Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Wicknight - at a human level Christianity works fairly well. You have to admit that it is quite practical.

Practical in what context?

CDfm wrote: »

You know of other philosophies but they havent attracted you.

Christianity isn't a philosophy, it is a religion. There are some nice-ish philosophies in Christianity, but they are expressed better in other places and Christianity (as a set of philosophies) comes shackled with the supernatural aspects which are very off putting.

CDfm wrote: »

There are parts of Christianity as an ethical frame work you find it difficult to reconcile cause its logic goes on to deal with difficult and tough situations in a vey tough and robust way.

Quite the contrary in my opinion. If the last 2000 years of Christianity has thought us little else it is that Christianity deals with issues in such a vague generalized fashion (eg Jesus parables) that people can pick up really an interpretation they like.

CDfm wrote: »

Life isnt always fair or nice.

Very true. It was realizing that, along with the realization of the power of the desire humans have for life to be fair and nice, that lead me to atheism.

CDfm wrote: »

WE dont ignore food - in fact the rasher sandwich I had for breakfast was quite tasty - Ballymoloe Relish really sets it off and I use four slices of back bacon on fresh bread -delish. I need food and wouldnt describe it as a food addiction.In fact I would be quite silly not to give in to the food need.

Well you make an interesting point, though perhaps not the one you thought you were making.

You certainly do need food, and you have a biological instinct to obtain food. The problem is that our instincts have not kept up without changing society over the last few thousand years. You need food but you don't need a rasher sandwich. The amount of salt and sugars (the bread, particularly if it is white bread, is basically just sugars) in a rasher sandwich are ridiculously high compared to the amount you actually need to consume. So why do you consume it? Because you have a biological instinct, to help protect you against periods where there would be no food, to be attracted to salt and sugars. The problem in modern life is that we have plenty. There is no period of want. But our instincts have not evolved that far yet. So we keep eating and eating unhealthy food because the your instincts are miss-firing. You don't need the food, but your instincts are still saying "you want this rasher sam-bo"

I suspect religion is similar. Religious instincts, such as apply agency to things around us, seem to have simply gotten a bit out of hand in modern human society (+50,000 years). And in the same way I don't think that you should eat lots of rashers simply because your instinct says so, I don't think humans having an instinct to create gods and supernatural agents is an indication that such things really exist. Quite the opposite in fact, I think it is a very strong indication we invented them.

CDfm wrote: »

You also say why not pick another religion- well its not really my choice.

I did?

CDfm wrote: »

Can you see how silly that all atheism arguments sound.

I certainly can, from the context of someone who prefers to embrace one's instincts. But then to someone who thinks "I want to a rashers sambo, it is what my instincts tell me, so it can't be wrong" the argument that it is unhealthy with no nutritual value, may well sound as silly.

studiorat

Ballymaloe relish is the spawn of the devil. You have been warned.

As for picking another religion? Well have you looked at any other religions? Really looked?

How can they be poor copies when many are much older than yours?

Seaneh

TravelJunkie wrote: »

Ok... so what does this mean to Christianity? Is Church of England saying Evolution is right? That Genesis is wrong?

What does this mean for the bible?

Very disturbed by the churche's approach in this article.

You just need to understand the difference between Old Earth Creationism, New Earth Creationism and the difference between Micro and Macro Evolution and the Viewpoint of The Church of England (and in all honesty 99% of Christion Demoninations) will be fairly obvious and hopefully you'll realise that we're not all southern Baptists...

I bid you good day.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

Ballymaloe relish is the spawn of the devil. You have been warned.

As for picking another religion? Well have you looked at any other religions? Really looked?

How can they be poor copies when many are much older than yours?

Anyone whose spirituality consists of a small Powers deserves an answer.

There are no older religions because ......In the begining...

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

Anyone whose spirituality consists of a small Powers deserves an answer.

There are no older religions because ......In the begining...

A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

So what was the reason for slaying the Cannanites, Amalek, the Flood, the passover, the tribes of Benjamin? And what do you mean by a religious motive? Is revenge a religious motive then?

The Cannanites, etc. crossed the line with God in their wickedness. He restrains the wicked, and warns the righteous, by making an example of such sinners.

By religious motive I mean any that are done with the idea of serving a god by it. So revenge, for example, may be non-religious - just a desire to get one's own back; or it may be to punish the wicked in the name of a god.

For Christians, vengeance must be left to God:
Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[a] says the Lord.

God both takes vengeance directly and via the State, His appointed ministers:
Romans 13: 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Cannanites, etc. crossed the line with God in their wickedness.

