordained salvation/damnation is basically evil and could only be the product of either an evil God or evil men 'interpreting' God), and your only retort in general is to say that people who don't believe this evil doctrine are not Christians - which as I have already explained is simply an example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
nickfyoung
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
I see you still haven't managed to sort out quote tags....I have to ask this, and I don't mean this as an attack - are you dyslexic? (I only ask because I have taught children and adults with reading difficulties and there are strategies I can use to make it easier)....otherwise I'm really quite surprised that you haven't managed to suss this yet, despite individual tuition.....
[ quote..'Nick'..] Don't know about dyslexic. probably just getting old.
Quote:
You keep claiming to have some special scriptural accuracy for your sect
[quote..'Nick'..] Not part of any sect. [/quote]
(or tendency) but, as I said, every sect claims that, so it can be discounted. You also seem very hung-up on Arminianism - by which you seem to mean the belief that salvation can be earned and is not predetermined - without either knowing or acknowledging that the alternative Augustinian view is, if anything, LESS biblically correct, nor more, and is NOT what became Calvinism (Calvin didn't invent Calvinism - it was invented by the three theologians I already mentioned, plus a couple of others).
Neither did Augustine say that salvation or damnation was predetermined by God (yes I am very familiar with Augustine and his writings).
Quote:
Augustine said
Quote:
There is absolutely no kind of human beings, dearly beloved, who need to despair of their vocation; Christ suffered for all. It was truly written, it is he "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth."
which pretty much contradicts the notion that only SOME are saved and the rest can do nothing about it....Augustine believed that the 'destination' of the soul was decided at death - not before birth.
[ quote..'Nick..'} quote "Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, “So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense. “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth.” But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable.
-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 11"
Augustine said a lot of things and changed some of them in later writings. [/quote]
Augustine is held in high regard by Catholics, for sure, but I regard him as one more monster in a long line. His teachings on original sin, in particular, are positively evil, his view of instantaneous creation is just mad, his invention of the Virgin Mary still haunt many deluded believers and his twisted notions of human sexuality have been one of the great evils promoted and developed by all Christian sects over the centuries.
Anyway, this is getting boring - you haven't really dealt with the central issues
(
Quote:
the fact that the belief in pre-ordained salvation/damnation is basically evil
[ quote..'Nick..'] This is a fairly long quote to try to explain some of it.
"There are two foundational ideas that determine how we must think about the matter of divine grace.
The first is the sinfulness of man, or the doctrine of total depravity. When Adam sinned, he acted as the federal head or representative of humanity, so that all of mankind fell with him. Now a verdict of guilt is imposed on all his descendants, and a nature of wickedness is passed on, not by natural generation but by divine power, to every human person born after him, Christ excepted. The result is that man is unable to save himself, to redeem himself before God, or to attain righteousness with God. Indeed, because he is evil, he is also unwilling to do so. He would rather burn in hell than to bow before the Most High.
The second is the sovereignty of God, especially as it is applied to the salvation of sinful man. The Bible teaches that God creates and chooses some men for salvation, that is, to show them grace and kindness, to change their nature from evil to good, and to produce faith and love in them toward the Lord Jesus Christ. These are called the elect, or the chosen ones. They are Christians, and will persist in their faith by divine power. And the Bible teaches that God creates and chooses all other men for damnation, to be vessels of wrath, and to be tortured in hell forever. These are called the non-elect, or the reprobates. They are non-Christians, or non-Christians who pretend to be Christians, and will remain in unbelief all their lives.
It is said that this doctrine of predestination is a "high mystery," and "to be handled with special prudence and care." This strange advice is unwarranted. The Bible itself does not call this doctrine a mystery, let alone a "high" mystery. Rather, it is one of the least complex, least difficult, and most fully explained teachings in Scripture. Jesus did not hesitate to throw it around either as a teaching in itself or as an explanation to something else. And Paul offered explicit expositions that addressed all general issues about the topic. There is not one broad question on predestination that we lack the answer to. The doctrine is completely and obviously consistent, so there is nothing to harmonize. There is no paradox, no antinomy, no contradiction, no mystery. There is just plain and glorious truth shining in our face like the noonday sun."
Source -http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10/16/grace-for-his-own/
It may explain it better than I could. [/quote]
Quote:
and could only be the product of either an evil God or evil men 'interpreting' God), and your only retort in general is to say that people who don't believe this evil doctrine are not Christians - which as I have already explained is simply an example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
[/quote]
[ quote..'Nick'..] This is the general belief of Arminians and one of the reasons their doctrine was invented in the first place. If you have studied theology under an Arminian system then it is natural for you to have this thinking too. [/quote]
nickfyoung
nickfyoung wrote:
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
I see you still haven't managed to sort out quote tags....I have to ask this, and I don't mean this as an attack - are you dyslexic? (I only ask because I have taught children and adults with reading difficulties and there are strategies I can use to make it easier)....otherwise I'm really quite surprised that you haven't managed to suss this yet, despite individual tuition.....
[ quote..'Nick'..] Don't know about dyslexic. probably just getting old.
Quote:
You keep claiming to have some special scriptural accuracy for your sect
[quote..'Nick'..] Not part of any sect.
(or tendency) but, as I said, every sect claims that, so it can be discounted. You also seem very hung-up on Arminianism - by which you seem to mean the belief that salvation can be earned and is not predetermined - without either knowing or acknowledging that the alternative Augustinian view is, if anything, LESS biblically correct, nor more, and is NOT what became Calvinism (Calvin didn't invent Calvinism - it was invented by the three theologians I already mentioned, plus a couple of others).
Neither did Augustine say that salvation or damnation was predetermined by God (yes I am very familiar with Augustine and his writings).
Quote:
Augustine said
Quote:
There is absolutely no kind of human beings, dearly beloved, who need to despair of their vocation; Christ suffered for all. It was truly written, it is he "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth."
which pretty much contradicts the notion that only SOME are saved and the rest can do nothing about it....Augustine believed that the 'destination' of the soul was decided at death - not before birth.
[ quote..'Nick..'} quote "Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, “So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense. “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth.” But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable.
-Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 11"
Augustine said a lot of things and changed some of them in later writings. [/quote]
Augustine is held in high regard by Catholics, for sure, but I regard him as one more monster in a long line. His teachings on original sin, in particular, are positively evil, his view of instantaneous creation is just mad, his invention of the Virgin Mary still haunt many deluded believers and his twisted notions of human sexuality have been one of the great evils promoted and developed by all Christian sects over the centuries.
Anyway, this is getting boring - you haven't really dealt with the central issues
(
Quote:
the fact that the belief in pre-ordained salvation/damnation is basically evil
[ quote..'Nick..'] This is a fairly long quote to try to explain some of it.
"There are two foundational ideas that determine how we must think about the matter of divine grace.
The first is the sinfulness of man, or the doctrine of total depravity. When Adam sinned, he acted as the federal head or representative of humanity, so that all of mankind fell with him. Now a verdict of guilt is imposed on all his descendants, and a nature of wickedness is passed on, not by natural generation but by divine power, to every human person born after him, Christ excepted. The result is that man is unable to save himself, to redeem himself before God, or to attain righteousness with God. Indeed, because he is evil, he is also unwilling to do so. He would rather burn in hell than to bow before the Most High.
The second is the sovereignty of God, especially as it is applied to the salvation of sinful man. The Bible teaches that God creates and chooses some men for salvation, that is, to show them grace and kindness, to change their nature from evil to good, and to produce faith and love in them toward the Lord Jesus Christ. These are called the elect, or the chosen ones. They are Christians, and will persist in their faith by divine power. And the Bible teaches that God creates and chooses all other men for damnation, to be vessels of wrath, and to be tortured in hell forever. These are called the non-elect, or the reprobates. They are non-Christians, or non-Christians who pretend to be Christians, and will remain in unbelief all their lives.
It is said that this doctrine of predestination is a "high mystery," and "to be handled with special prudence and care." This strange advice is unwarranted. The Bible itself does not call this doctrine a mystery, let alone a "high" mystery. Rather, it is one of the least complex, least difficult, and most fully explained teachings in Scripture. Jesus did not hesitate to throw it around either as a teaching in itself or as an explanation to something else. And Paul offered explicit expositions that addressed all general issues about the topic. There is not one broad question on predestination that we lack the answer to. The doctrine is completely and obviously consistent, so there is nothing to harmonize. There is no paradox, no antinomy, no contradiction, no mystery. There is just plain and glorious truth shining in our face like the noonday sun."
Source -http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10/16/grace-for-his-own/
It may explain it better than I could. [/quote]
Quote:
and could only be the product of either an evil God or evil men 'interpreting' God), and your only retort in general is to say that people who don't believe this evil doctrine are not Christians - which as I have already explained is simply an example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
[/quote]
[ quote..'Nick'..] This is the general belief of Arminians and one of the reasons their doctrine was invented in the first place. If you have studied theology under an Arminian system then it is natural for you to have this thinking too. [/quote][/quote]
[ quote..'Nick'..]..Tried to edit the first quote of mine a couple of times but the quote marks are not showing when submitted. [/quote]
Bikerman
Which completely fails to address any of the issues and simple sidesteps it by calling it a 'high mystery' - whch is theology-speak for 'looks terrible and we have no good answer'.
The answer is, in fact, VERY simple. A God which created humans with no future other than eternal torment would be definitively evil - more evil than anything humans can actually conceive, let alone execute. This is not really something which I expect many people could argue with. Any God who worked like this would be a God worth fighting.
I am NOT American by the way - I am English and my theology was taught in England.
Your quote from Augustine doesn't contradict mine - it merely says that God is PART of the process - not that ONLY Gpd decides - that is quite standard theology.
As for what the bible teaches - as I have repeatedly pointed out, the bible says many things which contradict each other and contradict this evil theology. This is not surprising as the bible is a hotch-potch of stories and inventions written and selected by people with an agenda...
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Which completely fails to address any of the issues and simple sidesteps it by calling it a 'high mystery'
[quote..'Nick'..] Read it again. It says the opposite
- whch is theology-speak for 'looks terrible and we have no good answer'.
The answer is, in fact, VERY simple. A God which created humans with no future other than eternal torment would be definitively evil - more evil than anything humans can actually conceive, let alone execute. This is not really something which I expect many people could argue with. Any God who worked like this would be a God worth fighting.
Quote:
I am NOT American by the way - I am English and my theology was taught in England.
[ quote..'Nick'..] Wesley was English [/quote]
Your quote from Augustine doesn't contradict mine - it merely says that God is PART of the process - not that ONLY Gpd decides - that is quite standard theology.
Quote:
As for what the bible teaches - as I have repeatedly pointed out, the bible says many things which contradict each other and contradict this evil theology. This is not surprising as the bible is a hotch-potch of stories and inventions written and selected by people with an agenda...
[/quote]
[quote 'Nick' ] Surprised that you got anywhere with theology at all because the first step is to understand and accept the Bible for what it is. I had a problem with this at first. [/quote]
truespeed
I am trying to follow this conversation but it is really difficult to know who said what with nicks inability to quote correctly.
