Posts
I want to apologize to him for the tone, the personal attacks and the way it was presented but I still firmly stand by my statements.
I'm responding to commenter Edward regarding a string of comments from the blog entry
You may want to read through that thread if the following is confusing.
I feel that my response needs its own entry rather than a reply in comments because Edward seems to have a willful disregard for critical thinking. And besides, it's my blog and I can do what I want with it.
I won't go through every point but only hit on what I feel are the important pieces. Edward, I'm sure you will disagree with me!
When Edward asked why I listed my educational background and asked for his, I respond:
My point is that yes, by getting an education in a certain field, you have acquired specialized knowledge in that field. Therefore your words have weight and some authority. I would expect EVERYONE to listen closer to a doctor of theology then to me when it comes to the Bible!
If you have no direct or studied knowledge in a subject and only repeat what others have stated, your view should have less weight and authority. You are not presenting from a position of knowledge, only passing along what you heard from others.
Edward, you tend to quote bad science that is demonstrably false and out of date. Quoting the laws of thermodynamics and asking where the transitional fossils are shows that you don't really know the laws of physics or the fossil record. What high school science classes did you take? And the tired jet from a junkyard analogy? Really? What a horrible explanation of entropy! As for how babies are made, I think that's generally covered in junior high. Ask any 12 year old.
Do you believe that the banana is an atheists nightmare? :-)
Just because you don't understand the science and the natural world doesn't mean it's wrong.
Edward states that the King James Version of the Bible has been peer reviewed for 400 years.
As for the KJV being peer reviewed, I was kind of kidding. I was visualizing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sitting around comparing their papers on Jesus.
But, Since the KJV Bible is a work of literature from antiquity, I feel that it can't be reviewed scientifically as a work of knowledge.
It can be and has been studied historically and religiously. For centuries, academics have sifted through the Bible to find the parts that line up with known historic happenings and they've found several.
As far as religious study, that enters into philosophy and faith and that leaves it wide open to interpretation.
I could argue that religion HAS peer reviewed the bible and that's why there are so many sects of christianity!
Edward, you said:
"This book (The Bible) is the foundation that I stand upon, it's been tested and survived greater minds than yours or mine. And you throw up science that is like a fog over the land. You are free to shape it in whatever way you want. The only authority in your belief system is you.
I have checked "science" alone Bruce and found it lacking."
I have checked "science" alone Bruce and found it lacking."
How is science "a fog over the land"? Do you find all aspects of science lacking Edward, or just the fields that conflict with the Bible? I know how you feel about biology, but, do the Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun? Do you believe in germ theory? Do you understand electricity? Magnets, how do they work? Are the simple machines on your approved list?
So, how do I explain science to someone who has no real knowledge of it?
As for hiding behind my 'bunch of letters' (which aren't all that special), I asked for YOUR credentials because I wanted to see how to address my response to you. I see that I should use small words so as not to confuse you further.
Simply put, Science is a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Scientists observe something, repeatedly, make note of their observations (data) and then try to make sense of the data. They report their finding to others. Good science is peer reviewed. This means that the scientist will present his study to other experts in the field. The other scientists will question and challenge the data presented. It is often contentious and uncomfortable to watch. I've observed several peer reviews and they can be a brutal run through the gauntlet.
In these reviews, new information is never blindly accepted.
The 'authority' of scientific knowledge comes from long observation, data collection, collaboration, and repeatable results when subjected to tests. This is not the case with religion. By your own admission, it is based on faith. Faith that an ancient book is the inspired work of an infinite, timeless god.
In order for your extraordinary claim to be accepted by critical thinkers, it will have to come up with some extraordinary proof. But then, that would negate the need for faith.
Oh, and this is how magnets work;
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteYou are not presenting from a position of knowledge
So you know what i know or don't know? I must have a degree or doctorate to know something?
Your a funny man there Bruce. You chide me about using the airplane junk yard, yet here you go doing the flat earth, geocentric lines. Seems you were taking some cue's from the peanut gallery... Don't Bruce, your smarter than that, just remember when you do they are only pulling you down to their level and will beat you with experience. :-D
This post of yours is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. You didn't answer my questions, then you proceeded to repeat the same statements that prompted me to raise those questions in the first place. That being:
Science is a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Why didn't you answer the questions then Bruce? You want to make a spectacle of this and pull it to the front page, wonderful, however i would expect you to bring the questions along and give a ready defence for your scientific belief system.
It's not faith that you take them on now is it?
If you want to admit to it or not we both have a faith based system.
It should be just common courtesy. When it comes to the Bible i give the best defence i know how, i expected the same back from your religion of science. Give me some good answers Bruce.
Do i disagree with things in science that conflict with the Bible, yes i do. Now as for believing in science it depends on who is presenting the "science". Anti-theist science:
You know science at one time said non-white man were not human, yes i disagree with that. Came across maafa21.com the other day. I was only able to view the trailer. Now this position does not come from just that trailer. I have read books and watched a few documentaries about man classifying other men as non-human.
Science would have me believe that an embryo is not a living being, i disagree with that. Science says we evolved from a lower species and yes i disagree with that. Science says two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, yes i agree with that... i've been hit many a times. ;-)
I see that I should use small words so as not to confuse you further.
No just use words relevant to the discussion. I have enough learn'in to use a dictionary. ;-P And enough humility to ask for an explanation.
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteFrom my above you did not accuse me of believing in flat earth, my bad. :-)
Bruce, I'm not sure that "speaking from a position of authority" is much help here; "authority" (with respect to knowledge, rather than power) tends to come from repeated interactions with entities. For instance, I generally trust the other academics in my group at uni because most of what they say, most of the time, is very accurate and incisive. Going for a non-human entity, I'd say that the journal Nature has a position of authority over me, because I consider most of what's published there, most of the time, to be accurate. I also know that with either of these sources that I can go back and draw my own conclusions as to what the data is saying.
ReplyDeleteI'm therefore biased towards accepting whatever a source "of authority to me" says, because experience has taught me that accepting what they say is normally the right thing to do. Somebody who has different experience of the same sources may ascribe the same entity with a greater or lesser sense of authority (or trust).
Edward's experience of "science" would seem to suggest that it hasn't been useful to him, and he is therefore biased towards discounting whatever "scientists" say. I'd guess that Bruce's experience has been a little different.
Changing our opinions can be hard if they're deeply embedded, especially so because of the good old "confirmation bias". If most of our friends have the same opinion then it's going to take a lot of effort to maintain a different one. I'd guess that Edward is active in his religion and hence he's receiving a lot of confirmation as to what he's thinking/saying is correct. I'm surprised that Bruce has changed his opinion on the bible given his background, but am glad because it confirms my views about it.
Hope that's helpful, it turned into a bit of a ramble.
Sam
I have to admit that I am enjoying watching Edward get worked up about this because the reason I stopped responding to him was that he would ignore questions he didn't have an answer to (or change them so much that it was no longer pertinent) and that he "called me out" on my Christian knowledge. When I explained my life experiences, he blew it off and asked about "any studies that you had done, material read." Just as Edward will jump from position to position more haphazardly than even the Bible in attempts to make things relevant to this old book, it's nice to see him being upset that Bruce would ask where all this is coming from.
ReplyDeletehttp://thekingandi-bibleproject.blogspot.com/2011/05/1-chronicles-8-13-glory-days-revisited.html
BTW, I'm all moved in and back to the readings so hopefully I'll be able to catch up to you guys. The Psalms were awful to get through and really bogged me down.