Wickedness? The Canaanites absorbed and assimilated the features of many cultures of the ancient Near East for at least 500 years before the Israelites entered their area of control. They were the people who invented the form of writing that became the alphabet.

They only thing they did "wrong" was have different religious beliefs. In fact according to world-history.org. There was plenty of syncretism on behalf of the Isralites towards the canaanite polytheistic traditions, the Isralites had begun to name their children after the canaanite deities.

Whenever you capture towns in the land the LORD your God is giving you, be sure to kill all the people and animals.

He has commanded you to completely wipe out the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu.

and Genesis goes on to say something like -the earth was without form and void - now if you came across any TV programme saying that planets are created by gravitational pull etc you wouldnt gripe too much about that statement.

Yet put it in The Bible - Chapter 1 vs 1 of Genesis and its fair game to be rejected.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Practical in what context?


Christianity isn't a philosophy, it is a religion. There are some nice-ish philosophies in Christianity, but they are expressed better in other places and Christianity (as a set of philosophies) comes shackled with the supernatural aspects which are very off putting.


Quite the contrary in my opinion. If the last 2000 years of Christianity has thought us little else it is that Christianity deals with issues in such a vague generalized fashion (eg Jesus parables) that people can pick up really an interpretation they like.



Very true. It was realizing that, along with the realization of the power of the desire humans have for life to be fair and nice, that lead me to atheism.



Well you make an interesting point, though perhaps not the one you thought you were making.

You certainly do need food, and you have a biological instinct to obtain food. The problem is that our instincts have not kept up without changing society over the last few thousand years. You need food but you don't need a rasher sandwich. The amount of salt and sugars (the bread, particularly if it is white bread, is basically just sugars) in a rasher sandwich are ridiculously high compared to the amount you actually need to consume. So why do you consume it? Because you have a biological instinct, to help protect you against periods where there would be no food, to be attracted to salt and sugars. The problem in modern life is that we have plenty. There is no period of want. But our instincts have not evolved that far yet. So we keep eating and eating unhealthy food because the your instincts are miss-firing. You don't need the food, but your instincts are still saying "you want this rasher sam-bo"

I suspect religion is similar. Religious instincts, such as apply agency to things around us, seem to have simply gotten a bit out of hand in modern human society (+50,000 years). And in the same way I don't think that you should eat lots of rashers simply because your instinct says so, I don't think humans having an instinct to create gods and supernatural agents is an indication that such things really exist. Quite the opposite in fact, I think it is a very strong indication we invented them.


I did?



I certainly can, from the context of someone who prefers to embrace one's instincts. But then to someone who thinks "I want to a rashers sambo, it is what my instincts tell me, so it can't be wrong" the argument that it is unhealthy with no nutritual value, may well sound as silly.

It is practical and is at a very human level. There is a philosophy of religion and you can see the same strains of thought throughout it and its discussions in the same way as you would see in Aristotle or many of the Greek philosophers. I have seen arguments on the abortion threads that would have been quite at home with Aristotle and you wouldnt dismiss Aristotle.

Religion and higher thought isnt eliteist for philosophers only or those who read it and understand it. I dont read Sartre and the existentialists not because of their beliefs but because they are boring. Cant see the point really.I dont like Becket or Checkov. But I love a Brecht Play.

Whats wrong with accepting something because its instinctive - if a baby cries you check it and pick it up. You dont rationalise a rasher sandwich every time you get one. You dont analyse taking care of a baby.

Its like saying that Newton discovered Gravity - no he didnt - gravity always existed.

Why should I go out and reject something I have an answer for?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If other religions are indeed 'imaginary' (or, as a more balanced person might say, 'mistaken') that does not make Christianity any more likely, or less likely, to be true or false.

As Wicknight implied, that's a rather parochial view.

There are, and have been, thousands of religions, and the majority of them are structurally very similar. In terms of the function of the priesthood, the links to administrative authorities, the claims to ameliorate or prevent death and to promote health, claims for the sinfulness of mankind, personal or systemic inerrancy, the existence of a moderately to very conservative moral code which emphasizes respect for elders together with endless rules for when, how and with whom people can have sex, what experiences, things and people that must be avoided, a simple framework to interpret spiritual experiences and so on and so on.

Once one realizes that there is nothing remarkable about any of the claims of christianity when viewed from a global rather a parochial viewpoint, its own claims to be the one true religion look -- as do all such claims -- as unlikely and unconvincing as they are unoriginal.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

As Wicknight implied, that's a rather parochial view.