Nick maybe just don't quote at all but just reply?
Anyway i have tried to decipher what has been said and wondered if this be a good analogy?
A parent has two children,one child he loves,nurtures,cares for,meets that childs every need. (The chosen one) . The other child he locks in a cold dark room with no bedding and no human interaction,occasionally going in to beat him black and blue.
Now replace the parent for God and would this be a good analogy for your God and religion Nicky?
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
I am trying to follow this conversation but it is really difficult to know who said what with nicks inability to quote correctly.
Nick maybe just don't quote at all but just reply?
Anyway i have tried to decipher what has been said and wondered if this be a good analogy?
A parent has two children,one child he loves,nurtures,cares for,meets that childs every need. (The chosen one) . The other child he locks in a cold dark room with no bedding and no human interaction,occasionally going in to beat him black and blue.
Now replace the parent for God and would this be a good analogy for your God and religion Nicky?
Not quite. The other child would be in a hot room and beaten continuously.
Bikerman
And don't forget - neither child will ever know WHY and there is no correlation between the child's appearance, behaviour or attitude and their position of torment or gratification.
Morally it is completely unambiguous - total evil. In fact, any system which could conceivably argue that this God was at the same time 'good' and 'loving' would have to be so corrupt that it could not be comprehended (or indeed comprehensible) to humans, since there is no possible 'greater good' or 'unseen consequence' argument that could possibly make it anything OTHER than completely evil.
To paraphrase the late great Hitch, and coin a quote of my own:
Bikerman wrote:
I'm really glad that the Christian god doesn't exist, because if it did I would feel morally obligated to fight it with everything I had, regardless of the futility of that fight, because to do otherwise would be so morally repugnant that Hitler Stalin and any monster you can name from history would pale into utter insignificance.
.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I am trying to follow this conversation but it is really difficult to know who said what with nicks inability to quote correctly.
Nick maybe just don't quote at all but just reply?
Anyway i have tried to decipher what has been said and wondered if this be a good analogy?
A parent has two children,one child he loves,nurtures,cares for,meets that childs every need. (The chosen one) . The other child he locks in a cold dark room with no bedding and no human interaction,occasionally going in to beat him black and blue.
Now replace the parent for God and would this be a good analogy for your God and religion Nicky?
Not quite. The other child would be in a hot room and beaten continuously.
And your ok with that? 2 Children,one looked after and cared for,the other beaten mercilessly no matter how good and well behaved they are.
You don't think that makes (the parent in the analogy) your God just a little psychotic?
Bikerman
LOL...not only must the believer be OK with it - they have to engage in such profound cognitive dissonance that they regard this monster as the ultimate in morality - the perfectly GOOD entity who is the embodiment of moral action...try getting your head around THAT and staying sane....
This is one, fairly extreme, but not atypical, example of why I seriously suggest that religion - at least in this fundamentalist guise - is actually a recognised mental condition known as delusional disorder...people often think I must be joking - I'm really NOT.
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I am trying to follow this conversation but it is really difficult to know who said what with nicks inability to quote correctly.
Nick maybe just don't quote at all but just reply?
Anyway i have tried to decipher what has been said and wondered if this be a good analogy?
A parent has two children,one child he loves,nurtures,cares for,meets that childs every need. (The chosen one) . The other child he locks in a cold dark room with no bedding and no human interaction,occasionally going in to beat him black and blue.
Now replace the parent for God and would this be a good analogy for your God and religion Nicky?
Not quite. The other child would be in a hot room and beaten continuously.
And your ok with that? 2 Children,one looked after and cared for,the other beaten mercilessly no matter how good and well behaved they are.
You don't think that makes your God just a little psychotic?
Who am I to question God. Scripture says God is good so what he does is good. Scripture says he is sovereign and has made everything therefore he is the author of sin and evil. If it were not good and righteous then he would have to make another law to say so. Then when he broke that law we could condemn him. As it is, who am I to question God.
Bikerman
But I can use the exact SAME bible to portray a God who is NOT a psychopath - it is your CHOICE to believe this particular version....
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
Who am I to question God. Scripture says God is good so what he does is good. Scripture says he is sovereign and has made everything therefore he is the author of sin and evil. If it were not good and righteous then he would have to make another law to say so. Then when he broke that law we could condemn him. As it is, who am I to question God.
Because what i am describing isn't good is it.
Let me go back to my parent analogy,your father brings you up in a traditional family unit,treats you well,educates you,looks after you as a father should,one day you see him go down to the cellar,you follow him down,locked in the cellar is your brother who you thought went missing,the room is 100 degrees plus,it is hard to breathe down there,you watch as your father beats him black and blue,punching and punching. You remember your brother as well behaved,so why is your father beating the child,but you don't question it do you,who are you to question your father right?
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...not only must the believer be OK with it - they have to engage in such profound cognitive dissonance that they regard this monster as the ultimate in morality - the perfectly GOOD entity who is the embodiment of moral action...try getting your head around THAT and staying sane....
This is one, fairly extreme, but not atypical, example of why I seriously suggest that religion - at least in this fundamentalist guise - is actually a recognised mental condition known as delusional disorder...people often think I must be joking - I'm really NOT.
Actually the depiction in your profile to the left is more how a monster would be. You see, you believe that the child in the above analogy is perfectly good and undeserving of the punishment. In actuality, take yourself as an example. When you call God a monster and hate how he is depicted and have no intention of doing otherwise, in his eyes you are being punished deservedly. Put yourself in God's shoes. If some one continually berated you, hated you and gave you a hard time wouldn't you feel justified in kicking his ass. We must get rid of this notion that these people being punished are some how innocent. Yeah, I know, they were selected and had no choice but by the time they get to crunch point the hate has set in and they are no longer innocent.
Bikerman
Please don't tell me what I believe - you are quite wrong. I am willing to grant that the child is a monster - it doesn't change the morality one tiny bit.
The people being punished may or may not have called God a monster. The fact that you think this is a crime worthy of ETERNAL unbearable suffering says all that needs to be said about your moral sensibilities...
...and NO, of COURSE I would not think that someone who called me a monster should be tortured eternally - that would make ME a psychopath too....
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Who am I to question God. Scripture says God is good so what he does is good. Scripture says he is sovereign and has made everything therefore he is the author of sin and evil. If it were not good and righteous then he would have to make another law to say so. Then when he broke that law we could condemn him. As it is, who am I to question God.
Because what i am describing isn't good is it.
Let me go back to my parent analogy,your father brings you up in a traditional family unit,treats you well,educates you,looks after you as a father should,one day you see him go down to the cellar,you follow him down,locked in the cellar is your brother who you thought went missing,the room is 100 degrees plus,it is hard to breathe down there,you watch as your father beats him black and blue,punching and punching. You remember your brother as well behaved,so why is your father beating the child,but you don't question it do you,who are you to question your father right?
Right. As I said in the last post, the child hates the father and takes every opportunity to do him harm. If he were set loose he would probably kill the whole family. He is that bad.
The analogy is not one of an innocent child. Even though they may have no choice in the matter they are deserved of their punishment. Unbelief is enough.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Please don't tell me what I believe - you are quite wrong. I am willing to grant that the child is a monster - it doesn't change the morality one tiny bit.
The people being punished may or may not have called God a monster. The fact that you think this is a crime worthy of ETERNAL unbearable suffering says all that needs to be said about your moral sensibilities...
...and NO, of COURSE I would not think that someone who called me a monster should be tortured eternally - that would make ME a psychopath too....
Nothing to do with me if some one is punished eternally. I just don't question God. You question his morality while I accept Him for who and what he is.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
But I can use the exact SAME bible to portray a God who is NOT a psychopath - it is your CHOICE to believe this particular version....
That is true. It is my choice. I think I would much rather take this choice than one of the constant conflict that you seem to be in.
Bikerman
Conflict? What conflict would that be? I don't believe any God exists - no conflict therefore arises....
But even then - even if I DID believe that this God existed - I would be morally compelled to resist it- as would any person with any moral sense.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Conflict? What conflict would that be? I don't believe any God exists - no conflict therefore arises....
There is a continued conflict of feeling it necessary to attack theism, unless of course you just enjoy defeating theist in debate then I suppose it becomes more fun than conflict.
Bikerman
The clue is in the title of the forum - a forum to discuss religion and philosophy. That is what I am doing...
I don't particularly enjoy 'beating theists' in debate - I've been doing it for too long and too many times to get any particular pleasure, especially since such debates are not even much of a challenge. I would actually love a theist to put up a decent argument for the existence of their deity, but none ever have....
So why do I do it? Simple - self-defence. Theists not only believe this sort of wickedness, they would like to persuade others to believe it too, and would like to change the society I live in to reflect their warped morality.
Without wishing to sound overly dramatic, that will be over my dead body.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
Right. As I said in the last post, the child hates the father and takes every opportunity to do him harm. If he were set loose he would probably kill the whole family. He is that bad.
The analogy is not one of an innocent child. Even though they may have no choice in the matter they are deserved of their punishment. Unbelief is enough.
The analogy is one of an innocent child i made that clear in my post,but lets not question the father for torturing the child,he must have some reason right? It couldn't be possible that the father is a psycho right?
Likewise your God,to grant the chosen ones heaven and the rest hell regardless of how moral a life they lead or how much they pray and worship him,they still go to hell,because they are not the right type of Christian,they are not the chosen/elect/elite.
You didn't answer in an earlier post,are you one of the chosen?
Bikerman
LOL...There's the rub....there is no way for a theist to know if they are or are not.
So, in return for nothing (nothing they do can change their fate) they are prepared to not only sanction atrocity but actually defend it as moral.
To complete your analogy, the two sons are waiting for their father to return from the pub. They know that on his return one of them will be beaten, until almost dead, then revived and beaten some more....for the rest of his life. Just when he is about to get some final release from pain his father will bring in the gene therapists and he will be granted another 100 years life so the punishment can continue, and then another 100, and another....into infinity.
The other son will have an equally infinite lifespan but will be cosseted and every whim pandered to. There is no way to know which is which.
Not only are the sons content with this situation, they brag loudly to everyone around them that their father is the best father around - in fact he is the best conceivable father who loves everyone so much it can't even be expressed. They think that everyone should leave their current families and come and live with them and their father. In fact they insist that anyone who does not do so is evil, and will get a visit from their father at some time in the future whether they like it or not....
Now we begin to see the full horrendous illogical nightmarish immoral insanity that this represents - and we are not even CLOSE to analogising the full horrors....
So, the question is now - what do we make of these sons? Can we say they are simply mistaken? Surely not. If morality is to have any meaning then we must surely say that they are immoral and wicked. Not only are they content to live in a world where no logic dictates outcomes, but they insist that everyone else must join them or suffer for it...
Can we find ANY possible defence for the sons against the charge of gross immorality?
I leave it open......
Bikerman
PS - With due apologies for confirming Godwin's law, I think that in this case it screams for it, so I will....