@Edward,
ReplyDeleteI didn't answer your questions for two reasons.
1) Erp did a good job of responding and beat me to it. Thanks Erp.
2) I figured you'd just come back with MORE questions about my answers and it would spiral into nonsense on both sides.
I would never accuse you of being a Flat Earther. You're Christian, not a Druid!
Again, FAITH does not need to enter into science if you have good evidence and a sound theory. The data should be able to speak for itself.
Science, as they say, is self correcting. Science is the gathering of knowledge. When new information comes along it is studied and judged. If it stands up, it becomes the status quo. We have continued to acquire knowledge, so the backward thinking that some humans weren't human has been rightly thrown away. The same way that studying homosexuality has led to understanding that it is not a "lifestyle choice" that people make.
I asked what science you DO believe in because I want to know what your limits of acceptance are.
1. Do you accept that the universe is immense and that our current model of physics can explain it's motion and growth? At the same time, do you believe that the universe is only 6000+ years old and that a god created it in six days?
2. Do you accept that the Earth is a dynamic environment that is ever-changing? Do you believe in tectonic plates cause the continents to slowly drift? That life is incredibly diverse? That creatures evolve? That DNA can change thru mutation? But do you also believe that God created all these creatures and man at once and that one species has not turned into another over millions of years time?
Where are your dividing lines between faith and science?
@Sam,
ReplyDeleteI see your point about speaking from authority. Well said.
But, I still believe that actual observation and evidence have much greater weight on the scale of knowledge over faith and a collection of writings from unverifiable sources.
:-)
@VT,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back! I think thing will be getting much more fun once we finish up the OT and start into the NT.
@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteDo you have a schedule or sense of when you might reach the NT? It could give me a target to try to catch up by because I'm looking forward to the NT. I just hope the spoilers I've heard don't ruin it for me. :p
When Edward walks away from a discussion calling me a fool, I don't think he has any right to complain about ad hominems.
ReplyDeleteAnd no Ed, Science is not taken on Faith. Science means knowledge, and knowledge is demonstrably true. If something is demonstrable, there is no need for faith. That is what makes it superior to faith and religion, and nothing alike faith or religion.
All fossils are transitional fossils, each the remains of a single instance of life, the transition between what came before it and what would came after it.
Strictly speaking some fossils will be evidence of end of the line populations not transitional because the populations left no descendants.
ReplyDeletestudying homosexuality has led to understanding that it is not a "lifestyle choice" that people make
ReplyDeleteI believe the gay gene was debunked. It's a choice. The LGBT wants to make sure everyone accepts it as natural, even force the acceptance of it on kids. It's a decision they make to sin, period. If it was more than a choice then why do people leave the lifestyle?
1.our current model of physics can explain it's motion and growth? never thought of it, because you can make it say what you want, not that it's bad, however since you can't travel to the edge of the universe how can you test it? universe is only 6000+ years old and that a god created it in six days? Yes God created it in six literal days. Why is this a problem?
2.Do you accept that the Earth is a dynamic environment that is ever-changing? Yes. I see the destruction going on all over the place. Do you believe in tectonic plates cause the continents to slowly drift? Yes. That life is incredibly diverse? Yes, That creatures evolve? That they have varieties within their kind yes. That DNA can change thru mutation? Downward not upward. But do you also believe that God created all these creatures and man at once and that one species has not turned into another over millions of years time? That would be half correct.. God created some animals on day 5 and others on day 6 with man. Animals and man populated into different variations of their kind. Granted about 4400+- years ago there was a flood that took everything out except 8 people and 2 of each kind and 7 of each clean kind. Came across arkhuntermovie.com the other day. Wish they had a clip of the film. I saw one on a different program. Looks interesting.
The separation from science to faith, is that i have been acquiring knowledge about the complexity of life and the universe. And with that realize that things have been designed. There are two many variables that can go wrong to believe this just came by random processes. Now that is where the faith comes in. Some will believe that blind random processes can bring this world about. Yet some things cannot be tested, so they are taken by faith. They believe at one time that this is the way it was. However if blind random processes got us here, will it ever change? Or do you believe they won't change? I know they won't because God has set them to be the way they are. However if there is no God what prevents things from changing randomly again?
ReplyDeleteOn a side note it is very interesting to read peoples comments about my comment. This is the challenge of this media, one said i was all worked up. I was actually quite happy when i posted my reply. Yet i believe some would think i was red faced yelling at the monitor. :-)
The thing that keeps me happy is that i am to be apt to teach, gentle, patient, and must not strive. Well not in that order (II Timothy 2:24). I will have to admit that at work we had to do character profiles and i ended up in the group people labelled as being snarky. Which made me think. Wow i try to tone it down with people. I suck at that job. So if i come across as rude, i'm sorry. I really try to leave my comments in a way that won't come off as offensive (unless otherwise noted). Bruce i'm not frustrated with you or anyone else. I enjoy the dialogue i have had with people on this forum. Many people here have helped me grow in the knowledge and show areas where i need more study.
Now for me to continue to be active, would you expect anything else? (II Corinthians 5:11) The faith and relationship that i have in Jesus Christ is one that says yes this is true, and i realize what is going to happen to those that reject Jesus. I want to tell everyone i can. I want to be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in me. (I Peter 3:15) You and others are helping me learn to be ready to give an answer. And i see i have allot more learning to do. :-)
Like i've said before if i'm wrong, which i know i'm not, ;-) I have nothing to lose. Even the primitive tribes in Ecuador knew about a creator God.
The gay gene is misleading, as there isn't any one gene that causes homosexuality. There are a number of gene's involved, but there is also circumstances surrounding the mothers resistance to testosterone which is introduced during a male fetus's development. No Ed, homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it a lifestyle. Lifestyles can be chosen and changed, your attractions cannot. But let me pose it to you this way: When did you chose to be attracted to women?
ReplyDelete1. In my previous response I mentioned that knowledge is demonstrable truth. This is very important for you to understand Ed, because we can't make it say what we want. That's the whole point of testing, its making sure that we've come to the right conclusion. Science is a self correcting system, the more data we have, the more accurate it gets. All the data we have, all the evidence, points to a universe that is about 14 billion years old within which our sun formed about 5 billion year ago, around which our earth formed about 4.5 billion year ago, upon which life formed about 3.5 billion years ago. That is why a 6 day creation period is a problem, it doesn't fit any of the data.
2. You only see destruction? Do you not see how life adapts, changes, diversifies, and overcomes? What do you mean by mutation only being "downward not upward?" I've asked you about kinds before, do you understand that felines are a type of canine? That both felines' and canines' share certain basic traits?
How do you come to the conclusion that things are designed? Saying "There are two (sic) many variables that can go wrong to believe this just came by random processes," is akin to saying "I don't get it, I can't imagine it, therefor it must be God." That is an argument from ignorance, and it holds absolutely no weight. Before we can accept that God exists, you must prove he exists, and that requires evidence, something more than your inability to understand what evidence we do have. Yes things got here through natural processes, those processes are not as blindly random as you express them to be. Yes things can change, they will change, and we can demonstrate this to be true. The moon is slowly falling away from the earth, eventually it won't be there anymore. When that happens we will lose a stabilizing influence on our earths wobble in addition to the tides. The sun is using up its fuel, and when it does it will go nova and destroy the earth.