There are, and have been, thousands of religions, and the majority of them are structurally very similar. In terms of the function of the priesthood, the links to administrative authorities, the claims to ameliorate or prevent death and to promote health, claims for the sinfulness of mankind, personal or systemic inerrancy, the existence of a moderately to very conservative moral code which emphasizes respect for elders together with endless rules for when, how and with whom people can have sex, what experiences, things and people that must be avoided, a simple framework to interpret spiritual experiences and so on and so on.

Once one realizes that there is nothing remarkable about any of the claims of christianity when viewed from a global rather a parochial viewpoint, its own claims to be the one true religion look -- as do all such claims -- as unlikely and unconvincing as they are unoriginal.

But that doesnt make religion and the concept of God less likely.

It is implied by you that because you are searching for an answer other than God that your hypotheses - which is all it is- is valid.In other words all it is is searching for something which has eluded you.Your basic assumption is God doesnt exist.

Alchemy was classed as a science in the Middle Ages and its practitioners were taken seriously and looked to make gold from base metals and many were also scientists.

I think you are cherrypicking because the world etc though complex may owe its origan to something far simpler than you are willing to admit. You cannot explain it in scientific terms so you say it isnt likely. Thats very closed minded to discount something you cant understand or conceptualize.

Yet scientists are saying or claiming the belief is a genetic thing by some mechanism or other but it cant possibly be right.So discounting a God doesnt seem very logical especially if your science seems to imply one at a human/biological level..

Discounting Christianity on the basis that their are other religions seems a bit lame.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Thats very closed minded to discount something you cant understand or conceptualize.

I would hazard a guess that I understand the christian concept of god at least as well as you do, and arguably, rather better than you in its historical and philosophical context.

CDfm wrote: »

Your starting point is God doesnt exist. [...] Your basic assumption is God doesnt exist.

No, that the christian deity doesn't exist -- or more properly, the pantheon of possible and contradictory entities that christians individually believe exist -- is a provisional conclusion, not an assumption.

For the reasons and the reasoning that I have listed in some detail in my previous post.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that I understand the christian concept of god at least as well as you do, and arguably, rather better than you in its historical and philosophical context.No, that the christian deity doesn't exist -- or more properly, the pantheon of possible and contradictory entities that christians individually believe exist -- is a provisional conclusion, not an assumption.

For the reasons and the reasoning that I have listed in some detail in my previous post.

Really Robin - I am not disagreeing with you and do believe you are widely read on the subject.

What you are really saying is you cant prove that God doesnt exist. There is nothing that you know of in the scientific research you have come accross that disproves the existence of God.

Your search is a self fulfilling prophesy because in the model you use you assume no God. Or as you say you already conclude that.

So what you are doing instead is pointing out that there are other religions than Christianity. Thats like saying before there was Newtons Law -there was no gravity- but of course that would be nonscence. I know there are other religions.

Scientifically you cant come up with proof God doesnt exist.

I have often thought when you are underpressure you overuse in-line alliteration and you really surpass yourself here.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

and Genesis goes on to say something like -the earth was without form and void - now if you came across any TV programme saying that planets are created by gravitational pull etc you wouldnt gripe too much about that statement.

Yet put it in The Bible - Chapter 1 vs 1 of Genesis and its fair game to be rejected.

You certainly would gripe with chapter 1 of Genesis. For a start the Earth was never "without form and void", neither was it all water at some point, neither is the sky (ie outer space) a property of the Earth as the Bible claims

The Bible creation story has all the hallmarks of a creation story that incorporates the limited and incorrect understanding of the people of the time. They believed that the "earth" was something that was on top of the waters, which is reflected in the Bible. They believed that the sun and moon were bodies that moved around the Earth, which is reflected in the Bible. They believed that the "sky" was a property of the Earth, situated above it, which is reflected in the Bible.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

You certainly would gripe with chapter 1 of Genesis. For a start the Earth was never "without form and void", neither was it all water at some point, neither is the sky (ie outer space) a property of the Earth as the Bible claims

The Bible creation story has all the hallmarks of a creation story that incorporates the limited and incorrect understanding of the people of the time. They believed that the "earth" was something that was on top of the waters, which is reflected in the Bible. They believed that the sun and moon were bodies that moved around the Earth, which is reflected in the Bible. They believed that the "sky" was a property of the Earth, situated above it, which is reflected in the Bible.

wicknight -at some point the earth formed and even if you are a non believer before the earth was formed there was nothing.

much of the original bible existed in oral histories and would have been recounted in a way people could understand.

so you are now picking on guys from way back for their inability to grasp these simple concepts.

can you also have a go at the stupid druids for never writting things down. the egyptians for not telling us how they moved the stones etc for the pyramids and those feckers from Newgrange for confusing the lot of us.

my understanding of of electricity goes as far as plugging stuff in. You have already slagged off my rasher sandwiches.

it was probably someone like me who wrote up genesis scientists would have sat around testing the theories

Me on the discovery and history channel - I d kind of like that

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I have seen arguments on the abortion threads that would have been quite at home with Aristotle and you wouldnt dismiss Aristotle.