Question 1.
When faced with the unbearable and eternal suffering of countless neighbours, friends, acquaintences etc, the following excuse was offered.
Quote:
Nothing to do with me if some one is punished eternally. I just don't question .....
Who might have said this and who about?
Answer:
(My first thought was a German in 1945, referring to his/her attitude to Hitler.......but most Germans would not have been so callous methinks, and even Hitler stopped the torture when the Jews physically died....)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2.
It is generally accepted that punishment should be proportional to offence. With that in mind, what offence could be seen to justify a punishment beyond imagining and without end?
Answer
Quote:
Unbelief is enough.
(referring to unbelief in an entity who for some bizarre reason hides all evidence of its existence and even plants a scientifically convincing hoax, including fossils, uncountable numbers of stars, and a consistent and coherent body of knowledge called physics which says that there is no need for the entity at all, just to throw people off the scent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3
Can anyone suggest why someone might think it would be much better to believe in a supreme entity which is responsible for actions that any human would describe as utterly evil/immoral, rather than admit one cannot be sure - even if this leaves one a bit 'confused' about the issue?
Surely confusion would be the obvious choice if one had to select?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously dudes...I ask..how bad does a belief system have to be to warp someone's basic sense of morality this badly? We are not talking about a monster here - just some guy who undoubtedly would describe himself as an OK chap - a basically moral and decent human being....
I think this answers the question of why I post 'attacking' theism, and does so far far more eloquently than any words I might select for myself...............
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I don't particularly enjoy 'beating theists' in debate - I've been doing it for too long and too many times to get any particular pleasure, especially since such debates are not even much of a challenge. I would actually love a theist to put up a decent argument for the existence of their deity, but none ever have....
I'm curious. Which debates are you referring to? And if you're not getting any pleasure out of the debates, why are you doing it?
Bikerman
Try reading rather than asking me to repeat stuff
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Right. As I said in the last post, the child hates the father and takes every opportunity to do him harm. If he were set loose he would probably kill the whole family. He is that bad.
The analogy is not one of an innocent child. Even though they may have no choice in the matter they are deserved of their punishment. Unbelief is enough.
The analogy is one of an innocent child i made that clear in my post,but lets not question the father for torturing the child,he must have some reason right? It couldn't be possible that the father is a psycho right?
Likewise your God,to grant the chosen ones heaven and the rest hell regardless of how moral a life they lead or how much they pray and worship him,they still go to hell,because they are not the right type of Christian,they are not the chosen/elect/elite.
You didn't answer in an earlier post,are you one of the chosen?
Sorry, I missed that post. Yes, I am one of the elect or chosen or however you want to put it. I know it is difficult for people like Bikerman to understand, in fact for most people to understand but one just doesn't get full understanding until one is in so to speak and then it is a life time of learning with complete understanding not coming until the next life.
Bikerman requires evidence and there is plenty of it but it is usually only revealed to those who are in and of course he can't accept personal evidence.
Where do you think the term Christian comes from. It means more than a follower of Christ. It was first coined in the early church by people when they observed what was happening to new converts. The radical change in behaviour was so obvious that it could not go un-noticed and so the new converts were said to have Christ in them or Christian.
To look at the theology behind this to understand it briefly. The fall of the first man caused him to die because he had broken that spiritual bond with his God, who is spirit. All of us born since have inherited that disconnected spirit which is obvious by our attitudes, look at Bikerman, and so we are going to die. Because we are disconnected from God we are 'bad' by nature and all born that way. Look at a baby, you have to teach it to behave, misbehaving comes naturally.
Because we are all 'bad' by nature we are all going to end up in hell, can't get near God cause he is utterly holy. For what ever reason God decided to pick a few people out of this mess and grant them eternity with him instead. Now, these people were picked with no reason of goodness on the peoples part. They were as 'bad' as the rest and were not even interested in God, so he had to supernaturally change their disposition to one of love from hate. This is known as God's grace, being saved, born again, etc.
At that point, that spiritual disconnection we talked about earlier was re-connected and those people that God had picked became as the original man and so that is why Christians were known to have Christ in them.
There is plenty of evidence of this still happening today but it is clouded by all the other wish wash that has invaded religion. So unfortunately, the only way for some one like Bikerman to see the evidence he desires is if God decides it is his turn and taps him on the shoulder. Otherwise it is a long time in that hot place.
What I have given you here is a rough outline of the theology, [theology= study of God], that is tought in the Bible. I haven't made it up but just relayed it to you as understood by many. Of course, we know there are many debates over theology but the basics remain similar.
To do this I also realize that I open myself up to more ridicule by people like yourself and Bikerman. Be that as it may but my purpose is to help you understand what is a major belief, not to try and convert you. There is a difference.
Now go to town and enjoy.
Bikerman
LOL..the more one reads that last posting, the more one realises how mad Christianity actually is.
When one points out a monstrous and undeniable atrocity then one 'doesn't understand' - as though the believer had access to some actual insight rather than just personal delusion.
'There is plenty of evidence' they say, but that is simply more delusion.
Evidence is evidence, independent of the observer. If the 'evidence' is only available to some, under special conditions, THEN IT ISN'T EVIDENCE it is subjective opinion.
People have a pretty good inbuilt morality - it comes from our evolution as social animals (similar habits and behaviours can be observed in other social species).
We know, without needing to be told, that any God who would condemn his creation to eternal unbearable suffering, because of the actions of a remote and imaginary ancestor, is a very nasty piece of work.
The 'sins of the father' should not be visited on the child - this is just simple basic ethics and even children understand it - but the Christian god not only visits the sins of the father on the son, he holds the whole of the species guilty for the action of 2 individuals - again even a child knows that this is basically immoral.
Yet this believers think they have some special insight based on a 'lifetime of learning' - which is laughable. Spending a lifetime trying to understand the nonsense and contradictions contained in a bronze-age collection of stories is such a waste of a life that it is sad - and at the end of it, according to their own beliefs, it is simply a dice0thow that determines whether they burn or not, so a lifetime of delusion is crowned by an eternity of torture.
I am not the first to believe that there is something deeply sadomasochistic about Christianity at root. For example, all the kinky concentration on sex that most of the sects (pun intended) go in for. Anglicans are ripping themselves apart because some of them imagine this God of theirs is deeply concerned about what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Further evidence for this dysfunctional and perverted core is found with the Mel Gibson snuff-movie. Most evangelicals that I talk to think it is one of the most powerful and important films they have ever seen. What it is really is a sadomasochistic self-indulgent fantasy, where nearly every frame is filled with torture, beating, blood and guts, made by a half-mad anti-Semitic actor with a completely barking mad father - and it has grossed well over $600 million as people sit through the gore-feast and weep as they tell each other how meaningful it is - what a load of self-indulgent bollox.
Then we have this fantastic notion of God picking out a few individuals to spare from eternal torment - not because they behaved well, but because...well, because of nothing in particular. Some God this is.
So you have a God who demands worship but intends to torture you eternally whether you worship him or not and who attaches no value to morality - because even the most moral person will get no reward for their good behaviour, just as the evil man will receive no extra punishment for evil deeds - they both burn forever.
This is, as previously stated, a God who is evil through and through and rather than worship this monster in a stomache churning display of sycophancy, I would have more respct for people who believe this fantastic nonsense if they actually did as quite a few of my Jewish friends have done - admit that their God is nasty and vengeful, 'spit in his eye and damn the consequences (there won't be any, so why worry - at least show some spine rather than behaving like the 'sheep' that Christians like to imagine themselves as.*
* The image of the shepherd and flock is a common one in Christianity and this particular subset of Christian belief makes that metaphor very apt. Shepherds don't tend sheep from goodness or love, they do it so they can enjoy a nice leg of lamb for lunch.....
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
so he had to supernaturally change their disposition to one of love from hate. This is known as God's grace, being saved, born again, etc..
I don't feel any love from you,and don't find you very moral,the fact that you would quite happily accept a family member who lives a moral and good life to burn for all eternity in hell makes me think you lack any kind of empathy or morals at all,your applauding of the mayor in the Philippines who sends out death squads to kill people makes me wonder why you think you qualify for a place in any heaven,if God has changed your disposition i would say he has changed it from love to hate not the other way around. .
nickfyoung wrote:
To do this I also realize that I open myself up to more ridicule by people like yourself and Bikerman. Be that as it may but my purpose is to help you understand what is a major belief, not to try and convert you.
But if i have read and understood your posts correctly only the chosen,the true Christains go to heaven,so all those catholics and other denominations of christianity will burn in hell with the rest of us,so conversion is out of the question right? If we are not chosen we are not in?
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
so he had to supernaturally change their disposition to one of love from hate. This is known as God's grace, being saved, born again, etc..
I don't feel any love from you,and don't find you very moral,the fact that you would quite happily accept a family member who lives a moral and good life to burn for all eternity in hell makes me think you lack any kind of empathy or morals at all,your applauding of the mayor in the Philippines who sends out death squads to kill people makes me wonder why you think you qualify for a place in any heaven,if God has changed your disposition i would say he has changed it from love to hate not the other way around. .
nickfyoung wrote:
To do this I also realize that I open myself up to more ridicule by people like yourself and Bikerman. Be that as it may but my purpose is to help you understand what is a major belief, not to try and convert you.
But if i have read and understood your posts correctly only the chosen,the true Christains go to heaven,so all those catholics and other denominations of christianity will burn in hell with the rest of us,so conversion is out of the question right? If we are not chosen we are not in?
Told you I would cop it from Bikerman. That is his prerogative.
No, you haven't got it quite right. I am trying to explain this a simply as I can so you will understand. If you are chosen then you are the ones getting converted. Those that convert do so because they have been chosen. Not to be confused with the many false conversions, those who convert of their own free will and are really false Christians.
There are some of these 'real' Christians in all denominations including, yes, the Catholics just as there some false Christians in all denominations.
Because of the fallen nature of man everybody deserves to go to hell period.
Because of the fallen nature of man no one wants to be with God.
Because of the fallen nature of man all hate God.
That is why the conversion is a supernatural work.
And I recently lost a younger brother to cancer. My only brother who I loved dearly. However, that does not alter the fact that he is now in hell because he refused to turn to God, and indeed, was unable to because he obviously was not one of the elect. I don't like that but have no option but to accept it.
You don't feel any love from me; The love I was talking about was the initial turning from the hate of God to the love of God, necessary for conversion.
Ankhanu
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
Because of the fallen nature of man all hate God.
The God you describe,what's to like? A hateful God is all i see,hate breeds hate.
nickfyoung wrote:
That is why the conversion is a supernatural work.
Convenient.
nickfyoung wrote:
And I recently lost a younger brother to cancer. My only brother who I loved dearly. However, that does not alter the fact that he is now in hell because he refused to turn to God, and indeed, was unable to because he obviously was not one of the elect. I don't like that but have no option but to accept it.