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying that you know this or you know that. Sorry Ed, but like I've said, knowledge is demonstrable. If you cannot demonstrate God's existence, you don't know it. You can't know it, and that means you can't know that he is there to keep things safe and sound. Put up or shut up Ed, if you know God exists: Demonstrate his existence.
@Confused.
ReplyDeleteVisit this site, and let me know your results.
@Edward. We've discussed this site before. It's horrible. It forces you to choose black and white answers and makes huge leaps in logic.
ReplyDelete@Edward
ReplyDeleteI've visited that site, its a load of shit. If there is proof of your gods existence, why can't you simply provide that proof/evidence?
@Bruce
ReplyDeleteI thought the questions were easy. Either there is absolute truth or there is not. What kind of leap is that? Is absolute truth sometimes absolutely true and other times not? And would that be absolutely true?
@Confused,
Because what i provide you reject. If you don't think there is absolute truth, then nothing would be sufficient for you.
@Edward,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this site is that saying things like "The laws of science exist" doesn't take into account that our knowledge changes and grows as we explore and learn. Locking yourself into 'absolutes" just closes your mind to the real beauty of this universe.
Stanford Dictionary definition of morality;
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Morality like everything else evolves. They are not immaterial, universal or unchanging.
There are no moral absolutes. Your bible proves this. Moses commanded Israelites to kill those that did not follow God's orders (Exodus 32, 27-28). 3000 are killed. Was Moses morally correct in his actions? Did the punishment fit the crime?
Today, If a religious leader called for his followers to kill 3000 people for disobeying God's word, do you think that it would be morally acceptable? Why wouldn't they be the same?
It takes a leap in reasoning when it states that these laws are unchanging, therefore, God exists and then uses bible verses to support it's result. Very weak indeed.
Actually Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy not dictionary (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/)
ReplyDeleteOne could argue that there are moral absolutes, but, we don't know them yet though we are getting closer (a progressive view of morality). In that case the Bible is simply snapshots of morality at various times, but, we've moved beyond it.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteYou provide your evidence first, then we'll discuss if its sufficient enough to prove that your god exists. That is how things work, anything else is you posturing.
@Erp,
ReplyDeleteMy bad. But still valid.
I would love to hear some examples of moral absolutes if you have them. Regardless of it's existence, the Bible is certainly no authority for morality!
I'm not saying there are moral absolutes just that the lack of them in the Bible (or to be exact the lack of anything we think should be a moral absolute) does not mean there aren't.
ReplyDelete@Bruce,
ReplyDeleteToday, If a religious leader called for his followers to kill 3000 people for disobeying God's word, do you think that it would be morally acceptable?
You have a point there. In radical Islam this is the case. They are to kill the infidel wherever they are. They accept it as good, i don't, neither should you. :-)
Locking yourself into 'absolutes" just closes your mind to the real beauty of this universe.
Are you absolutely sure? :-D HEE!HEE! Your view is incoherent.
Moral absolute "Thou shalt not murder", "Thou shalt not steal"
@Erp,
In that case the Bible is simply snapshots of morality at various times, but, we've moved beyond it.
You are one funny man. You must not watch news for modern times do you? Granted you are correct in saying that "we've moved beyond it", granted not all "we" yet i know what you mean. However i don't see it's for the better. I must ask, what have you replaced them with, because we need to go back to the Bible?
@Confused
So how about the fine tuning of the universe and this little rock we live on. To have intelligent life as we know it, which is on a planet (platform) that can be used to discover and learn about the universe. This is just a sample of what science currently says needs to be.
Within Galactic Habitable Zone
Orbiting main sequence G2 dwarf star
Protected by gas giant planets
Within cicumstellar habitable zone
Nearly circular orbit (We move 5% closer we get to hot, 20% further away we are a frozen block)
Oxygen-rich atmosphere
Correct Mass of our planet
Orbited by large moon
Magnetic field strong enough to block harmful radiation from the sun
Plate tectonics (right size of crust)
Ratio of liquid water and continents
Terrestrial planet
Moderate rate of rotation
And each one of those you can go into more detail than just the outline i gave. It's not just bullet-point mention, it's there are specifics for each point that must be had, for what we currently know. And this is just to have a place for intelligent life.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteThe Fine Tuning argument is little better than a water puddle in a pot hole proclaiming that the pot hole was shaped for the puddle of water. The environment was not fine tuned for us, Evolution has fine tuned us to our environment. I provide a more complete response at my blog here: http://ideaswithheld.blogspot.com/2010/09/fine-tuned-for-life-how-do-you-figure.html
I said demonstrate your deities existence, not argue for your deities existence. Give me something testable, something I can use to independently confirm your deities existence.
For a fairly quick and intuitive summary of the fine-tuning problem, I recommend this explanation from Richard Carrier: http://tinyURL.com/3mvv6qa
ReplyDeleteThanks Damion, always good to find more Atheist resources speaking out. Will give the podcast a listen when I get the chance.
ReplyDelete@Confused,
ReplyDeleteGive me something testable, something I can use to independently confirm your deities existence.
Nope i don't have anything for you. What's the evidence or arguments you have for your position?
Something to think about though. Are you 100% sure that God does not exist?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThen no, you don't know that God exists. Without something to demonstrate you can't know God exists, or really anything about him. That is my position, and your admission just confirmed it.
ReplyDeleteAm I 100% sure that God does not exist? That's a rather assumed question, in that you assume I make such an absurd claim. The only things I am sure of are those things that we can demonstrate, and in all humbleness I'm not 100% sure on those things because I fully admit that I might be wrong, after all I am only human. We can demonstrate that this universe is fully capable of forming naturally without need of construction by any supernatural entity and as such most likely did. I am sure that while we don't know everything about this universe, it's a reasonable expectation that nothing about it requires a supernatural explanation. I am sure that many supernatural explanations have been discarded in favor of natural explanations, and never once has a natural explanation been discarded in favor of a supernatural one. I am sure that we know a great deal about ourselves, including that we are imperfect, that we do not perceive reality as it is, that we can be fooled, that we can fool ourselves, and that we are imaginative. Given that knowledge about ourselves I am sure that its a reasonable expectation that all supernatural explanations are man made constructions and bear very little resemblance to any objective truth. I am sure that any man who claims to speak for any deity is in fact trying to exert control over others and does not actually have the best interests of anyone other than himself in mind. I am also sure that if any being that might be called a god actually existed, it would be nothing like what we imagine it to be, your own deity included.
*edited for clarification and re-posted
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteThen no, you don't know that God exists.
For me to give you something to demonstrate that God exists, like i have stated, that i cannot do. However because of my personal relationship with God i know that He does exists.
God has directed and aided me in my life and saved me from things that i could not have known about. His word is truth (Proverbs 3:6).
and never once has a natural explanation been discarded in favor of a supernatural one.
I can see this being true, in that, the people witnessing the event are honest and intelligent enough to know there is no natural explanation for what just happened. So, yes, since a natural explanation was not even considered there would be no need to discard it.
You really have not been reading along have you?
I am sure that any man who claims to speak for any deity is in fact trying to exert control over others and does not actually have the best interests of anyone other than himself in mind
If you were reading along you would, hopefully, have realized that several of the prophets we have heard about have not had the best life. Example Elijah feed by ravens in the wilderness (1 Kings 17:4) or how about Micaiah was put in prison for telling the king what God had said(I Kings 22:27,28). I'm not going to go into a long review here, yet history shows that when you speak for God, if it be not by His power to preserve you, you're only signing your own death warrant.
all supernatural explanations are man made constructions and bear very little resemblance to any objective truth.