I'm not saying there isn't philosophy as part of religion. I'm saying that ultimately religion comes back to supernatural expanations and justifications, which makes it no good as a set of philosophies for general discussion because without first accepting the supernatural bits the philosophies generally fail. I've discussed abortion many times on this website and more often than not when discussing it with religious people the justification for their position (both pro and anti) comes down to something along the lines of "well my god says ..."

Christianity makes a number of claims about how good its philosophies are, how good Jesus' teachings were about loving your neighbour and turning the other cheek etc etc.

While some of these ideas appear relatively nice they have been expressed in better, more robust manner else where (in my opinion), often without the shakles of "because God says so" attached, and also when one gets down to the nitty gritty of these philosophies they turn out to not be so wonderful after all.

CDfm wrote: »

Whats wrong with accepting something because its instinctive - if a baby cries you check it and pick it up.

Good example. When babies cry you want to pick them up, but this is often the wrong thing to do because babies need to learn to rest on their own. Constantly picking your baby when ever they are crying leads to a needy infant who constantly craves attention. This happened to a couple I know who adopted. The foster care mother had always picked up the infant, and when my friends finally got the infant they had great trouble getting him to rest and settle.

The point is that our instincts are very often imperfect and can lead to wrong things.

CDfm wrote: »

You dont rationalise a rasher sandwich every time you get one. You dont analyse taking care of a baby.

Well yes you do. Or at least you should. Or you will get fat and have a nagging baby. :pac:

CDfm wrote: »

Why should I go out and reject something I have an answer for?

Because the answer is probably wrong.

Now you may think it isn't wrong, it is perfectly right. Or you may think that even if it might be wrong it is better than the alternative so you are going to continue to believe. Which is fair enough. As I said, it is all about priorities.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

wicknight -at some point the earth formed and even if you are a non believer before the earth was formed there was nothing.

There wasn't nothing.

CDfm wrote: »

so you are now picking on guys from way back for their inability to grasp these simple concepts.

I'm not picking on anyone except anyone claiming that the Bible creation story some how got it right.

CDfm wrote: »

it was probably someone like me who wrote up genesis scientists would have sat around testing the theories

Didn't Mose write Genesis?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not saying there isn't philosophy as part of religion.."

Christianity makes a number of claims about how good its philosophies are, how good Jesus' teachings were about loving your neighbour and turning the other cheek etc etc.

While some of these ideas appear relatively nice they have been expressed in better, more robust manner else where (in my opinion), often without the shakles of "because God says so" attached, and also when one gets down to the nitty gritty of these philosophies they turn out to not be so wonderful after all.



Good example. When babies cry you want to pick them up, but this is often the wrong thing to do because babies need to learn to rest on their own.

The point is that our instincts are very often imperfect and can lead to wrong things.


Well yes you do. Or at least you should. Or you will get fat and have a nagging baby. :pac:



Because the answer is probably wrong.

What would you have us do - Chapter 1 Vs 1 A brief History of Time - I can imagine not getting past page 24. I suppose yo would pop Ulysses in there too.

There are apparent inconsistencies in there - but they are relative. I have always pointed out the "moneylenders in the temple". Its not all goody goody. We are expected to take care of and protect ourselves too.

When it comes to philosophys where is it written that just because someone is christian they are excluded from deep thinking on philosophical matters. On of the hallmarks of it is it is not eliteist.However, its probably the ethical content that is most challenging.

I think you are generalising a bit on the atheist thread but point taken. I have seen people from both sides be unreasonable- sometimes for the sake of it.

Well I did babies a bit differently - I blame the foster mother all you need to do is tire the kid out and give it kiddie jetlag. But you pick it up to see whats wrong. Im glad it went well for your friends.

Instincts are not perfect otherwise women wouldnt drive 4 x 4s or attempt to park them.

Because instincts are fallible -its because we are human. The simplicity is to give simple living rules in most situations. It gives a framework on ethical matters that crosses barriers.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Wickedness? The Canaanites absorbed and assimilated the features of many cultures of the ancient Near East for at least 500 years before the Israelites entered their area of control. They were the people who invented the form of writing that became the alphabet.