You accept a God that puts the brother you love in an eternity of pain?
nickfyoung wrote:
The love I was talking about was the initial turning from the hate of God to the love of God, necessary for conversion.
Your God has nothing to love about him,fear yes,love no,how can you love an entity that would harm a loved one,not just harm them but torture them for all of time.
Bikerman
Quote:
Because of the fallen nature of man everybody deserves to go to hell period.
There's that wonderful sense of proportion again.
God sets Adam and Eve up - like telling a kid he can have a chocolate biscuit but he can't have the ones on the top shelf. You just KNOW he will go for the top shelf first chance.
And what were they forbidden to 'eat' ? Knowledge - that's what. The whole metaphor is basically saying that as long as people were dumb and just did what God said, no questions asked, God was happy. But when they scrumped the apple from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil then that was the ultimate and unpardonable sin for them and everyone to follow.
Theologically it is a piece of silliness which, if anything, reveals a petty and small-minded God.
But then, of course, it gets REALLY insane.
God could, of course, forgive - but he chooses not to. he waits a few thousand years, and then decides that the only way to pay for this 'sin' of scrumping is to have himself tortured and killed in the guise of his own son. Then he will be able to forgive the 'sin' against himself.
It isn't even bloody coherent, let alone logical....it is, in fact, barking mad.
Now the REASON that the story is all over the place is simple - the Hebrews cobbled together their creation myth from various extant sources - mostly from the Mesopotamian 'Enûma Eliš' story. The aim was mainly to have a dig at the polytheist myth.
If anyone is interested in the facts, rather than the fantasies, probably the best starting point is Schniedewind's 'How the Bible Became a Book' together with Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible
truespeed
Ankhanu wrote:
Not sure if......
I was thinking the same.
nickfyoung
truespeed wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Because of the fallen nature of man all hate God.
The God you describe,what's to like? A hateful God is all i see,hate breeds hate.
nickfyoung wrote:
That is why the conversion is a supernatural work.
Convenient.
nickfyoung wrote:
And I recently lost a younger brother to cancer. My only brother who I loved dearly. However, that does not alter the fact that he is now in hell because he refused to turn to God, and indeed, was unable to because he obviously was not one of the elect. I don't like that but have no option but to accept it.
You accept a God that puts the brother you love in an eternity of pain?
nickfyoung wrote:
The love I was talking about was the initial turning from the hate of God to the love of God, necessary for conversion.
Your God has nothing to love about him,fear yes,love no,how can you love an entity that would harm a loved one,not just harm them but torture them for all of time.
It's all about the life after. I guess it will be revealed then. One of us will be laughing the others won't.
truespeed
nickfyoung wrote:
It's all about the life after. I guess it will be revealed then. One of us will be laughing the others won't.
Or... none of us will be laughing.
Bikerman
The question that I ask myself is - could I be happy in 'paradise' knowing that friends family and billions of others were being tortured eternally? Frankly I think that anyone who can answer 'yes' to that is someone I wouldn't want to be banged-up with forever.....
loremar
Try this:
Some person took you as hostage/prisoner. He saved you from some certain death, so you owe him your life. He asked you as a sign of gratitude to serve him by pleasuring him through love-making. You refused to because you dislike such idea. Because you defied him, he's going to torture you. You have to choose.........
There's a God who you owe your life to. To show your gratitude he asked you to do things which he thinks is good including pleasuring him. But you refused . Now you are going to be forced to do something that you find disagreeable. Doesn't really matter whether he's million times smarter than you, being forced is still being forced or else.... Doesn't matter whether it's free will or not, someone's pointing a gun at you so you could suck his ****. It would have been fine if it was him warning us about consequences of our actions as our own doing and try to convince us using his vast knowledge in a civilized manner. Not the case however. This wise God instead threatens us with what he calls "Wrath" because we disobey him and insulted his almighty wisdom. Quite mature of him really. And on top of that he wants us to praise him no matter what or else.... How very mature.
Yeah, we would thank someone for creating life for us. But we didn't asked to live just to get enslaved.
nickfyoung
loremar wrote:
Try this:
Some person took you as hostage/prisoner. He saved you from some certain death, so you owe him your life. He asked you as a sign of gratitude to serve him by pleasuring him through love-making. You refused to because you dislike such idea. Because you defied him, he's going to torture you. You have to choose.........
There's a God who you owe your life to. To show your gratitude he asked you to do things which he thinks is good including pleasuring him. But you refused . Now you are going to be forced to do something that you find disagreeable. Doesn't really matter whether he's million times smarter than you, being forced is still being forced or else.... Doesn't matter whether it's free will or not, someone's pointing a gun at you so you could suck his ****. It would have been fine if it was him warning us about consequences of our actions as our own doing and try to convince us using his vast knowledge in a civilized manner. Not the case however. This wise God instead threatens us with what he calls "Wrath" because we disobey him and insulted his almighty wisdom. Quite mature of him really. And on top of that he wants us to praise him no matter what or else.... How very mature.
Yeah, we would thank someone for creating life for us. But we didn't asked to live just to get enslaved.
OK guys. I think we have exhausted all meaningful dialogue on this one. No doubt we will cross paths again on another thread.
loremar
nickfyoung wrote:
loremar wrote:
Try this:
Some person took you as hostage/prisoner. He saved you from some certain death, so you owe him your life. He asked you as a sign of gratitude to serve him by pleasuring him through love-making. You refused to because you dislike such idea. Because you defied him, he's going to torture you. You have to choose.........
There's a God who you owe your life to. To show your gratitude he asked you to do things which he thinks is good including pleasuring him. But you refused . Now you are going to be forced to do something that you find disagreeable. Doesn't really matter whether he's million times smarter than you, being forced is still being forced or else.... Doesn't matter whether it's free will or not, someone's pointing a gun at you so you could suck his ****. It would have been fine if it was him warning us about consequences of our actions as our own doing and try to convince us using his vast knowledge in a civilized manner. Not the case however. This wise God instead threatens us with what he calls "Wrath" because we disobey him and insulted his almighty wisdom. Quite mature of him really. And on top of that he wants us to praise him no matter what or else.... How very mature.
Yeah, we would thank someone for creating life for us. But we didn't asked to live just to get enslaved.
OK guys. I think we have exhausted all meaningful dialogue on this one. No doubt we will cross paths again on another thread.
But I'm not done yet...
This God is so self-centered that he's never going to be satisfied of everyone's genuine praise alone. He want a praise that's going to last even after God beating all these poor little people. Look at what he did to Job. Geez, can't be satisfied with a simple thanks. Why not let a person live happily and be happy about that? Why keep milking on people's love? Not happy as a God? Is being a God feel so empty that you have to do all of this? Isn't a God suppose to be looking for everyone's well being. Why the selfishness? Why not let everyone go to Heaven and let all be happy? Why the chosen ones? Those who love you till death are the only one who deserve it? WHAT THE *******!?!
I sound like I am angry or hate God but I'm just trying to contemplate what it's like to be converted into theist with all these questions.
nickfyoung
loremar wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
loremar wrote:
Try this:
Some person took you as hostage/prisoner. He saved you from some certain death, so you owe him your life. He asked you as a sign of gratitude to serve him by pleasuring him through love-making. You refused to because you dislike such idea. Because you defied him, he's going to torture you. You have to choose.........
There's a God who you owe your life to. To show your gratitude he asked you to do things which he thinks is good including pleasuring him. But you refused . Now you are going to be forced to do something that you find disagreeable. Doesn't really matter whether he's million times smarter than you, being forced is still being forced or else.... Doesn't matter whether it's free will or not, someone's pointing a gun at you so you could suck his ****. It would have been fine if it was him warning us about consequences of our actions as our own doing and try to convince us using his vast knowledge in a civilized manner. Not the case however. This wise God instead threatens us with what he calls "Wrath" because we disobey him and insulted his almighty wisdom. Quite mature of him really. And on top of that he wants us to praise him no matter what or else.... How very mature.
Yeah, we would thank someone for creating life for us. But we didn't asked to live just to get enslaved.
OK guys. I think we have exhausted all meaningful dialogue on this one. No doubt we will cross paths again on another thread.
But I'm not done yet...
This God is so self-centered that he's never going to be satisfied of everyone's genuine praise alone. He want a praise that's going to last even after God beating all these poor little people. Look at what he did to Job. Geez, can't be satisfied with a simple thanks. Why not let a person live happily and be happy about that? Why keep milking on people's love? Not happy as a God? Is being a God feel so empty that you have to do all of this? Isn't a God suppose to be looking for everyone's well being. Why the selfishness? Why not let everyone go to Heaven? Why the chosen ones? WHAT THE *******!?!
I sound like I am angry or hate God but I'm just trying to contemplate what it's like to be converted into theist with all these questions.
There is one aspect we haven't looked at yet. That is the other god known as the god of this world as called in scripture. The teaching is that Satan or the devil or Lucifer or whatever you want to call him is the god of this world right now. He is quite conversed in scripture and knows his time is limited and so his sole aim is to take as many as he can with him.
Scripture also tells us that he is actively blinding the eyes and minds of people so as to produce questions like yours. The reason of course is to keep you from discovering truth.
So you need to factor that into your anti-theist arguments.
Don't worry. I had the same questions before I was converted and was into anything and everything un-godly. If God puts his finger on your shoulder there is no hiding.
Bikerman
LOL...so, on the one hand we have evidence based science, logic, semantic, historic, linguistic and archaeological evidence that the bible is basically a fairy story...and on the other hand we have....
the bible which can be interpreted, largely by 'theologians' who lived centuries ago and knew bugger-all about the world, to say that it is not.....
Hmm...tricky choice...
Mental condition is the answer...or at least the only plausible one.
You see, this is actually trivially easy to decide - particularly with believers who rely on a level of literalism in scripture.
Basically I can prove, beyond any shred of doubt, that much of the bible is simply wrong.
Now, the only honest response to that is to say - OK, if it can be shown to be untruthful then clearly the assumption that it is inerrant, or even largely so, is wrong. It follows that the interpretations which lead to this theology are also based on sand and therefore cannot be seriously considered factual.
And that is that - end of debate. So why doesn't it happen?
Mental illness...must be....a complete inability to either think critically or accept the results of critical thinking and analysis....
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...so, on the one hand we have evidence based science, logic, semantic, historic, linguistic and archaeological evidence that the bible is basically a fairy story...and on the other hand we have....
the bible which can be interpreted, largely by 'theologians' who lived centuries ago and knew bugger-all about the world, to say that it is not.....
Hmm...tricky choice...
Tricky choice is right. Like yourself, most believe the Bible is out dated rubbish and the idea of a God is a bit far out.
It is interesting though to watch the news and go to funerals to see that most people, at the time of death believe that their loved one has gone to heaven. Wonder why that is.
It was the same for all of us. We were just like you.
The only difference is the experience of meeting God face to face. That sort of changes one's outlook on things.
Bikerman
So now you claim to have met God eh? This gets better and better.
This mental condition has spread to large parts of the US, by the way.