How do you know that? Or is it better stated, i believe that "all supernatural explanations are man made..."? You may be fooling yourself there.
I am also sure that if any being that might be called a god actually existed, it would be nothing like what we imagine it to be, your own deity included.
Is that 100% sure or 50% maybe 63.4%. I will grant you this, that when many people do meet God, He won't be what they're expecting. (Matthew 7:22,23) Yet the God recorded in the KJV Bible does exist.
I look and study the world around me, and for me personally God AKA Jesus Christ is the answer. There are attributes of God that i see in His creation. The condition of man, my Christian Faith, gives the reason why it is such, and the cure for it. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is the total opposite of what you have stated, it's that they do "have the best interests of anyone other than himself in mind". Christ followers care less, to nothing for their own lives.(Luke 14:26) I have a Christian brother, Youcef Nadarkhani, that is a pastor in Iran right now facing death by his government, he would have be let go if he would have recanted and revert back to Islam. Yet he will not and i pray he will continue in his boldness. (Matthew 10:33)
Even with the above i am sure that you can find some way to say he is only thinking about himself. (John 16:2)
@Edward
ReplyDelete"For me to give you something to demonstrate that God exists, like i have stated, that i cannot do."
And for that reason you can not know that God exists, because knowledge is demonstrable.
"Example Elijah...or how about Micaiah..."
Both characters in a story book. Lets look at some real life examples like Benny Hinn, Pope Ratzinger, and countless other self proclaimed voices of God who fleece people's money to support the continuous river of lies that flows from their pulpits. If history has shown us anything, it what I've already said "that any man who claims to speak for any deity is in fact trying to exert control over others and does not actually have the best interests of anyone other than himself in mind."
If your going to quote me, quote the whole sentence, it might just answer your questions:
"Given that knowledge about ourselves I am sure that its a reasonable expectation that all supernatural explanations are man made constructions and bear very little resemblance to any objective truth."
"Yet the God recorded in the KJV Bible does exist."
Prove it. Oh wait "For me to give you something to demonstrate that God exists, like i have stated, that i cannot do." You can't. I remain unconvinced.
As for Youcef Nadarkhani, he's brave I'll give him that. It doesn't change the fact that by preaching to others he is still trying to exert control over them believing that in doing so he will be rewarded in the afterlife, and what I said remains true.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteAnd for that reason you can not know that God exists, because knowledge is demonstrable.
And for that reason you can not know that God does not exist.
because knowledge is demonstrable
Can you give me a scientific test that can demonstrate that your knowledge is demonstrable?
like Benny Hinn, Pope Ratzinger, and countless other self proclaimed voices of God who fleece people's money to support the continuous river of lies that flows from their pulpits.
What's interesting is that you somehow know that this is wrong. Why? If God does not exist then who decides what is right or wrong? Now don't get me wrong, i agree with you 100%. I can't stand those whores that do this stuff (more on this in Ezekiel a little in Jeremiah). They have their reward (Matthew 6:1,2)
Now this is something that i find fascinating, in that, people, such as yourself, know what is wrong, yet why? Do you get to decided? Can you demonstrate that this is wrong? Could this not be the survival of the fittest? Take from the weak minded to support their vain desires?
Prove it
Can you prove that God does not exist?
Me trying to give you evidence that you will believe, that is in physical evidence is what i cannot. I wish i was like the Physicians that deal with the women in the tv show called I didn't know i was pregnant. Some things people just find hard to believe. ;-)
by preaching to others he is still trying to exert control over them believing that in doing so he will be rewarded in the afterlife,
Are you not the preacher of Scientism working to exert control over others?
Many people don't know much about being a Christian in Iran. You don't go preaching to anyone. The people find the Christians because of the way they look, or talk. You can't just go out on the street and start telling people to convert to Christ. You don't have a designated building to meet in. If you even try to force it on anyone they will turn you into the police. You don't carry a Bible around, some of them memorize what they have questions on and meet to talk about it. Before this group leaves they recite what they have learned from others to demonstrate that they know it.
However now i must ask, can you prove that Youcef Hadarkhani is trying to exert control over others? From the articles it sounds like the opposite.
What you have stated only remains true for the unlearned.
@Edward
ReplyDelete"And for that reason you can not know that God does not exist."
A claim that I don't make, so its pointless for you to bring up. But since you have let me remind you that the burden of proof is yours. I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Because you can't prove that he does, it is reasonable for me to not believe.
"Can you give me a scientific test that can demonstrate that your knowledge is demonstrable?"
I wouldn't claim I know what I know if I couldn't demonstrate it.
"If God does not exist then who decides what is right or wrong?"
We do, some invent God in order to grant authority to their claims of what is right and wrong, but the simple fact remains that it is a human claim and not that of a deity. And this is shown in the horrifically bad morality expressed in the Bible.
"Can you demonstrate that this is wrong?"
Yes, we can show that policies have an effect on society as a whole and on people individually. As such we can demonstrate bad moral policies from good moral policies.
"Are you not the preacher of Scientism working to exert control over others?"
Nope, because I don't care what you believe. What I care about is how your beliefs affect me and others.
Your description of what its like to be a Christian in Iran sounds familiar. It sounds very much like being an Atheist in a largely Christian nation (Christian majority, do not confuse that with a Christian Theocracy), like right here in the good ol' US of A. Except that Atheists gather in groups simply to free themselves from the mindless dogma that pervades society, not to memorize new and different dogma.
Is Youcef preaching to others? Even if they gather to him rather than him seeking them out, is he not trying to teach them that Christ is the only way? Does that not require certain beliefs and behaviors? Are people not required to believe that God exists, that Jesus exists, and that Jesus is the son thereof. Are people not required to believe that they are sinners and that they must ask forgiveness if they are to receive the gift of everlasting life in heaven? Are you going to tell me that this is not a form of control?
What I stated remains true regardless of ones education, but if you're trying to insinuate that I'm the "unlearned" of us two, then I find myself laughing in your general direction.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteA claim that I don't make,
Are you an atheist or not? Atheist = no God or without God! Which is it?
Because you can't prove that he does, it is reasonable for me to not believe.
So God does not exist, yes or no?
Yes, we can show that policies have an effect on society as a whole and on people individually. As such we can demonstrate bad moral policies from good moral policies.
No, no i was asking if you could demonstrate that what the clowns like Benny Hinn are doing is wrong.
As such we can demonstrate bad moral policies from good moral policies.
Where do you get morality from? And how do you differentiate between the bad and good?
If you say morality comes from yourself, then there is no moral bad or good. Just your personal preference. You may say it's bad, however that's only for you. It is good for those holding those moral positions you consider bad.
Say i happened to be walking down the street and a group of guys were attacking you or someone else and were going to sodomize said victim, should i impose my moral beliefs on them and try to fight them off to help rescue the victim(Genesis 19:5)? Who's morality should i go by?
Nope, because I don't care what you believe. What I care about is how your beliefs affect me and others.
Then you do care what i believe because you are effected by it. If it were something personal like what foods i believe i should eat, then yes you would not care this would not effect you, however if i pushed that into what foods anyone should eat, then you would care because you would be effected by it. It sounds like my "beliefs" effect you and you don't like it. Would you be so willing to point out 2 of my beliefs that affect you that are bad and why they are bad?
Are you going to tell me that this is not a form of control?
