Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

sdep

robindch wrote: »

Uh, like, I think it's, like the sms generation. Broken snetences r. nrml... lots me them. ttfn!

I'd begun to think we were taking part in some kind of Turing test.

AtomicHorror

sdep wrote: »

I'd begun to think we were taking part in some kind of Turing test.

Yeah there's a certain flavour of Jabberwacky.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're one judgemental fella. If you will deliver dry humor in text form, people are probably going to miss it. Especially if it's not funny even when assumed to be intended as a joke. I'll give you one "ha" for effort. Feel better?

Do you reckon you're scoring some intellectual points by being hard to follow?

Of course not.

Must say that being created by God is mucho appealing to my ego.

I also respect your right to be an ape if it makes you happy.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Of course not.

Must say that being created by God is mucho appealing to my ego.

I also respect your right to be an ape if it makes you happy.

Would you like another "ha"?

Galvasean

It sure is lucky that we have the right to be an ape. Otherwise the entire human race would have to be punished.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

It sure is lucky that we have the right to be an ape. Otherwise the entire human race would have to be punished.

Even Jade Goody? She hasnt published a theology book yet - but if she did she has as much qualifications to do so as some authors I could mention.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Even Jade Goody? She hasnt published a theology book yet - but if she did she has as much qualifications to do so as some authors I could mention.

Wait, are you talking about Dawkins?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I also respect your right to be an ape if it makes you happy.

groan ....

Homo Sapiens are apes, more specifically Great Apes of the family Hominidae

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

groan ....

Homo Sapiens are apes, more specifically Great Apes of the family Hominidae

No disguising that you are a tad contemptuous of my little quip.

But some parts of atheist logic I dont understand like the absolute dismissal of any God or pantheist on the basis for to them it seems unlikely.That total dogmatic dismissal is irrational to me.

That I cant see it their way or that anything they try to explain seems to require a degree in Physics or Maths is not something they seem able to accept.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

No disguising that you are a tad contemptuous of my little quip.

But some parts of atheist logic I dont understand like the absolute dismissal of any God or pantheist on the basis for to them it seems unlikely.That total dogmatic dismissal is irrational to me.

*sigh* read please: Russell's Teapot

then read: Belief in belief

then read this: The Simple Truth

We don't dismiss that God exists, rather we don't accept that the question of whether it exists or not bears considering. Just as much as I'm sure you don't feel the need to dismiss the fact that there is no dragon in your back garden every morning. You know there won't be one there so it doesn't bare considering or wasting your time thinking about. Where someone to hand you a pamphlet on your way out of your house trying to sell you tips on how to guard against back garden dragons you'd laugh in his face. This is the way I view Christians who try to tell me to read the Bible and be fearful of God. I have no logical reason to acknowledge what they say is true.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

But some parts of atheist logic I dont understand like the absolute dismissal of any God or pantheist on the basis for to them it seems unlikely.That total dogmatic dismissal is irrational to me.

I don't know if that's really universal to atheists. If something is really unlikely it's not dismissed as impossible but just as being really unlikely. It's sort of like making a bet on your life. With respect to Christianity I have two choices; I could worry about living life according to a book or I could just trust the moral consensus and do my best to live well. Based on the information at hand, I got for option B because the existence of a creator God is unlikely.

Looking at the actual lifestyles of many of the faithful or semi-faithful, there seems to be little difference anyway.

CDfm wrote: »

That I cant see it their way or that anything they try to explain seems to require a degree in Physics or Maths is not something they seem able to accept.

I've got neither. I'm terrible at maths too. I've never needed atheism explained to me in the context of either field.

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

We don't dismiss that God exists, rather we don't accept that the question of whether it exists or not bears considering. Just as much as I'm sure you don't feel the need to dismiss the fact that there is no dragon in your back garden every morning. You know there won't be one there so it doesn't bare considering or wasting your time thinking about. Where someone to hand you a pamphlet on your way out of your house trying to sell you tips on how to guard against back garden dragons you'd laugh in his face. This is the way I view Christians who try to tell me to read the Bible and be fearful of God. I have no logical reason to acknowledge what they say is true.

Can you prove to me that there isn't a Garden Dragon in my garden?

Goduznt Xzst

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Can you prove to me that there isn't a Garden Dragon in my garden?

Why are you asking me? Did you not see my link to the analogy of Russells Teapot. The burden of proof does not lie with me, rather it lies with the person telling me there is a dragon in my back garden. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.

I could however prove to you that there where no dragons in my back garden if my back garden was a vacuum and the dragon was spherical

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why are you asking me? Did you not see my link to the analogy of Russells Teapot. The burden of proof does not lie with me, rather it lies with the person telling me there is a dragon in my back garden. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of something.

Well I can. Because you see... I don't have a garden at all.

I will however now be warning my garden possessing friends of the dangers you have highlighted. Thank you.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

No disguising that you are a tad contemptuous of my little quip.

But some parts of atheist logic I dont understand like the absolute dismissal of any God or pantheist on the basis for to them it seems unlikely.That total dogmatic dismissal is irrational to me.

Dogmatic dismissal of what exactly, the idea that we are not apes? That we are "special", that we are God's chosen species ... ?

CDfm wrote: »

That I cant see it their way or that anything they try to explain seems to require a degree in Physics or Maths is not something they seem able to accept.

You appear to see only what you want to see. Your education is irrelevant to that.

CDfm

Wicknight - I dont have a problem with science and religion co-existing.