I was reading the current Republican Party platform document earlier (a pal told me it would send me into orbit).
How about this for evidence of large-scale mental illness:
Quote:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
These people are clearly too stupid and too ignorant to be left in power. Has anyone in the US considered nuking Texas yet? Seems like it might be time......
If anyone wishes to explore the outer depths of delusional thinking in a modern technocratic country then try reading the whole document - link below....it is barely believable...even for Texas....
There is one aspect we haven't looked at yet. That is the other god known as the god of this world as called in scripture. The teaching is that Satan or the devil or Lucifer or whatever you want to call him is the god of this world right now. He is quite conversed in scripture and knows his time is limited and so his sole aim is to take as many as he can with him.
Scripture also tells us that he is actively blinding the eyes and minds of people so as to produce questions like yours. The reason of course is to keep you from discovering truth.
So you need to factor that into your anti-theist arguments.
Don't worry. I had the same questions before I was converted and was into anything and everything un-godly. If God puts his finger on your shoulder there is no hiding.
Ah, Satan the accomplice! An antagonist image would be perfect for making God look like the good guy.
Quote:
The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. (Job 2:6-7)
What is a protagonist without a villain right?
None of that matters anyways. A God causing harm on me for not loving him is despicable. Even if I get swayed on the other side to avoid damnation, the thought that some people got stuck in hell for petty reasons is horrible. I'd feel sorry even in heaven and it would be a matter of time, I'd hate God for it.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
So now you claim to have met God eh? This gets better and better
Bikerman, you are a comedian. I am almost tempted to share some of those experiences but I know you will just ridicule them and explain them away as some psychotic episodes in ones life.
I am reminded of that guy who ended up in hades and wanted to slip home briefly to warn his family but was told that it wouldn't make any difference, they still wouldn't believe.
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
nickfyoung
loremar wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
There is one aspect we haven't looked at yet. That is the other god known as the god of this world as called in scripture. The teaching is that Satan or the devil or Lucifer or whatever you want to call him is the god of this world right now. He is quite conversed in scripture and knows his time is limited and so his sole aim is to take as many as he can with him.
Scripture also tells us that he is actively blinding the eyes and minds of people so as to produce questions like yours. The reason of course is to keep you from discovering truth.
So you need to factor that into your anti-theist arguments.
Don't worry. I had the same questions before I was converted and was into anything and everything un-godly. If God puts his finger on your shoulder there is no hiding.
Ah, Satan the accomplice! An antagonist image would be perfect for making God look like the good guy.
Quote:
The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. (Job 2:6-7)
What is a protagonist without a villain right?
None of that matters anyways. A God causing harm on me for not loving him is despicable. Even if I get swayed on the other side to avoid damnation, the thought that some people got stuck in hell for petty reasons is horrible. I'd feel sorry even in heaven and it would be a matter of time, I'd hate God for it.
Must be something like the convicts felt when they were shipped to Australia fore ever for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their hungry kids.
Bikerman
Quote:
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
No - that is PRECISELY wrong and a very important difference between us.
I CANNOT believe what I want. I can only believe what the evidence tells me - and I use the word 'evidence' correctly, not to mean some personal revelation or insight.
If you COULD produce evidence that God exists I would HAVE TO accept it whether I liked it or not. This is what we call intellectual honesty and it is as close to a religion as I come at the moment.....
loremar
nickfyoung wrote:
Must be something like the convicts felt when they were shipped to Australia fore ever for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their hungry kids.
And you expect the same for God?
If I have to choose shipping these convicts and forgiving them... I choose forgiving them. If it was indeed for the kids... and if indeed if it was only a loaf of bread.
God doing the same for what? not giving him love? Awww..... And it's not like where going to Australia. This is hell we're talking about dude!
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
No - that is PRECISELY wrong and a very important difference between us.
I CANNOT believe what I want. I can only believe what the evidence tells me - and I use the word 'evidence' correctly, not to mean some personal revelation or insight.
If you COULD produce evidence that God exists I would HAVE TO accept it whether I liked it or not. This is what we call intellectual honesty and it is as close to a religion as I come at the moment.....
On the other hand, can you disprove the existence of God.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
No - that is PRECISELY wrong and a very important difference between us.
I CANNOT believe what I want. I can only believe what the evidence tells me - and I use the word 'evidence' correctly, not to mean some personal revelation or insight.
If you COULD produce evidence that God exists I would HAVE TO accept it whether I liked it or not. This is what we call intellectual honesty and it is as close to a religion as I come at the moment.....
On the other hand, can you disprove the existence of God.
Bikerman
Pointless argument - you can't 'disprove' the existence of any deity. You can't 'disprove' the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. IPU cannot be disproved and the fact that she is both pink and invisible provides conclusive evidence of her divinity (bless her holy hooves).
We do not think it necessary to 'prove' that Thor, Jupiter, Ra, Hermes, Apollo and about 10 thousand other Gods do not exist, so why should it be necessary to prove that your version doesn't exist?
In the words of a wise man - we are both atheists. I just believe in one less God than you.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
I firmly believe that none of us actually have the ability to choose to believe in any god or to not believe in any god. I cannot help the fact that I am an atheist - I just am. If you don't believe me then try this little thought experiment: try to force yourself to believe in Thor. Pray to Thor, worship Thor, read old Norse mythology, and preach to people about Thor. You can even say that you believe in Thor. However, deep down, will you actually believe in Thor?
The same goes for me with your god and probably most other atheists. I am sure that if Chris wanted to, he could read the Bible for an hour a day, pray for an hour a day, visit Christian forums, attend mass every week, and live the actual life of a Catholic. Will he then believe in your god? No.
Bikerman
Hmm but it isn't reciprocal. A believer can always stop believing - in fact most atheists were once theists - but a non-believer can't just 'believe' unless something shakes them up.
Afaceinthematrix
But was it my choice to become an atheist? I used to be a theist however I became exposed to more and more rational arguments against the existence of god and learned about naturalistic explanations for things that god used to take care of. I didn't just "choose" to become an atheist - it just happened. Essentially, I didn't actually ever choose to believe in that god - I just did. It wasn't my choice. Now I don't have the choice to go back.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Pointless argument - you can't 'disprove' the existence of any deity. You can't 'disprove' the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. IPU cannot be disproved and the fact that she is both pink and invisible provides conclusive evidence of her divinity (bless her holy hooves).
We do not think it necessary to 'prove' that Thor, Jupiter, Ra, Hermes, Apollo and about 10 thousand other Gods do not exist, so why should it be necessary to prove that your version doesn't exist?
In the words of a wise man - we are both atheists. I just believe in one less God than you.
This argument has been around since the beginning of time and is no closer to be resolved. The article in the link above is quite comprehensive and gives various proofs for the existence of God as well as various proofs for the non-existence of God.
There is not much point in rehashing stuff that has been done to death. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. We both have our reasons. You claim I must be delusional to have such reasons. If you look at the charts in the above article you will find that there are far more that support a belief in God than don't.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm but it isn't reciprocal. A believer can always stop believing - in fact most atheists were once theists - but a non-believer can't just 'believe' unless something shakes them up.
That is the P in the TULIP of Calvinism. Preservation of the saints. Once saved always saved. They teach that once God has gone to all that trouble to select you, send his son to die for you, send the Holy Spirit to regenerate you, he isn't going to let you go or, as you said, stop believing. The reckon that if you do stop believing and walk away from 'the faith' then you weren't saved in the first place.
Bikerman
LOL...surely you can see that this is just nonsense - yet another variation on the 'No True Scotsman fallacy?
I am really quite astonished that anyone still believes this stuff - it is total hogwash. I can (just about) understand the airy-fairy modern European christians - they don't really believe much, and don't spend time thinking about it, but would say they believe in Jesus in some ill-defined way. That is not exactly intellectually honest but at least it is understandable.
People still believing middle-ages versions of Christianity, however, strikes me as not just silly but downright mad. That would be like a scientist going back to Copernicus to work out orbits; or an historian ditching everything written after 1600CE and then trying to explain the history of the last century using only 15th century sources.
People around when these versions of theology were dreamed-up were, by todays standards, quite mad. If you read contemporary literature from around the time of Luther you see that people routinely SAW demons and report it quite casually in the accounts. Most had no real notion of what the earth was like, let alone the wider universe. For pities sake they still largely believed in the heirarchy of good-evil with every creature occupying a fixed point in the chain, from devils, through men, seraphim, cherabum, thrones, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, angels - by gosh I can still remember my catechism after 40 years....I've missed one though....ah yes - dominations should be above virtues...
My point is that this garbage was the belief of the day and the theology of that time reflected their naive and often plain stupid cosmology. To hold on to the theology of that time is just crazy.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...surely you can see that this is just nonsense - yet another variation on the 'No True Scotsman fallacy?
I am really quite astonished that anyone still believes this stuff - it is total hogwash. I can (just about) understand the airy-fairy modern European christians - they don't really believe much, and don't spend time thinking about it, but would say they believe in Jesus in some ill-defined way. That is not exactly intellectually honest but at least it is understandable.
People still believing middle-ages versions of Christianity, however, strikes me as not just silly but downright mad. That would be like a scientist going back to Copernicus to work out orbits; or an historian ditching everything written after 1600CE and then trying to explain the history of the last century using only 15th century sources.
People around when these versions of theology were dreamed-up were, by todays standards, quite mad. If you read contemporary literature from around the time of Luther you see that people routinely SAW demons and report it quite casually in the accounts. Most had no real notion of what the earth was like, let alone the wider universe. For pities sake they still largely believed in the heirarchy of good-evil with every creature occupying a fixed point in the chain, from devils, through men, seraphim, cherabum, thrones, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, angels - by gosh I can still remember my catechism after 40 years....I've missed one though....ah yes - dominations should be above virtues...
My point is that this garbage was the belief of the day and the theology of that time reflected their naive and often plain stupid cosmology. To hold on to the theology of that time is just crazy.
And yet it is the cornerstone of all reformed churches, Presbyterian, Dutch reformed etc.
A few years ago in Australia they formed a church called the Uniting Church out of three churches, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational. However, a good many Presbyterian churches refused to be a part claiming that they would have to water down their doctrines too much. They are applauding the move now claiming it got rid of all the liberals and modernists so they could re-affirm their reformed doctrines, ie as above. It is still alive and well.
Bikerman
Well, the flat earth society is also still alive but it doesn't make it any less idiotic.
Religion is dying slowly in ALL 1st world countries - even the US where it is taking a bit longer.
I'd say that the UK is probably now majority, or very close to majority non believers - even though the census reports about 70% Christian - a lot just put a tick in the box from habit.
I'm not saying religion will die-out anytime soon - humanity is not that lucky - but the influence will hopefully continue to wane until the major religions are concentrated almost entirely in India, China, Africa etc where they will, no doubt, hold those poor bastards back just like they did in Europe for 2 millennia.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Well, the flat earth society is also still alive but it doesn't make it any less idiotic.
Religion is dying slowly in ALL 1st world countries - even the US where it is taking a bit longer.