Being 'civilised' or sophisticated does not mean being righteous. The Egyptians were splendidly sophisticated, as were the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans. None of them synonymous with righteousness.

They only thing they did "wrong" was have different religious beliefs.

That in itself is a prime sin. To that they added an enormity of wickedness, in the particulary vile practices used in the worship.

In fact according to world-history.org. There was plenty of syncretism on behalf of the Isralites towards the canaanite polytheistic traditions, the Isralites had begun to name their children after the canaanite deities.

Exactly - hence the Israelites being driven into exile by their enemies, when God gave them up to punishment for their sins.

Indeed, their return to the Land 70 years later was never to the exalted status they had before. And some 470 years later they committed their most wicked act, in murdering their Messiah. That generation filled their wickedness to the full and God sent the Romans under Titus to destroy their temple, city and nation. They were exiled among the Gentiles until recently and the majority are still unrepentant.

But God has still His good purpose for them:
Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That in itself is a prime sin. To that they added an enormity of wickedness, in the particulary vile practices used in the worship.

Vile practices such as what exactly? The genocide of other civilizations? The mass murder of women and children? The slavery and forced marriage (ie sex slave) of prisoners of war?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

When it comes to philosophys where is it written that just because someone is christian they are excluded from deep thinking on philosophical matters.

Well yes, that is my point.

People are capable of deep thinking on philosophical matters. Religion limits this by the introduction of the supernatural element, the deity or authority.

Some (and I stress some) of the ideas in Christianity are good, but ideally they should be a launching board for people to move on to other, better considered, ethical idea. But because of the supernatural authority aspect this doesn't happen, because Christianity doesn't say "Yes, these ideas are good, now go away and come up with better ones", it says the ideas are perfect, they come from a perfect God, they can't be wrong, they can only be right etc etc.

The religion aspect, rather than encouraging the advancement of philosophical ideas as you appear to be saying, stunts this because believers and followers already believe they have the perfect philosophy.

An example would be trying to convince a Christian that something considered sinful in the Bible, such as homosexual acts, are not in fact bad or wrong, without using the Bible.

In philosophy this would be possible if you came up with a good enough argument. With religion you can't, because the authority (in Christianities case, God) has already decided.

Religion is basically borrowed philosophy, you borrow the philosophy of our god (or from my position, a group of men pretending to speak for your god), and use it as your own.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm glad we cleared it up - your knowledge was only your opinion.
All knowledge is basically opinion isn't it?

Most of us would disagree; for example:
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
On your side is the fact that there are many religions and only one can possibly be right, and since so many are false, why not all?

On my side is the fact that such a deduction was also true of all explanations of science, until the correct one was discovered. A hundred erroneous theories has no relevance to the existence of the right one.
The delusion that one human being experiences is certainly relevant to assessment of the claims of another human being claiming a similar thing to the first human.

If one human has an instinctive tendency to assign agency to something that is in fact simply a natural phenomena (say the rain), and then another human being comes along as claims agency in another area of nature (say the creation of life), it is reasonable to consider that the same human instinct is at play in both cases.

If a Scientologist can believe that his religion significantly altered his life, and then claim that this is how he "knows" that scientology is real (when I think we can all agree it is nonsense), then when a Christian makes the same claim it is certainly to me far more likely that the same human mental thinking/delusion/whatever is going on in the Christians mind as the Scientologists, rather than thinking that the delusion is just in the mind of the Scientologist, and the Christian actually did have his life turned around by God.

Why introduce God as an explanation when everything in Christianity can be explained this way. Why go looking for a supernatural deity in the case of your religion and your religion alone?

I can understand why an unbeliever might think so - he has not experienced the reality. But he has to account for the amazing complexity and order in the universe, as well as the witness of his conscience to both his significance and his sinfulness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
On my side is the fact that complexity and order do not just happen with the basic materials we have - we have to apply intelligent manipulation to them to produce cars, books, phones.
But it does just happen (if you consider 1.2 billion years as "just).

You simply reject examples of it "just happening" (biological life for example) because you have already reached the conclusion you want to arrive at (it has to be evidence for God)

If you ignore all examples of complex order arising naturally, then claim that because there are no examples complex order cannot arise naturally, and then apply that axiom back to the examples in the first case, well yes you will arrive at the conclusion that there must have been a designer. But it is just smoke and mirrors.

Biological life certainly doesn't look designed. Complex? Certainly. But designed? No.