Are they required to seek Youcef out? Are they required to listen? Do they have to believe what he says? No is the answer. What kind of control do you think any Christian has over another individual? The New Testament lays out the way a Christian is to fellowship with others. I believe you have a distorted view of it. Allot of people do, it may be from "ministers" who try and control others. Another idea might stem from the majority of Christians in the US, and how they set policy or laws you feel they are imposing their beliefs on you. Is that so wrong? Majority picking the morality?
The truth from me as a Christian to you, the U.S is morally bankrupt. If you step back and look at it, the things that happened to the Israelites in the O.T are happening to the U.S right now. We once were (Deuteronomy 28:12) and now we are (Deuteronomy 28:44) This nation is going down and it seems faster each day, you don't realize that the Church is asleep, and if it doesn't wake up... i won't be happy, however you may just well be. :-)
I'm "insinuating" that when it comes to being a Christian in a hostile nation and thinking it's like being a Christian in a western nation, that person is unlearned.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteTheist = believes a god/s exist
A~ = without or not, so an Atheist therefore is without a belief that god exists, or more simply an Atheist is simply not a theist.
As an Atheist I do not believe that god exists, I am not a theist. That's all it means, and nothing more. The belief that God does not exist is a completely different claim and has no bearing on whether one is or is not a Theist.
As an individual, beyond not believing that God exists, I find that all the evidence suggests much more convincingly that the god of the Bible is, like any other supernatural explanations, made up and lacks any basis in reality.
I'm sure you are aware of the Golden rule, it can even be found in the Bible. But before you say "aha, biblical morality" I will remind you that the Golden Rule has been found in sources older than the Bible. Basically it is thus: Do no do to others what you would not have done to yourself. You don't want your things taken, don't take others, you don't want to get beaten, don't beat others. It is a very basic morality, but its also very effective. And here's the thing, as a behavior, all social creatures follow it, among their social peers so to speak. We have reason to believe that evolution can select for behaviors, and among social creatures this behavior is certainly beneficial and would therefor provide for just such a selection. But you don't accept evolution, so lets stick with human communities. When we take a look at successful societies, we find that they show similar moral values, and the more successful societies remain more true to this particular moral basis or behavior. There is benefit to following it, as such theft and dishonesty are demonstrably wrong and do not require the guidelines of a divine being.
But the golden rule as a moral only secures us in ourselves, why should we seek to help others who are threatened? The word I often hear is altruism, and it is often described as doing something for another at cost or potential cost to ones self without benefit. I suggest to you that there is no true altruism. It is shown throughout most social creatures that when one does something for another, the other is more likely to treat the first better. The rule of reciprocation. If you see someone trapped, its not pure altruism to help them out, there is the social benefit to you that they will help you out at a later date. This is another behavior that we have reason to believe would evolve as a selective pressure and we do find this behavior throughout the animal kingdom in those animals that are social. On the evolutionary level however the benefit isn't just social. By rescuing another who shares your genetic code, you make it more likely to spread that genetic code. Again, when we research human societies, we find that the most successful societies are those that show a large amount of reciprocation and relative altruism. There is benefit to coming to the rescue of another who is threatened, and as such it is morally right for you to interfere when someone else is violating the above moral of the golden rule. Again, this does not require divine revelation.
I do care about the beliefs you hold, and I care about how you act on them. You are welcome to continue to believe in God all you want. You are even welcome to express your belief. But as the saying goes "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." While you have every right to believe what you want and to express those beliefs, you do not have the right to force them on me. And yes, where Christian beliefs are made law, I don't like it. When I am discriminated against because I do not share those beliefs, I don't like it. 2 of your beliefs that affect me that I don't like? Well lets see, I don't know exactly what you do and don't believe so I could certainly be wrong. But you claim to hold the Bible as 100% true and infallible, and the Bible holds many passages that discriminate against me as an atheist. As far as that goes I don't like them but as long as you keep them to yourself I don't much care. The problem being that Atheists are discriminated against here in the U S of A, there are laws that say I can't run for office in a number of states simply because I don't believe God exists. Have you ever heard of blue laws? They limit my freedoms based on Christian beliefs. I can give specific examples later if you would like, but I know I've already got a long comment. And yes, it is wrong that they are imposing their beliefs on me. Morality is not determined by Majority.
ReplyDeleteSo these people who Youcef meets with, is he or is he not trying to convert them?
The truth from me to you the Christian. Christianity is morally bankrupt, and is in no position to judge the U.S. for anything. The U.S. ain't perfect, but it slowly gets better and better all the time even as we have to drag the Fundamentalists along every last step of the way. And what pisses me off the most about those Fundamentalists is that given a few generations they'll stop fighting about the benefits we've fought for and given them, and instead they'll thank God for all our hard work, the same we who they continue to fight against as we continually make things better. If the Fundies were ever able to get a hold of the nation, they would tear it down. And the youth of our generation is finally waking to that fact. More people are stepping away from church every day, church attendance is down and non-religious self identification is rising faster than any other religious choice. You say things are going badly, I gotta admit that makes me happy, 'cause it means things are getting better.
I can't make heads nor tails of what you mean by that last sentence.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteWow, nice post. However it does support your view on no absolute truth.
Atheist. Your definition does not follow the etymology of the word. However a little digging of mine finds why that is so. Seems like you are using the modern definition
As an Atheist I do not believe that god exists
How do you believe that? Is that knowledge testable?
god of the Bible is, like any other supernatural explanations, made up and lacks any basis in reality.
How have you tested for this? Are you positing to me some knowledge? If so what methods did you use to test this knowledge?
I will remind you that the Golden Rule has been found in sources older than the Bible.
Yes the negative version that you gave. Yet why should people not do that? If you kill them how can they get you back? :-)
And here's the thing, as a behavior, all social creatures follow it, among their social peers so to speak.
Not! Sorry i just read a book "How do you know your not wrong?" which used a study on how monkeys were killing other monkeys and even baby monkeys, eating them as well. And to not just throw that out there without a reference, i found this site talking about it as well (different monkeys). I gave the book back to the owner, i should have keep it. However i guess your right, in that article they do get it paid back. :-D
We have reason to believe that evolution can select for behaviors, and among social creatures this behavior is certainly beneficial and would therefor provide for just such a selection.
How can nothing select something? And how does it know what to select? Your giving evolution knowledge to know what to select are you not?
If you see someone trapped, its not pure altruism to help them out, there is the social benefit to you that they will help you out at a later date.
Stephen tried to help out the blind and deaf, he was stoned for it. (Acts 7:56-59) Ok i threw that one in to be funny.
By rescuing another who shares your genetic code, you make it more likely to spread that genetic code.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evolution survival of the fittest? This shows me how much "evolution" doesn't know anything. If they are trapped or being attacked, i would, one think they are weak for being trapped or weak for losing the fight. Why would i want to give my genes to them? Especially if it's a guy? Um that would do me no good at all.
Again, this does not require divine revelation.
Is that 100% true or false?
As far as that goes I don't like them but as long as you keep them to yourself I don't much care.
Are you being consistent in this? Am i to expect you to keep your beliefs to yourself? Say we are in a community of 100 people 99 of us believe that we should not import any goods from Gomorrah. We all vote and agree, however you vote that we should. Is that wrong for us? And if so who protects "us" the majority from "you" the minority?
Have you ever heard of blue laws?
Yes i have heard of the blue laws, it was named that because of the paper they were written on. However i hear allot of them are being ignored.