Thought you knew that - you are normally fairly quick.

My my , you atheists are a touchy lot. Its not as if I burnt a copy of the God Delusion - I spent my money wisely and ordered a Dominos Bar-B-Q Pizza instead.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I spent my money wisely and ordered a Dominos Bar-B-Q Pizza instead.

As indeed any good catholic would.

FWIW, Tom Monaghan who set up the Dominos franchising system is a catholic fundamentalist of Irish extraction whose considerable wealth is well known in the Vatican. Amongst much else, Monaghan is the driving force behind Ave Maria the peculiar catholic reply to Scientology's Clearwater, further on up the Florida coast.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

As indeed any good catholic would.

FWIW, Tom Monaghan who set up the Dominos franchising system is a catholic fundamentalist of Irish extraction whose considerable wealth is well known in the Vatican. Amongst much else, Monaghan is the driving force behind Ave Maria the peculiar catholic reply to Scientology's Clearwater, further on up the Florida coast.

MY hero

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

My my , you atheists are a touchy lot.

You'll have to bear with us. It's the Angst, you know.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You'll have to bear with us. It's the Angst, you know.

Cant be easy being an ape and living in a house and stuff.

It could be all that atheist guilt your bottling up.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Cant be easy being an ape and living in a house and stuff.

It could be all that atheist guilt your bottling up.

Thankfully, being amoral means that guilt is not an issue.

ironingbored

TravelJunkie wrote: »

What, according to you all christians should sit in a shack with no electricity, heating, tv, etc etc? A bit harsh.

Why can't God have inspired the people that used science to discover things. If he can inspire people spiritually, why not intellectually. What if the 'Eureka' moment is God-given?

Becuase if "God" can inspire people to discover cures, etc. why the hell does he/she/it let suffering happen in the first place? I think you're the one who needs to open his mind.

ironingbored

PDN wrote: »

Evolution, if it is true.......

Gravity, if it is true.......doh....ouch!

wolfsbane

ironingbored wrote: »

Gravity, if it is true.......doh....ouch!

Mature Creation, if it true.......doh....ouch! (See - your logical insight works for everyone).

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well I'd certainly say that Wolfsbane and J C seem to be of the view that moral relativism is equal to moral subjectivism or even just chaotic amorality. Perhaps it's more true to say that relativism applies to everyone, but that some are aware of that and some not.

You are right about JC and myself.

But that relativism applies to everyone depends really on the truth/reality of each position. If there is no objective/absolute morality (represented for example in the God of the Bible), then all morality is indeed relative/subjective. Christian morality would then be just as relative as the atheist's.

But if God is real, is the moral Creator to whom all owe obedience, then the morality based on Him is not subjective, nor relative to circumstances or individuals.

Robin assumes God does not exist, and that therefore Christian morality is subjective.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Robin assumes God does not exist, and that therefore Christian morality is subjective.

Not quite. I have concluded that the god that you think exists, does not. It's not an assumption.

Since you develop your own interpretation of the bible, your interpretation of what constitutes christian morality is yours alone. Hence, what you refer to as your "morality" is entirely subjective.

Atheists, on the other hand, are a co-operative lot. We get together and agree what we want and don't want in society. While that's as subjective as what you do, at least it has the benefit that we all agree on it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are right about JC and myself.

But that relativism applies to everyone depends really on the truth/reality of each position. If there is no objective/absolute morality (represented for example in the God of the Bible), then all morality is indeed relative/subjective. Christian morality would then be just as relative as the atheist's.

But if God is real, is the moral Creator to whom all owe obedience, then the morality based on Him is not subjective, nor relative to circumstances or individuals.

Well of course, but I consider God to be a fabrication.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Really? I must have missed them. Creationists like JC and myself accept there are true Christians who hold to Theistic Evolution.

Point me to these hyper-creationists and I'll try to sort them out.
So you're now saying it's possible to be a "true christian" without believing Genesis to be literally true?

Yes. That's what JC and myself have always said. Some Theistic Evolutionists are true Christians. They are mistaken, but no less saved than JC and myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Correct.

It would however dramatically alter our ability to know anything about the God of the Bible, since it would establish a hermeneutic that allows any apparently historical narrative to be treated as metaphor.

The virgin birth of Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection, etc. can all be discounted as literal events and moved to 'spiritual' stories meant to convey purely spiritual truths.
That's your main problem really. You want everything to be simple and solid. A non-literal bible seems like a slippery slope towards what you're ultimately most afraid of. That atheist world with its unsettling moral relativism and subjective life meaning.

Yes, I am afraid I would be wasting my life trying to love God and my neighbour, when I could be devoting my worship time to exploiting my neighbour and enjoying all the pleasures that money and power afford.

It took a historico-grammatical interpretation of the Bible to persuade me that God is real and desires me to walk in His way. Just like I applied the same hermeneutic to your post and have answered accordingly. There is absolutely no warrant for anyone to treat the apparently historical narrative portions of the Bible as other than that.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well of course, but I consider God to be a fabrication.

If He is, then my morality is just as relative/subjective as yours.

If He is real, then you are in deep trouble as you are living in opposition to both Him and His laws.

Nerin

Deep trouble? Eh-why?Not all Atheists and other religions are out raping murdering and pillaging. If your god exists,when i die,i have no doubt he wouldn't have a problem with me. If he does,he is not a 'good' god,and i'd prefer to be elsewhere thank you