These are examples of non-design? :pac::pac::pac:
What amazing machines magnetic bacteria have been shown to contain. The magnet in these tiny cells is made up of 20 or so roughly cubic particles arranged in a line along the long axis of the cell. Each particle is about 50 nm (nanometres) on each side (a nm is 10-9 m or one millionth of a millimetre). These particles are not only the appropriate size for their host cells, but in physical terms they represent the only design that would work as a magnet on this small scale.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/727

The cells of the human body can produce at least 100,000 different types of proteins, all with a unique function. The information to make each of these complicated molecular machines is stored on the well-known molecule, DNA.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/732

The F1-ATPase motor has nine components—five different proteins with the stoichiometry of 3a:3b:1g:1d:1e. In bovine mitochondria, they contain 510, 482, 272, 146 and 50 amino acids respectively, so Mr = 371,000. F1-ATPase is a flattened sphere about 10 nm across by 8 nm high—so tiny that 1017 would fill the volume of a pinhead. This has been shown to spin ‘like a motor’ to produce ATP, a chemical which is the ‘energy currency’ of life.9 This motor produces an immense torque (turning force) for its size—in the experiment, it rotated a strand of another protein, actin, 100 times its own length. Also, when driving a heavy load, it probably changes to a lower gear, as any well-designed motor should.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1790

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To think a universe of basic atoms could naturally form into the complexity we observe seems very unlikely.
It is extremely unlikely. But then if it had not happened we wouldn't be here.

It is extremely unlikely that any individual person will win the Lotto each week. But most weeks someone does. The odds that a particularly person will win are millions to one, but it happens. That person, particularly if he has superstitious/religious tendencies, may well ask "wow, why me?" The fact of the matter is it was no reason. Someone had to win, it just happened to be him.

Being a designed function, the lottery is designed to produce a winner. The material universe, if undesigned, has no such necessity. It did not have to produce a winner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
On your side we have no uncomfortable worries of a Judgement to come. Death ends it all.
Well yes, that is another reason your religion seems rather unlikely to me. Your religion has introduced a ton of specific clauses that are designed to manipulate people into believing and following. It reminds me all a bit of FOX News. "Are your children safe! Find out after the break". "What we know about this aftershave could save your life, stay tuned"

Now it could be that God actually does exist and is holding a stick over everything as a way to get them to join this one particular religion. But when one considers that most religions have this "stick", and in fact most human interaction when one wants to get humans to do something ("stay tuned!") uses this stick, it is hard to take it that seriously. To me it is far more likely that all this stuff about judgment was simply introduced by those men who first were coming up with this religion thousands of years ago as a way to get people to follow it.

Again, we turn to the trusty example of Scientology, a religion we all agree is nonsense. And we find the same stick in Scientology that we find in other religions such as Christianity. Bad things (TM) will happen if you do not embrace Scientology. Heck even if you score really well on their "personality tests" you still need to join Scientology because eventually the badness in the world will get you.

Sound familiar?

The vast majority of religions use the stick/carrot approach. Reward/Punishment, or simply "YOU NEED US!!" Follow the religion you will be rewarded. Don't follow the religion you will be punished.

Again I'm not seeing any reason to believe your religion is actually real and just happens to be using the same tactics and manipulation techniques as every other religion.

That is one interpretation of the fact of the universality of religious demands - manipulation by crafty men. But if the universe does have meaning and does have a spiritual dimension, then this idea must also have at least the same weight - that the true God has revealed Himself and commands and sinful man, inspired by a malevolent spirit, has sought to avoid that by inventing their own gods.

If you want to impress me show me the religion that says "You don't need us"

That would impress me too. Like brilliance, extremes of silliness has that effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
On my side we have eternal meaning and purpose.
Yeah, appealing isn't it.

I once had a sales man in New York try and sell me a "satellite phone", which as the same size a normal phone (because it was), but that would make "free" phone calls anywhere in the world by connecting to a satellite and using the Internet. Sounded a bit too good to be true. And it was.

All religions promise wonderful things. They have to, that is the point of religion.

The Scientologists promise to remove the bad emotions from my mind allowing me to live up to my full potential. And amazingly, all I have to do is join Scientology.

The Christians promise "eternal meaning and purpose". Wow, that is like meaning and purpose, but like forever and ever. And what, all I have to do is become a Christian? Can I get eternal meaning and purpose without becoming a Christian? No! Ok then.

No, you misunderstand. You already have eternal meaning and purpose. You don't have to do anything to get it - it is what being a human involves. Your eternal meaning and purpose will be resolved as a son of God in heaven, or as a damned sinner in hell.