I'd say that the UK is probably now majority, or very close to majority non believers - even though the census reports about 70% Christian - a lot just put a tick in the box from habit.
I'm not saying religion will die-out anytime soon - humanity is not that lucky - but the influence will hopefully continue to wane until the major religions are concentrated almost entirely in India, China, Africa etc where they will, no doubt, hold those poor bastards back just like they did in Europe for 2 millennia.
Pretty dead here in Australia. Maybe 20% now. Main religion here is sport with some of the football teams worshipped. Australian Rules football takes over Melbourne every grand final time and most people take part in it all. 100,000 at the game live and millions watching round the world on TV.
Ghost Rider103
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
So now you claim to have met God eh? This gets better and better
Bikerman, you are a comedian. I am almost tempted to share some of those experiences but I know you will just ridicule them and explain them away as some psychotic episodes in ones life.
I am reminded of that guy who ended up in hades and wanted to slip home briefly to warn his family but was told that it wouldn't make any difference, they still wouldn't believe.
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
Don't mean to barge in on everyone's debate, but I would love for you to carry on about these experiences.
Maybe you could help bikerman change his atheist ways.... Really, your stories could be used as great motivation/inspiration!
nickfyoung
Ghost Rider103 wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
So now you claim to have met God eh? This gets better and better
Bikerman, you are a comedian. I am almost tempted to share some of those experiences but I know you will just ridicule them and explain them away as some psychotic episodes in ones life.
I am reminded of that guy who ended up in hades and wanted to slip home briefly to warn his family but was told that it wouldn't make any difference, they still wouldn't believe.
So it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else, you will believe what you want.
Don't mean to barge in on everyone's debate, but I would love for you to carry on about these experiences.
Maybe you could help bikerman change his atheist ways.... Really, your stories could be used as great motivation/inspiration!
It is interesting that Christians make up around one third of the world's population or around two billion people.
On the other hand it is estimated that Atheists are made up of around 2% of the population.
Clearly Atheism is in the minority so it is either a case of a few wise men or a small bunch of misguided people. I was going to say deluded but Bikerman has reserved that for Christians. I know, just because they are in a minority it does not make them wrong just as being in a majority does not make one right. This is an interesting article and offers some proofs for the existence of God.
"In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as "the world's most acclaimed atheist", had renounced his atheism in favour of theism... "
This is an interesting article and offers some proofs for the existence of God.
"In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as "the world's most acclaimed atheist", had renounced his atheism in favour of theism... "
One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was "the evidence." He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution's inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence
Point number one is based on a complete misconception... It's like saying that an object's momentum doesn't tell us what got it moving... Therefore momentum is wrong. Ridiculous starting point from which to make an assessment. It should be noted that Dr. Flew was a philosopher, NOT a biologist, and, clearly, did not understand the theory he renounced.
Shaky start to your "proofs."
Andrewcorbett.net wrote:
... atheism (the absolute claim that there is no God after considering all possible knowledge) is a highly irrational position.
Agreed. Of course, this definition is not the stance of most atheists.
Now, let's look at the "Proofs":
1) Cause - Essentially, using a false starting point again, they are using ignorance as evidence for something... Another pretty shaky start.
2) Design - This proof boils down to "the universe is confusing, therefore God"
3) Morality - Anyone who says we're born with an innate sense of morality has never critically watched babies/children interacting with the world around them, one another or adults... Much of our morality is taught.
This also ignores the vast majority of animal species for which morality doesn't seem to exist at all.
4) Resurrection of Jesus - Seriously? "But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (...) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God."
That's a pretty damn big if. It's also a false statement; if the resurrection of Jesus is true, it is only "proof" that Jesus resurrected, it says nothing of the how/why of the resurrection.
5) The Jesus Christ Experience - Gonna have to say the Jimi Hendrix Experience probably had more hits We've gone through personal revelation as reasonable evidence already, I don't need to touch this one again.
Throughout these "proofs", Dr Corbett's background as someone who has little scientific understanding, and apparently not much in the way of critical thinking skills, is pretty clear. A BA in the Bible and PhD in Ministries doesn't seem to gear one up for such topics (nor apparently proof-reading, but that feels pretty ad hominem). They're largely arguments from ignorance and some large logical leaps in reasoning... There's NOTHING compelling in that article, whatsoever.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
This is an interesting article and offers some proofs for the existence of God.
"In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as "the world's most acclaimed atheist", had renounced his atheism in favour of theism... "
One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was "the evidence." He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution's inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence
Point number one is based on a complete misconception... It's like saying that an object's momentum doesn't tell us what got it moving... Therefore momentum is wrong. Ridiculous starting point from which to make an assessment. It should be noted that Dr. Flew was a philosopher, NOT a biologist, and, clearly, did not understand the theory he renounced.
Shaky start to your "proofs."
Andrewcorbett.net wrote:
... atheism (the absolute claim that there is no God after considering all possible knowledge) is a highly irrational position.
Agreed. Of course, this definition is not the stance of most atheists.
Now, let's look at the "Proofs":
1) Cause - Essentially, using a false starting point again, they are using ignorance as evidence for something... Another pretty shaky start.
2) Design - This proof boils down to "the universe is confusing, therefore God"
3) Morality - Anyone who says we're born with an innate sense of morality has never critically watched babies/children interacting with the world around them, one another or adults... Much of our morality is taught.
This also ignores the vast majority of animal species for which morality doesn't seem to exist at all.
4) Resurrection of Jesus - Seriously? "But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (...) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God."
That's a pretty damn big if. It's also a false statement; if the resurrection of Jesus is true, it is only "proof" that Jesus resurrected, it says nothing of the how/why of the resurrection.
5) The Jesus Christ Experience - Gonna have to say the Jimi Hendrix Experience probably had more hits We've gone through personal revelation as reasonable evidence already, I don't need to touch this one again.
Throughout these "proofs", Dr Corbett's background as someone who has little scientific understanding, and apparently not much in the way of critical thinking skills, is pretty clear. A BA in the Bible and PhD in Ministries doesn't seem to gear one up for such topics (nor apparently proof-reading, but that feels pretty ad hominem). They're largely arguments from ignorance and some large logical leaps in reasoning... There's NOTHING compelling in that article, whatsoever.
Probably a bit like some one who is gay converting to Christianity and becoming 'un-gay'. Was talking about some one recently who got divorced and went into a lesbian relationship. A few years down the track she met a guy and got married again and became un-lesbian. There was no Christianity involved there but people are creatures who are continuously changing and evolving.
Did I use that term 'evolution'. No problem with evolution within species but when evolution jumps species, well.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
Probably a bit like some one who is gay converting to Christianity and becoming 'un-gay'. Was talking about some one recently who got divorced and went into a lesbian relationship. A few years down the track she met a guy and got married again and became un-lesbian. There was no Christianity involved there but people are creatures who are continuously changing and evolving.
Maybe I'm thick, but this seems like a complete non-sequitur... Aside from completely ignoring the reality of bisexuality, or the ability of people to convince themselves they're oriented as they're not, it doesn't appear to have any connection to the prior material, whatsoever. What is the point of this content in the context of the discussion?
nickfyoung wrote:
Did I use that term 'evolution'. No problem with evolution within species but when evolution jumps species, well.
I would contend that you do not understand evolution. There is no such thing as evolution jumping species. I assume you're talking about speciation, but it appears as though you think it's a discrete event, which it certainly is not (except in some specific instances of hybridization, generally within polyploid systems).
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Probably a bit like some one who is gay converting to Christianity and becoming 'un-gay'. Was talking about some one recently who got divorced and went into a lesbian relationship. A few years down the track she met a guy and got married again and became un-lesbian. There was no Christianity involved there but people are creatures who are continuously changing and evolving.
Maybe I'm thick, but this seems like a complete non-sequitur... Aside from completely ignoring the reality of bisexuality, or the ability of people to convince themselves they're oriented as they're not, it doesn't appear to have any connection to the prior material, whatsoever. What is the point of this content in the context of the discussion?
nickfyoung wrote:
Did I use that term 'evolution'. No problem with evolution within species but when evolution jumps species, well.
I would contend that you do not understand evolution. There is no such thing as evolution jumping species. I assume you're talking about speciation, but it appears as though you think it's a discrete event, which it certainly is not (except in some specific instances of hybridization, generally within polyploid systems).
All very true. You know evolution is true. I know it is not true. I know there is a God. You know there is no God. I believe evidence that God exists. You believe that there is no evidence that God exists.
I believe that God is the ultimate. You believe that science is the ultimate. I believe in creation and you believe in science and big bang and evolution or whatever. I believe what the Bible says and you believe it is just fairy stories.
You can see that there is a massive gulf between our understandings. You think I must be a nutter to believe all that stuff and can't understand how some one could believe all that stuff with out being irrational or delusional.
This is where we part because it is easy for me to understand why you believe all the stuff you do. You will of course say it is because of the evidence.
Is it not frustrating for you to come across some one so delusional that believes such utter, so easily refuted nonsense.
Ankhanu
The misconceptions are FAR more frustrating than the belief; I'm quite comfortable letting you believe whatever you want (though I somewhat agree with AFaceInTheMatrix, perhaps not in this thread, but in another, that we don't choose our beliefs), but I'm not so comfortable allowing ignorant misconceptions about facts to persist. If you're going to discount something, at least have the basics of what you're rejecting within your knowledge... It's perfectly acceptable to recognize that you don't understand something, and simply not accept it (nor deny it) based on ignorance... To be agnostic about something, if you will.
As for "knowing" evolution is "true", well, no. I recognize that it is fact, and I'm confident that much of the mechanism(s) at play in manifesting this fact are known... But I also know that there is still more we don't know, and the theory will be modified in the future... Though I highly doubt it will be fundamentally changed.
I do not know there is no god, but I cannot accept that a god, or gods, exist, based on a lack of positive, conclusive evidence. I find he existence of god(s) unlikely, however... But this is not an assertion of definite absence. 99% certainty is not equal to 100% certainty. I am open to evidence to change my perspective, but that evidence has to stand up to reason and critical evaluation, and not require large leaps of logic o reach the conclusion. I've yet to encounter any such evidence.
I do not believe that science is "the ultimate", but I do understand it; as such I recognize it as the extremely powerful tool that it is for understanding reality.
All in all, I really don't think it is easy for you to understand my perspective. You get that evidence is important, but don't seem to get why. Nor do you seem to get the flexibility of a stance like mine...
I also understand the appeal of belief, especially where post-death is concerned, and I recognize the value of a means of developing and maintaining social solidarity within groups, which religious belief can offer. I don't necessarily think you're nuts, but I will accept irrational... even romantic. Faith has its perks, but they're not exclusive to the position, and it imposes some intense limitations to boot. I think the trade offs for the few benefits of faith-based belief are greatly outweighed by its impositions and hindrances.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu wrote:
The misconceptions are FAR more frustrating than the belief; I'm quite comfortable letting you believe whatever you want (though I somewhat agree with AFaceInTheMatrix, perhaps not in this thread, but in another, that we don't choose our beliefs), but I'm not so comfortable allowing ignorant misconceptions about facts to persist. If you're going to discount something, at least have the basics of what you're rejecting within your knowledge... It's perfectly acceptable to recognize that you don't understand something, and simply not accept it (nor deny it) based on ignorance... To be agnostic about something, if you will.