And yes, it is wrong that they are imposing their beliefs on me. Morality is not determined by Majority.
Really then who determines it? Who determines morality?
So these people who Youcef meets with, is he or is he not trying to convert them?
ReplyDeleteFrom what i know they are seeking him out for answers to their questions about Jesus Christ. This is the way it works with the other Christians as well. (in Iran and other hostile nations.) People will notice something different about them and ask them why they are the way they are. And they are very cautious about who they share what with.
Something i want to clarify, we cannot convert, we can work to persuade, however we cannot convert, this is not forced on anyone. Salvation is a free gift offered from Jesus Christ to everyone. It requires personal choice and repentance. If you don't want it you can leave it. You choose for yourself. If you choose the path of the pilgrim there are changes that happen in your life as a result of that decision. Being a Christian is a two way relationship with God. He is not some far away Being that does not care for His creation. He created us for a personal relationship with Him. And it's for the love i have for Jesus Christ, i do the things He has asked me to do. And many of them i need help in doing.
The truth from me to you the Christian. Christianity is morally bankrupt, and is in no position to judge the U.S. for anything.
In what way is Christianity morally bankrupt? Do you know about Christianity from reading the Bible or watching many "identity thieves"? If i said i meet the Queen of England and she was a 20 yr old, tall with blond hair and blue eyes, you would know i was lying right, or you would be able to verify my statement? So how do you come to this knowledge that Christianity is morally bankrupt? What are you using to come to that knowledge?
Is Christianity morally bankrupt because it's morals are against yours? The Christians morals don't change, however you can change yours depending on your mood?
If a Christian breaks the moral code it's called sin and also breaks the commandment of not taking the name of God in vain. Jesus even said you would know His followers by their fruit.(Matthew 7:15-21)
Fundamentalists is that given a few generations they'll stop fighting about the benefits we've fought for and given them
I'm sorry your now saying crazy stuff. What pray-tell did you fight to give us? Freedom of speech? Was that one, because the way i see it is that some only want free speech when it says what they agree with. Granted people are starting to standing up against this intolerance.
Do you believe in Gun rights? How about in stopping murder? you fighting for that as well? How about limiting the powers of the Federal Government to those granted to it by the Constitution? What really are you fighting to give "us"?
@Edward,
ReplyDelete"i just read a book "How do you know your not wrong?" which used a study on how monkeys were killing other monkeys and even baby monkeys, eating them as well."
They must be bible reading monkeys!!!
@Edward
ReplyDelete"However it does support your view on no absolute truth."
And where did I express any view on absolute truth?
"How do you believe that?"
Believe what? Saying I don't believe in god tells you only something that I am not, it tells you nothing about what I am. We are discussing your beliefs here, not mine. You carry the burden of proof, not I.
"How have you tested for this?"
I keep trying but theists like you continually fail to offer any evidence, or even an intelligible hypothesis.
"Yet why should people not do that? If you kill them how can they get you back?"
If you keep killing your friends and your family, who will you have around to keep you company? If you kill your employee's who will you have to help you with your work, or whatever else it is you are trying to achieve? If you make it a habit of killing people, who's going to want to remain in your company?
Where those monkey's killing monkey's of their own social group, or monkey's of other social groups? Yes yes, groups of chimps commit war on other groups of chimps, they commit murder, theft, and cannibalism. But if you pay attention, within a group of chimps, they also practice social justice, punishing those who step out of line. Their behavior is not unlike our own, we commit murder, theft, and cannibalism. The trick is to take a more overall look, yes the bad elements exist I don't deny them, but on a whole social groups do follow the morals I outlined.
"How can nothing select something?"
I didn't say nothing, I said evolution. That is the process of mutation and natural selection, its not nothing.
"And how does it know what to select?"
It doesn't know anything, its a process not some intelligent force. What gets selected are those traits that are beneficial. Any behavior that follows those moral traits would be beneficial and therefor would be selected for.
"Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't evolution survival of the fittest?"
Yes, and a behavior that helps out another provides a benefit that makes one more fit than another who doesn't share that behavior. By helping them out, they reciprocate your kindness, helping you out in return. This increases your own chances of survival. But also assuming that they are related to you, even if you die, their survival means the genes still get passed on.
"Is that 100% true or false?"
Since we as a species came to these conclusions before the idea of God was introduced, its near enough to 100% true as makes no difference.
"Am i to expect you to keep your beliefs to yourself?"
I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, so yea, you can expect me to keep my beliefs to myself.
"Is that wrong for us?"
No, its not wrong. Its not perfect but its the best we can do. In that situation if I felt that we should be doing trade it would behoove me to try and convince others and plead my case. That is the power of democracy. I might die trying, I might be convinced I'm wrong, but I might also convince others and a later vote might change that particular policy. But your analogy is flawed, trade with another country is simply a policy. What you and I are talking about are basic human rights, enshrined in the Constitution under the 1st amendment where it states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. The government cannot legislate what we believe.
"However i hear allot of them are being ignored"
Ignored or not they are still on the books and a police officer can use them to wrongly arrest those of us who don't follow those rules. They should never have been put on the books, and the people should petition the government to overturn them.
"we cannot convert, we can work to persuade,"
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the difference.
"Salvation is a free gift offered from Jesus Christ to everyone. It requires personal choice and repentance."
If it requires anything, then no it's not free. In requiring something it becomes a method of control. In this case a behavioral control, we have to do this to receive that. And no, we cannot just "leave it" because if we don't accept it and behave as the control requires, we are punished. This is not a choice, this is a condition. It's the carrot and the stick, behave as is required and you get the carrot of heaven, otherwise you get the stick of hell.
You ask how I come to the conclusion that Christianity is morally bankrupt, well that right there is how I come to that conclusion. You base your entire morality on the Authority of God. Does God say murder is wrong because it's wrong? or is murder wrong because God says it's wrong? If God says murder is wrong, because its wrong, then God is just a messenger and his authority is meaningless. But if murder is wrong because God says its wrong, then it's an arbitrary decision and at any time God can decide that murder is good. And he does, commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, commanding the Jews to commit war and genocide against multiple other nations, even commanding the "Angel of Death" to kill all first born sons of Egypt. The foundation of Christian morality is a pile of rubble, it's largely worthless. Even having some good moral commandments such as "Thou shalt not kill," that foundation means that at any time someone can simply ignore them citing "God told me to." And without anything testable to prove Gods existence, you can't definitively say they are wrong. People use God to go to war, despite that commandment. The Catholic Church committed the inquisition, killing thousands and more despite that commandment. So no, Christian morals are not unchanging, in point of fact they change all the time depending on who wants what. My morals on the other hand are based on certain guidelines that don't change. I might change my mind and do something wrong, but then I will have broken my morals, the morals won't have changed.
Fundamentalists didn't want scientists to conduct autopsies on cadavers, without which our medical knowledge would have gone nowhere. Now Fundamentalists thank God whenever doctors perform any surgery given the knowledge we have.
Fundamentalists wouldn't accept heliocentrism or the idea of a spherical earth, going so far as to arrest and imprison Galileo among others for daring to assert what the evidence told us. Today Fundamentalists in America (we wouldn't be here if Columbus had listened to the Fundies) thank God for modern conveniences like phones and satellite internet that allow us to communicate with people around the globe.