Where is the religion that just gives me everything to fix my life without me having to actually do anything? Christianity is supposed to be about the charity isn't it. Well just give me eternal meaning and purpose. But you can't, because then no one would be a Christian.

You can get the good version by simply turning from your sins and trusting in God - no prior works required. When you do that He will give you strength to live for Him and do all the good works you ought to do.

It is necessary for religion (nearly all religion) to have the carrot as well as the stick. Because you have to have an incentive to be in the religion, otherwise the religion wouldn't survive.

True. But that doesn't mean the religion is necessarily wrong. I'm sure you recognise there is something in our natures that is prone to wickedness (you might call that unacceptable behaviour). That is what the stick is for. The carrot is the incentive to persevere in the face of tribulation and oppositions of all sorts. That too has its secular counterparts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are not the mere resultant of chemical processes, no more significant than a rose or a robin. Our consciences tell us we are much more than the flora and fauna.
True, they certainly do.

What you are basically saying is that humans have an instinctive need to invent religion. Have you ever considered that maybe that is why humans invented religion.

Something to think about.

Yes, a good point. The evolutionary alternative theory to mine: that our deepest urges are merely chemical reactions generated by our genetic make-up, not meaningful expressions of our spirits. I'll happily stick with my 'delusion' of identity as a spirit and body.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Vile practices such as what exactly? The genocide of other civilizations? The mass murder of women and children? The slavery and forced marriage (ie sex slave) of prisoners of war?

The genocide was not a sin - it was commanded by God, as were the sanctions on the other nations.

The Canaanites were guilty of such practices as sacrificing their children in the fire to Moloch; and homosexuality and bestiality.

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The genocide was not a sin - it was commanded by God, as were the sanctions on the other nations.

The Canaanites were guilty of such practices as sacrificing their children in the fire to Moloch; and homosexuality and bestiality.

Not the type of people youd want at a picnic.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, that is my point.

People are capable of deep thinking on philosophical matters. Religion limits this by the introduction of the supernatural element, the deity or authority.

Some (and I stress some) of the ideas in Christianity are good, but ideally they should be a launching board for people to move on to other, better considered, ethical idea. But because of the supernatural authority aspect this doesn't happen, because Christianity doesn't say "Yes, these ideas are good, now go away and come up with better ones", it says the ideas are perfect, they come from a perfect God, they can't be wrong, they can only be right etc etc.

The religion aspect, rather than encouraging the advancement of philosophical ideas as you appear to be saying, stunts this because believers and followers already believe they have the perfect philosophy.

An example would be trying to convince a Christian that something considered sinful in the Bible, such as homosexual acts, are not in fact bad or wrong, without using the Bible.

In philosophy this would be possible if you came up with a good enough argument. With religion you can't, because the authority (in Christianities case, God) has already decided.

Religion is basically borrowed philosophy, you borrow the philosophy of our god (or from my position, a group of men pretending to speak for your god), and use it as your own.

I differ with you - I would say the religious aspect encourages rather than inhibits discussion on moral and ethical matters.

It co-exists with secular law and doesnt replace it.However,there is a continuity to it.

It also gives truisms that otherwise would not be codifies. And it acts as a restraint against extreme ideas.

Its the ideal -but life is not always fair.

Religions themselves and what has been done in their name has often been wrong . So I wont try to justify it. The world of ethics,philosophy and morality moves slowly.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The genocide was not a sin

A sin is an act that disobeys God. If God orders a genocide it is a sin to not carry out a genocide.

What the genocide was was vile and immoral.

The justification that the civilization being destroy, the men, women, children and infants, some how deserved it because their civilization had carried out vile acts is, to but it mildly, ridiculous and flies in the face of any sort of modern ethical standing.

Which goes back to my point to CDfm about the philosophies in Christianity. Christianity, taken as a whole, is a horrific philosophy. Any quaint pleasantries about loving one's neighbor or turning the other cheek has to be taken part and parcel with the justification and excuse of mass genocide on, well, Biblical levels.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Canaanites were guilty of such practices as sacrificing their children in the fire to Moloch

I'm sure the Canaanite children were so pleased then when the Israelites came to save them from this horrible fate by butchering the lot of them all to death. :rolleyes:

Why is sacrificing some Canaanite children to Moloch worse that sacrificing all Canaanite children to Jehovah?

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I differ with you - I would say the religious aspect encourages rather than inhibits discussion on moral and ethical matters.

Well in my experience, particularly on this forum, that certainly isn't the case.

For example, since it is a topic that has come up again, pretty much every Christian here argues that the Hebrews were justified in the genocide of the neighboring civilizations, because God ordered them to do it and God cannot be wrong.