As for "knowing" evolution is "true", well, no. I recognize that it is fact, and I'm confident that much of the mechanism(s) at play in manifesting this fact are known... But I also know that there is still more we don't know, and the theory will be modified in the future... Though I highly doubt it will be fundamentally changed.
I do not know there is no god, but I cannot accept that a god, or gods, exist, based on a lack of positive, conclusive evidence. I find he existence of god(s) unlikely, however... But this is not an assertion of definite absence. 99% certainty is not equal to 100% certainty. I am open to evidence to change my perspective, but that evidence has to stand up to reason and critical evaluation, and not require large leaps of logic o reach the conclusion. I've yet to encounter any such evidence.
I do not believe that science is "the ultimate", but I do understand it; as such I recognize it as the extremely powerful tool that it is for understanding reality.
All in all, I really don't think it is easy for you to understand my perspective. You get that evidence is important, but don't seem to get why. Nor do you seem to get the flexibility of a stance like mine...
I also understand the appeal of belief, especially where post-death is concerned, and I recognize the value of a means of developing and maintaining social solidarity within groups, which religious belief can offer. I don't necessarily think you're nuts, but I will accept irrational... even romantic. Faith has its perks, but they're not exclusive to the position, and it imposes some intense limitations to boot. I think the trade offs for the few benefits of faith-based belief are greatly outweighed by its impositions and hindrances.
What do you see as the impositions and hindrances of Christianity.
Afaceinthematrix
As a training mathematician (I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics and another few years will turn that into a phd) I must say that I am getting annoyed with the use of the word "proof." Andrew Corbett certainly didn't prove anything; he only gave a few arguments (albeit silly ones that just convinced me of his unintelligence) for the existence of god. Nick has used the word "proof" a few times when referring to "the proof that god exists" and then right after the "proof that god doesn't exist." Let me tell you this: if you prove something then it is not up for debate. No one will argue that the square root of two is rational because it can quite easily (at a high school level) be proven that it is irrational.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
What do you see as the impositions and hindrances of Christianity.
Why bother asking the question? It certainly isn't worth spending time constructing a serious answer.
Your answer is predictable - you will probably use the 'no true scotsman fallacy' and claim that the people in question are not 'real' christians....
truespeed
Nicky,if you have a child are they automatically "in" as a child of a chosen one?
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
What do you see as the impositions and hindrances of Christianity.
Why bother asking the question? It certainly isn't worth spending time constructing a serious answer.
Your answer is predictable - you will probably use the 'no true scotsman fallacy' and claim that the people in question are not 'real' christians....
While I somewhat agree with Bikerman's assessment, I think it has some merit to the broader discussion, if not to the inquirer... as such, I'll make a hasty reply
First off, I'll clarify that my comment regarding impositions and hindrances was in context of faith-based stances in general, not Christianity specifically, but, sure, I'll tackle Christianity's flavour. The primary imposition/hindrance is that of obedience, the imperative to accept and not critically examine certain claims, which leads to a second hindrance, that of cognitive dissonance generated by contradictions both within the source material and between the source material and what we can observe of the wider world. The idea that we must simply accept and love, rather than evaluate is ridiculous, and the idea that one might be punished for simple disbelief, even if everything else they do is "pure and good" is beyond morally reprehensible.
There is also the imposition/hindrance of bigotry. Most religion/faith stances actively promote social/ethical division between in- and out- groups, though they use differing means of assigning such groupings. This bigotry encourages, maintains and creates social divisions and inequalities.
There are more, but, alas, I'm tired; I've been working with a crew tending to a wildfire the past week, 14+hr days and all that... This should suffice to keep things rolling... or may simply be abandoned.
While these are not all eliminated by taking faith out of the equation, there are many other ways in which to hobble ourselves, but they are encouraged by the position. Rational stances will often better avoid these sorts of pitfalls, though they do not guarantee safety.
Bikerman
Well, if you want a bit more:
a) Christianity COMMANDS one to love the deity - the idea of compulsion and love seem to me to be either mutually exclusive or, worse, perverted.
b) The concept of original sin is morally repugnant
c) The obsession with the private behaviour of consenting adults has led to a profoundly unhealthy attitude to sex
d) It claims certainty where, at best, it has no such certainty.
e) It claims that faith is a good thing when in fact it is the reverse
f) By providing answers to all questions it discourages the finding of the actual answers
g) It is, inherently and unavoidably, divisive.
h) It relies on threat and bribery to encourage what it thinks is moral behaviour
i) It relies upon nonsense and encourages people to think nonsensically....
j) The fundamental message is morally repugnant - leave everything and follow me, says Jesus. Abandon family and other responsibilities....
k) It infantalises believers
I can probably think of some more with a bit of effort...
nickfyoung
[quote="truespeed"]Nicky,if you have a child are they automatically "in" as a child of a chosen one?[/quote
It is generally believed that an infant is automatically in but once a child reaches an age of understanding he is dealt the same way as an adult.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if you want a bit more:
a) Christianity COMMANDS one to love the deity - the idea of compulsion and love seem to me to be either mutually exclusive or, worse, perverted.
b) The concept of original sin is morally repugnant
c) The obsession with the private behaviour of consenting adults has led to a profoundly unhealthy attitude to sex
d) It claims certainty where, at best, it has no such certainty.
e) It claims that faith is a good thing when in fact it is the reverse
f) By providing answers to all questions it discourages the finding of the actual answers
g) It is, inherently and unavoidably, divisive.
h) It relies on threat and bribery to encourage what it thinks is moral behaviour
i) It relies upon nonsense and encourages people to think nonsensically....
j) The fundamental message is morally repugnant - leave everything and follow me, says Jesus. Abandon family and other responsibilities....
k) It infantalises believers
I can probably think of some more with a bit of effort...
Some of you guys have a weird understanding of Christianity. Some the above may fit Catholicism but I keep telling you that Catholicism is not Christianity.
I know you keep saying that Catholicism is Christianity but that is plain wrong and you can't justify it with any logical argument.
Catholicism claims to be Christianity, the first Christianity and the only Christianity. Catholicism evolved from the Church of Rome and became known as the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal.
The first Church of Rome was a Christian church but as it went through the dark ages it evolved into Catholicism which is far removed from it's origins.
This is why we had the reformation. Popes started selling 'tickets' to heaven and engaging is strange sexual behaviour. Doctrines like transubstantiation and the worship of Mary were added which can't be justified from Scripture.
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
I know you keep saying that Catholicism is Christianity but that is plain wrong and you can't justify it with any logical argument.
Of course I can.
a) Catholicism was the first unified version of Christianity.
b) Catholicism developed the theology of Christianity.
c) Later sects are other alternative versions and cannot be called the ONLY Christianity.
d) Christianity includes Apostolic tradition as well as scriptural source - Catholicism is the home of Apostolic tradition.
e) The Pope is the spiritual descendant of Jesus's chosen 'representative' on Earth.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
What do you see as the impositions and hindrances of Christianity.
Why bother asking the question? It certainly isn't worth spending time constructing a serious answer.
Your answer is predictable - you will probably use the 'no true scotsman fallacy' and claim that the people in question are not 'real' christians....
My interest in Theology is on a hobby basis because I find it interesting and is not associated with any formal training or degrees although I do have a Cert. of Ministry from the AOG which is a very light touching of the basics.
If I debate on a science level it has to be from research as I have not had any experience in this area.
Apparently the universe is huge compared to our solar system but it had to that big to get the nuclear fusion to occur within 3 minutes of the big bang. We had to have this brief period of nucleosynthesis so that the universe would be more than just hydrogen.
The universe is exactly the right size for life to exist. If mass the size of one grain of sand were added to the early universe life would not have been possible.
Am I going OK so far. You can see where I am going of course, to show a high probability of ID.
Bikerman
No you are not going too far - you are just talking bollox. You haven't a clue what the words mean - which is why you string them together wrongly.
Nuclear fusion? LOL.
3 mins? LMAO
Grain of sand ? ROFLMAO
Really dude....I KNOW the physics involved pretty well so don't try this bollox because it won't wash.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I know you keep saying that Catholicism is Christianity but that is plain wrong and you can't justify it with any logical argument.
Of course I can.
a) Catholicism was the first unified version of Christianity.
b) Catholicism developed the theology of Christianity.
c) Later sects are other alternative versions and cannot be called the ONLY Christianity.
d) Christianity includes Apostolic tradition as well as scriptural source - Catholicism is the home of Apostolic tradition.
e) The Pope is the spiritual descendant of Jesus's chosen 'representative' on Earth.
Sorry. Wrong on every point. Miles off the mark. All Catholic propaganda. Like I said, no logical argument.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
No you are not going too far - you are just talking bollox. You haven't a clue what the words mean - which is why you string them together wrongly.
Nuclear fusion? LOL.
3 mins? LMAO
Grain of sand ? ROFLMAO
Really dude....I KNOW the physics involved pretty well so don't try this bollox because it won't wash.
There is a strong nuclear force holding atoms together and when two hydrogen atoms fuse 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If that value was only 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and we would have a universe that was only hydrogen. If we make that 0.8% then fusion would occur so readily that no hydrogen would have survived the big bang.
There are other constants with more stringent degrees of fine tuning. The cosmic microwave background only varies by one part in 100,000. If this were slightly smaller the universe would be just gas with no stars or galaxies. Slightly larger and the universe would be just large black holes.
The ratio of protons to electrons cannot vary by more than one part in 1037 otherwise electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions.
Lets look at electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant. If it's ratio is greater than one part in 1040 then electromagnetism would dominate gravity ie. no stars or galaxies.
The universe would already have collapsed if it's expansion rate was less than one part in 1055.
The cosmological constant or dark energy is the most recently discovered physical law. It is the closest to zero of all physical constants. A change of one part in 10120 would negate the effect.
We have a pretty fine tuned universe.
Bikerman
Once again you copy and paste without giving sources.
That is mostly from http://www.antiochumc.info/768693
Simply changing a few words in text you have ripped from another site is both dishonest and unwise - you clearly don't have much of a clue, so you won't know whether what you are copying is sensible or not. In this case it is bollox.
The strong nuclear force does NOT hold atoms together - it binds nucleons together.
The energy given by fusion is NOT a fundamental constant - it is derived from other quantities.
The CMBR was produced by the BB so it couldn't vary by more than it does.
In short, please don't copy-paste bollox that you don't understand.
The idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life is mad. 99.9999999999....% of the universe is completely inimical to all forms of life.