Fundamentalism is the bane of progress, and even today there are Fundies that still proclaim flat earth, Geo-centrism. They are no different from those that deny plate tectonics and claim the earthquake in Haiti was God's punishment for something their grandparents did. Nor are those Fundies any different from you who denies Evolution even as the knowledge that understanding gives us allowing us medical advances that provide cures and potential cures to countless diseases worldwide. The ability to grow organs in labs that we can use to replace faulty organs with little to no chance of rejection. Paternity tests, genetic engineering, DNA evidence, selective breeding, these are all based on the very knowledge you would deny.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteI found this funny
I keep trying but theists like you continually fail to offer any evidence, or even an intelligible hypothesis.
Your not doing good science there. If you were so sure that God does not exist you would have a test that anyone could preform to support that. If you were really interested in supporting your view, and showing many others that they are wasting their time, you would come up with a scientific test. I think you know how futile that task would be that's why you don't even attempt to.
By helping them out, they reciprocate your kindness, helping you out in return.
This does not work. See in order to want to help them out you must first believe they need helping. Like if i saw a group of guys laughing, i would not think they needed help. Because laughing is good, they are having a good time. If i hear a guy screaming out for help and see him being beaten then i know this is not good, they are violating that man. I don't stop and think well i might get something out of helping him, so ya this is morally wrong. I already know what is going on is wrong. Now altruism won't work. If you had no morals to differentiate between good and bad, how would your altruism know if it would get a reward? You might try to go help the guys laughing, and you become the guy crying out for help.
There are morals that are transcendent, along with laws of logic. You cannot give an adequate account for them.
You knowledge on medical studies are different than mine.
Sr. James Young Simpson - Chloroform - anesthetic
Dr. John C. Sanford Gene Gun
Francis S. Collins - led the Human Genome project
Now i won't deny that there are people that resist things, and they are not only Christians. James Young Simpson had his. Priest did not want him anaesthetising women, that the pain was from God for child bearing. However using Genesis 2:30 he argued that God was the first anaesthesiologist.
Allot of our modern medicine knowledge comes from Germany and WW2. That is what i have learned. Correct me if i'm wrong.
If it requires anything, then no it's not free.
You really don't make sense. If i put my hand out to a guy to give him 20 dollars, will he say it was not a free gift? According to you he wouldn't. That man was required to accept the 20 dollars. So how much did that 20 dollars cost him?
we wouldn't be here if Columbus had listened to the Fundies
What in the world do you mean by that? Flat earth jab? He also was a Christian.
On thing Columbus did not have to contend with was any notion that the earth was flat. Although a popular misconception, in truth all scholars at that time knew the earth was a sphere. What they did not know was the circumference of the earth.
From America The last best Hope by William J. Bennett pg 3.
these are all based on the very knowledge you would deny.
You drank the cool-aid didn't you?
Why is Hell bad?
@Edward,
ReplyDeleteI can't read your stuff in this thread anymore without having a stroke. I hope you'll join me in the next reading project when we learn about critical thought and actual science.
@Edward
ReplyDeleteHow many times must I tell you before it finally sinks in? You are the one that claims God exists, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove he doesn't exist, and until you do prove he exists I am well within reason to not believe. I can't do any test concerning God until you provide the evidence. The poor science is a failure on your part, not mine.
If you see a group of guys laughing, how do you know its a good thing? Sounds like your making an assumption.
No, I don't have to stop and think about the potential future benefit to helping anyone out. Its a behavioral pattern that I follow without having to stop and think. That doesn't mean there is no benefit to it.
Yes I am aware that there are Christians who are also progressives. I wasn't condemning Christians as being the bane of progress, I was condemning Fundamentalists.
That's the thing you and so many others fail to realize. Because the God of the bible is just a figment of your imagination, he takes on the values for each person who believes in him. You are a Christian, as is Francis S. Collins, but each of your Gods are different. And because neither of you can provide any evidence that your God exists, neither of you can prove which of your two Gods is the true God. And by the way, Francis S. Collins accepts Evolution.
BTW its "a lot," not "alot," not "allot," "a lot."
You can't use the Bible to prove anything, certainly not that God exists, much less anything about him. I don't care who James Young Simpson is, if he's trying to use the Bible to prove anything he's not worth listening to.
You're going to compare handing 20 dollars to a person with Jesus Christs salvation? You do understand there is a difference right? When you hand a guy the 20 dollars and walk away, you have given something freely. But according to you Jesus doesn't just hand over salvation, "It requires personal choice and repentance." As long as salvation requires anything, it is not freely given.
Christian does not equal Fundamentalist.
William J. Bennet wasn't a historian, I suggest you find your historical facts from actual historians. Oh and by the by, I did go looking up the Federalist Papers. The primary contributor to those essays was quoted as saying that they were not intended to be an authoritative source. If anyone here has been drinking the cool-aid, its been you.
See, Evolution is built upon evidence, unlike your god its testable and provable. Not only does it allow us a better understanding of our world, its predictive. DNA was predicted by evolution, as was the location of many fossils that we have since found by looking in those very places it predicted they would be. Evolution has withstood greater critical analysis than you could ever hope to provide for 150 years, and its backed by more evidence than the theory of gravitation. In fact its more testable than gravity because we can't escape the gravitational field our earth creates in order to test it. Don't tell me I've drank the cool-aid when you deny evolution without even bothering to get an accurate understanding of what it is and says.
"Why is Hell bad?"
I don't know, you tell me, after all I'm not convinced it even exists. How do you mean why is hell bad?
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteLaws of Logic
Morality
Fine tuning of the universe
Absolute truth
Those are the few things i presented. No they are not hard physical items. Which could be my mistake i am thinking that's what you want. If i am wrong correct me.
Now you don't accept them. So i asked you to explain where they come from since they are transcendent. Your explanations are not adequate.
You can't use the Bible to prove anything, certainly not that God exists, much less anything about him
No we just find things that prove the Bible is right all along. :-)
I don't care who James Young Simpson is, if he's trying to use the Bible to prove anything he's not worth listening to.
Did you even read who he was talking to? The priests did not want him anaesthetising women for child birth, because it was a pain from God. (Genesis 3:16)
But according to you Jesus doesn't just hand over salvation, "It requires personal choice and repentance."
Taking that 20 dollars also required a personal choice. Jesus offers us salvation, salvation from what? It's from our sins, to wipe clean the debt we have of transgressing God's law. Yes we have to make a personal choice to repent from those sins and ask for forgiveness.
So how much did salvation cost for those that choose to accept it?
William J. Bennet wasn't a historian, I suggest you find your historical facts from actual historians.
Now i have not read the book i am going to quote. This is in my to purchase and read list. And i am taking this from the Amazon website.
As a physicist and historian of science James Hannam...
Okay he's a historian.
People in the Middle Ages did not think the world was flat--in fact, medieval scholars could prove it wasn't;
Now i know people argue about when the Middle Ages ended, some say 1500, others say 1485. However Columbus sailed in 1492. That seems close enough for me. So is he wrong because it does not agree with what you believe?
You said:
the carrot of heaven, otherwise you get the stick of hell.
It read like you were casting hell in a negative light. I wanted to know why.
What is the best evidence that you have for evolution?
@Edward
ReplyDeleteWhat you presented are arguments, not demonstrations. I did not ask for arguments, I asked for a demonstration. Must we really go over this again? What explanations of mine are inadequate? God remains your claim, and the burden of proof remains on you, I don't have to explain anything.
"No we just find things that prove the Bible is right all along."
What things prove the Bible to be right? As near as I can tell, you simply reject anything that contradicts the Bible's assertions.