A much better hypothesis is that it is 'fine tuned' for the poduction of stars.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
As a training mathematician (I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics and another few years will turn that into a phd) I must say that I am getting annoyed with the use of the word "proof." Andrew Corbett certainly didn't prove anything; he only gave a few arguments (albeit silly ones that just convinced me of his unintelligence) for the existence of god. Nick has used the word "proof" a few times when referring to "the proof that god exists" and then right after the "proof that god doesn't exist." Let me tell you this: if you prove something then it is not up for debate. No one will argue that the square root of two is rational because it can quite easily (at a high school level) be proven that it is irrational.
Have some maths for you.
The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years.
It contains 1080 baryons.
The smallest unit of time is planck time [10/45 sec.]
The lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is,
1/10^80 x 1/10^18 x 1/10^45 = 1/10^143 [the end numbers there are indices can't type them]
Maybe you could get one or two constants requiring unusual fine tuning by chance but it would be virtual impossible that all of them to require such fine tuning.
While some physical laws may be compatible with current universe, the initial universe had even more stringent laws. Minor deviations would have caused major disruption.
Bikerman
More bollox.
I tried to give you an unofficial heads-up about quoting sources. If you continue I will make it official.
Because you don't understand what you are copying, you copy it wrong and it is bollox.
1080 baryons eh? I think you mean 10^80 and even then it is wrong.
Plank time is not 10/45, it is about 5x10^44
Really - enough of this foolishness now.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Once again you copy and paste without giving sources.
That is mostly from http://www.antiochumc.info/768693
Simply changing a few words in text you have ripped from another site is both dishonest and unwise - you clearly don't have much of a clue, so you won't know whether what you are copying is sensible or not. In this case it is bollox.
The strong nuclear force does NOT hold atoms together - it binds nucleons together.
The energy given by fusion is NOT a fundamental constant - it is derived from other quantities.
The CMBR was produced by the BB so it couldn't vary by more than it does.
In short, please don't copy-paste bollox that you don't understand.
The idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life is mad. 99.9999999999....% of the universe is completely inimical to all forms of life.
A much better hypothesis is that it is 'fine tuned' for the poduction of stars.
Sorry mate. You are wrong, wrong,wrong.
Try again.
Bikerman
No, that is the source. The fact that it has then been copied to countless creationist sites, from which you probably copied it, makes no difference. I'm not playing guessing games - any more and I'll simply put the mod hat on and make it official.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
More bollox.
I tried to give you an unofficial heads-up about quoting sources. If you continue I will make it official.
Because you don't understand what you are copying, you copy it wrong and it is bollox.
1080 baryons eh? I think you mean 10^80 and even then it is wrong.
Plank time is not 10/45, it is about 5x10^44
Really - enough of this foolishness now.
You are right there, sorry.
10^80 baryons
10^-45sec.
I don't copy paste into here at all as you keep asserting. I copy paste facts I may want to use into a notepad file. That is where the error in copying came from. I will try and be more careful.
Regardless of your viewpoint science is swinging towards ID whether you like it or not.
And you are right. I don't understand half of the scientific terms but I don't need to to show you what science is teaching now.
Bikerman
Just in case anyone is not aware of the central fallacy here - and I would be disappointed if many of you were not - then it is a bad case of retrospective statistics.
To illustrate here's an equally bad conclusion from everyday data:
A professional golfer hits the golf ball (say) somewhere between 220 and 280 metres most drives, and would hope to land it 10 metres left or right of his mark.
That means it lands somewhere in a box 60 metres by 20 metres.
One day the pro hits the ball, and the wannabe statistician says - "bloody hell, that Proves that God exists and he likes you."
"Eh?" Says the golfer..
"Well, it's like this. There are over 200 million blades of grass in your landing zone, but you have landed the ball exactly on THIS blade of grass. The chances of that are 1 in 200 million. That is WAY too low a probability to be simply chance, so it must be God."
"You're a f** idiot", says the golfer - who did basic maths at school.
QED (NOT!).
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
No, that is the source. The fact that it has then been copied to countless creationist sites, from which you probably copied it, makes no difference. I'm not playing guessing games - any more and I'll simply put the mod hat on and make it official.
Sorry, never been to that site before. If you must have the site where I am getting my info from I will give it to you.
As you can see I am trying to find that evidence from your scientific point of view that you insist on.
I don't have too, there is plenty more to do and it is hard work when one isn't scientifically minded.
Bikerman
If you want to quote science then get it from a credible source - then it might be correct. At least try to make sure it is a SCIENTIST giving the facts, not an evangelical nutcase.
Copying 'facts' from sites run by religious idiots is not going to produce anything worth discussing.
The following video came to mind when considering what I'm reading here
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
If you want to quote science then get it from a credible source - then it might be correct. At least try to make sure it is a SCIENTIST giving the facts, not an evangelical nutcase.
Copying 'facts' from sites run by religious idiots is not going to produce anything worth discussing.
The following video came to mind when considering what I'm reading here
LOL...the Discovery Institute?
You really have to ask?
Of course not. The Discovery Institute is a bunch of Creationists in the US who invented Intelligent Design in 1983 or thereabouts...
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...the Discovery Institute?
You really have to ask?
Of course not. The Discovery Institute is a bunch of Creationists in the US who invented Intelligent Design in 1983 or thereabouts...
Found an interesting paper by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.
He talks about 'The Anthropic Principle:
Is the fine tuning of nature due to
a Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design?'
Apparently our universe is too finely tuned to be a chance happening. If we want to go that road we have to be looking at a multiverse or lots and lots of universes to increase the chance of a chance happening.
It is one of the papers on http://www.scirus.com/ and they state on their homepage, ' Scirus is the most comprehensive scientific research tool on the web. With over 460 million scientific items indexed at last count, it allows researchers to search for not only journal content but also scientists' homepages, courseware, pre-print server material, patents and institutional repository and website information. '
Is it the sort of site that you are talking about.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
Apparently our universe is too finely tuned to be a chance happening.
Apparently is a pretty important word in that sentence.
Bikerman
You are just wasting my time and I've better things to do. You don't understand what you post, you don't bother to check the sources properly, and you aren't really interested in learning anything - so why would I bother.
And no, it is another piece of crap by a Christian evangelist who describes himself as a PhD but neglects to say that it is in 'Curriculum and Instruction' whatever the hell that means. He's a high school Chemistry teacher...I suppose that this counts as an Einsteinian intellect in your circles, but in scientific terms he is a nobody.
Scientists are judged by their publication record in the peer-reviewed literature. Scientists who know of which they speak will be publishing regularly in their journals of repute, and will be cited by other scientists working in the same field. 'Craig Rusbult' has published nothing in any journal - ever - and is, therefore a no-mark.
He explains this all very clearly in his preamble, trying to make it sound like a virtue - so why is it that you don't read it and try to learn something? You don't need a great deal of scientific knowledge to be able to check a persons scientific credentials.
Ahh..but we know why it is, don't we? You simply want to cherry-pick some science-sounding article that you think will add credence to your lunacy...well, good luck with that, but I'm not doing the donkey work for you.
Let's face it, you don't know enough to differentiate between a proper science article and a piece of lying crap from the IDiots at the Creation Institute, so what makes you think people are interested in talking science with you? I'm normally quite a helpful person if someone genuinely wishes to learn something - I'll happily spend hours pointing them in the right directions and hooking them up with some of my pals who are REAL experts. But your agenda has been clear from the get-go and I really can't be arsed trying to teach a creationist the sort of basic science I would expect any reasonable 12yr old to know, simply so he can post it up and pretend to people less well educated that it 'proves' something and that he really can tell shit from shinola...
There IS a genuinely interesting debate to be had about fine tuning, but not by morons who believe that the bible is a historic document and have no interest in science other than to try to play God of the Gaps with genuinely interesting areas of current research and say 'god did it' as though this actually added information..
I don't actually think that creationists know enough to even understand that fine-tuning doesn't help their case at all. Aside from the fact that creationism is already comprehensively trashed, dead and buried, the notion of fine tuning, even if true, doesn't suggest a God - rather the opposite.
The thing is that creationists are fundamentally dishonest in a way scientists cannot really cope with. You desperately search for a single fact to cling to which shows science wrong, yet you ignore the thousands of indisputable errors in your own account. The bible it littered with stuff that IS NOT TRUE - yet you are happy to pretend otherwise...pathetic really...Scientists have to be scrupulous and honest, creationists have to be what they are - dishonest, ignorant, hypocrites.
busman
Bikerman wrote:
You are just wasting my time and I've better things to do. You don't understand what you post, you don't bother to check the sources properly, and you aren't really interested in learning anything - so why would I bother.
And no, it is another piece of crap by a Christian evangelist who describes himself as a PhD but neglects to say that it is in 'Curriculum and Instruction' whatever the hell that means. He's a high school Chemistry teacher...I suppose that this counts as an Einsteinian intellect in your circles, but in scientific terms he is a nobody.
Scientists are judged by their publication record in the peer-reviewed literature. Scientists who know of which they speak will be publishing regularly in their journals of repute, and will be cited by other scientists working in the same field. 'Craig Rusbult' has published nothing in any journal - ever - and is, therefore a no-mark.
He explains this all very clearly in his preamble, trying to make it sound like a virtue - so why is it that you don't read it and try to learn something? You don't need a great deal of scientific knowledge to be able to check a persons scientific credentials.
Ahh..but we know why it is, don't we? You simply want to cherry-pick some science-sounding article that you think will add credence to your lunacy...well, good luck with that, but I'm not doing the donkey work for you.
Let's face it, you don't know enough to differentiate between a proper science article and a piece of lying crap from the IDiots at the Creation Institute, so what makes you think people are interested in talking science with you? I'm normally quite a helpful person if someone genuinely wishes to learn something - I'll happily spend hours pointing them in the right directions and hooking them up with some of my pals who are REAL experts. But your agenda has been clear from the get-go and I really can't be arsed trying to teach a creationist the sort of basic science I would expect any reasonable 12yr old to know, simply so he can post it up and pretend to people less well educated that it 'proves' something and that he really can tell shit from shinola...
There IS a genuinely interesting debate to be had about fine tuning, but not by morons who believe that the bible is a historic document and have no interest in science other than to try to play God of the Gaps with genuinely interesting areas of current research and say 'god did it' as though this actually added information..
I don't actually think that creationists know enough to even understand that fine-tuning doesn't help their case at all. Aside from the fact that creationism is already comprehensively trashed, dead and buried, the notion of fine tuning, even if true, doesn't suggest a God - rather the opposite.
The thing is that creationists are fundamentally dishonest in a way scientists cannot really cope with. You desperately search for a single fact to cling to which shows science wrong, yet you ignore the thousands of indisputable errors in your own account. The bible it littered with stuff that IS NOT TRUE - yet you are happy to pretend otherwise...pathetic really...Scientists have to be scrupulous and honest, creationists have to be what they are - dishonest, ignorant, hypocrites.
LOL! Sorry @bikerman but that post made me laugh out loud actually. Ty for this. This post made my day a little better.