"The priests did not want him anaesthetising women for child birth, because it was a pain from God."
Which only goes to show that those priests were Fundamentalists who were rejecting progress. James Young Simpson remains irrelevant to me.
"Taking that 20 dollars also required a personal choice."
But nothing was required of B by A to give B the 20 dollars.
"Jesus offers us salvation..." But before he can give it to us "It requires personal choice and repentance." If Jesus's salvation were truly freely given, he would give it to us regardless of our repentance.
"So how much did salvation cost for those that choose to accept it?"
It requires our repentance. It requires us to behave in a particular way, it requires that we believe certain things. It costs us our freedom.
We have been able to prove that the earth was not flat since Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE, that does not mean it was commonly accepted. Fundamentalists at the time remained convinced that the earth was flat and some still do to this day using the Bible to argue their case. Nothing you've brought up fails to agree with what I've said.
Hell is a place of eternal torture, it is used to strike fear in people for where God will put them if they do not follow his commands. No good deity could ever create such a place or even use it to enforce their will. If God truly did not want us to go there he would get rid of it.
All the evidence points to evolution, and that fact alone is probably the best evidence for evolution. But if I had to pick any one particular thing I'd probably say DNA. Not only was it predicted by Evolution, we can use it to trace our own history. Its most common use on some talk shows is in paternity tests, that wouldn't be possible if Evolution was not true. But it goes farther then that. Given Evolution we can trace our lineages all the way back to Africa. Recent studies have shown that Humans interbred with Neanderthal and we retain some of their genes today. DNA confirms a distant relationship with Chimpanzees even showing that we remained interbreeding with them sporadically even as our genetic lineages separated. DNA has allowed us to more accurately represent the tree of life, often confirming what we thought was true and correcting some of the minor things we were wrong about.
Given *DNA* we can trace our lineages...
ReplyDelete@Confused,
ReplyDeleteWhat things prove the Bible to be right?
There have been some archaeological discoveries that have proven what the Bible has recorded. Even when people before believe the Bible was in error.
It requires our repentance. It requires us to behave in a particular way, it requires that we believe certain things. It costs us our freedom.
Yes we are to repent - change our life for the better.
Yes we are to behave in a particular way - sin no more
If i want to stay out of jail i behave in a "particular way", the same goes for Hell. Which shows me how opposite you have things. I believe Gods law and the local/state/national laws, obeying them i keep my freedom. However when the law of man violates the law of God, to jail i will go. :-)
WHAT? Are you for real? It cost me my freedom? From what being a slave to sin? I am more free with Jesus Christ than when i was on my own. (John 8:36; Romans 6:20-23)
Fundamentalists at the time remained convinced that the earth was flat and some still do to this day using the Bible to argue their case.
Are we talking about Christians or Fundamentalists? And are you considering me Fundamentalist? Because i sure don't believe that the earth is flat. And what is your definition of a Fundamentalist? I know it's changed in the last several years. I am a Christian, follower of Jesus Christ.
No good deity could ever create such a place or even use it to enforce their will.
You do realize that it was not originally created for man. It was created for the devil and the fallen angels? (Matthew 25:41) Is it God's fault you don't want to repent? He does not send you to hell, you choose it for yourself. Why would he let you into heaven? You obviously don't want God, why should He then, on your judgement day, want you? If your honest if God does exists and there is a Heaven and Hell, Hell is really what you want. It's where your desires comes true.
Erp tried the DNA chip line on me. It's bad science. It's more evolution fairytale time to believe what you just posted.
Evolutionary trees are out. Evolutionary bushes are in.
Also the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chip DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance. (Bones of Contention pg. 174)
You still have not provided good scientific evidence for evolution.
@Edward
ReplyDelete"There have been some archaeological discoveries that have proven what the Bible has recorded."
What archaeological discoveries?
Yes I'm for real. You said it yourself "Yes we are to repent..." that is a behavioral control that we must obey, as such Jesus's gift of salvation is not free, nor is it cheap.
I have been accusing Fundamentalists of being the bane of this country. Whether you lump yourself in together with them is entirely your own decision. In either case it is Fundamentalists who deny Evolution, just as you do, and in so doing they are holding back progress.
"You do realize that it was not originally created for man."
It doesn't matter who or what hell was created for, the fact that it was created at all, and the fact that your deity would make use of it in any such way shows your deity to be an evil being who does not deserve my worship even if you could prove he existed.
"Is it God's fault you don't want to repent?"
Your making an assumption. Firstly I don't believe God exists, but if the Bible offers an accurate characterization of him, then he doesn't deserve my worship. Secondly I see no reason to repent for anything I have done, and I certainly have done nothing to deserve being tossed into such a place the Bible describes Hell to be, which is just more reason that its deity does not deserve my worship.
"He does not send you to hell, you choose it for yourself."
Wrong, I choose to go to Cincinnati when I die. If I go anywhere else it is not by my choice.
"Also the studies that seek to prove..."
Wrong, and wrong again. No one claims that humans evolved from Chimps. We share a common ancestor, that means we're cousins, not that they are our parents. And despite your denial, the DNA bears the truth of that.
Show the circularity.
Just because you deny the evidence, does not mean its not good evidence.
@Confused,
ReplyDeleteI concede. This is a honey pot. :-)
@confused
ReplyDeleteBefore Edward gets on the case, yes there have been some archaeological discoveries that support a bit of the history reported in Kings and Chronicles. Notable is that we have reports on the sieges of Jerusalem and Lachish by the Assyrians around 700 BCE. Each source spins it their own way. We have mentions in other sources of some kings of Israel and Judah. You might find Finkelstein and Silberman "The Bible Unearthed" 2001 to be of interest.
My own admittedly outside the field judgement is that the king lists especially the later bits are relatively accurate barring textual corruption (and we have evidence for that from differences between the early Greek translation and the Hebrew). David probably existed but what we know is legend (and having a reign that lasted for exactly 40 years and his son, Solomon, having a reign also of exactly 40 years according to the Bible is one indication of this). BTW an example of a modern day mixing of legend and fact, read "Our Island Story" by H.E. Marshall. It details the history of Great Britain (in particular England) from Neptune to Victoria.
@Erp
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to people, places, some of the wars, I'm not surprised that there might be or even is archaeological evidence to back it up. But people like Edward would use that as justification to say that everything the Bible says is true. Sorry, there may very well have been a man named Jesus, and if we had some contemporary reports detailing his ministry I'd be more than happy to accept that he actually existed. But its going to take more than such evidence to convince me that he turned water into wine, that he walked on water, miraculously healed people and raised others from death, or that he died and rose from the dead himself. It's certainly not going to convince me he was born of a virgin.
Just because the Bible's setting is in our own real world history, doesn't mean that the flood happened, or that the Egyptians actually enslaved the Jews, that the earth stopped rotating during a particular war, or that God, Heaven, or Hell even exist.
No doubt there is some truth, some historical accuracy to be found in the Bible. That does not justify accepting the whole of the book. So depending on what evidence Edward wanted to bring up, we could discuss what it justified.
@confused
ReplyDeleteIt would take a lot more to convince me also; however, one has also to be fair to the evidence and honest in accepting as likely what is supported and makes sense (even if others would take that same small thread and say it proves an entire dress existed). Historians are use to sifting documents (even known fiction) and are well aware that no genre of writing is unbiased facts (but figuring out the biases even in fiction can be revealing about the time it was written).