So where does that put the morality of genocide? A Christian can argue that genocide is wrong all they like, but they (most) still come back to the big "except..." that goes on to argue that the genocide in the Old Testament was justified.

Such posturing becomes a theme when debating most issues that are mentioned in the Bible. Homosexuality is perfectly already except God says it is wrong so you shouldn't do it. There is nothing wrong with two people in a committed and loving relationship having sex before marriage except God says it is wrong so you shouldn't do it.

It is the philosophical conversation ender.

CDfm wrote: »

It also gives truisms that otherwise would not be codifies. And it acts as a restraint against extreme ideas.

Well you have highlighted the problem right there, because truism lead to extreme ideas.

No idea, not mine, not yours, not Gods, should be considered beyond argument, considered true no matter what.

CDfm wrote: »

Religions themselves and what has been done in their name has often been wrong . So I wont try to justify it. The world of ethics,philosophy and morality moves slowly.

Things move a lot slower when one has the idea that their ideas are the unchangeable opinion of God.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Most of us would disagree; for example:
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

I think anyone who things they know something with complete certainty is kidding themselves.

... but I could be wrong :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can understand why an unbeliever might think so - he has not experienced the reality. But he has to account for the amazing complexity and order in the universe, as well as the witness of his conscience to both his significance and his sinfulness.

Well no he doesn't. Your religion doesn't become the default correct truth simply because someone hasn't another idea.

wolfsbane wrote: »

These are examples of non-design? :pac::pac::pac:

There are examples of non-intelligent design (evolution is a design process).

You are an example of non-intelligent design. I know you find that idea insulting to your ego, but there you go.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being a designed function, the lottery is designed to produce a winner.

The lottery is not designed to produce a winner. It is a completely random process, and in fact the organizers are hoping there won't be a winner.

But then again you are missing the point of my analogy. The odds that a single individual will win the lottery are ridiculously small. But that doesn't infer that when an individual person does win the lottery they win because of someone picked them for a reason.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is one interpretation of the fact of the universality of religious demands - manipulation by crafty men. But if the universe does have meaning and does have a spiritual dimension, then this idea must also have at least the same weight

Ah the old if God exists then God exists argument. Q.E.D :rolleyes:

There is no reason to believe the latter when the former explains religion and explains why would you say your post.

It is like saying that just because all pyramid schemes are cons doesn't mine this new pyramid scheme is a con, it just means that the wonderful idea of my new pyramid scheme has trickled down to the others.

Not a very convincing argument.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would impress me too. Like brilliance, extremes of silliness has that effect.

Exactly, that you for making my point. No religion that said "You don't need us" would last 5 minutes.

So, amazingly!, you don't find any religion that lasts more than 5 minutes that says "You don't need us". They all claim that you need their particular religion. Because the purpose of a religion is to continue to exist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You can get the good version by simply turning from your sins and trusting in God - no prior works required. When you do that He will give you strength to live for Him and do all the good works you ought to do.

As I said, all I have to do to avoid eternal torture in hell is to do join your religion.

Wow, what are the odds. It isn't give 5 euro to a charity. It isn't clean my teeth every day. It isn't raise my children well. It is join your religion, believe in your god and your dogma.

It is almost as if your religion is interested in self-propagation of the ideas of your religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

True. But that doesn't mean the religion is necessarily wrong.

No. But it very strongly suggests it.

The point isn't that there is a stick and a carrot. As you say a lot of secular systems work like this. The point is that there is a stick and a carrot to get people to join/accept the religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll happily stick with my 'delusion' of identity as a spirit and body.

And it is because of that why religion continues to exist and propagate.

People want religion, in the same way people want to believe in pyramid schemes or that they might win the lottery each week (even though the odds are far more likely you will get hit by a car).

And the religions are all there to take advantage of this desire.

wolfsbane

CDfm said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The genocide was not a sin - it was commanded by God, as were the sanctions on the other nations.

The Canaanites were guilty of such practices as sacrificing their children in the fire to Moloch; and homosexuality and bestiality. Not the type of people youd want at a picnic.

:D:D

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The genocide was not a sin A sin is an act that disobeys God. If God orders a genocide it is a sin to not carry out a genocide.

10/10.

What the genocide was was vile and immoral.

0/10.

The justification that the civilization being destroy, the men, women, children and infants, some how deserved it because their civilization had carried out vile acts is, to but it mildly, ridiculous and flies in the face of any sort of modern ethical standing.

You are imposing on God - the Creator and owner of all these lives - conditions appropriate only for their peers.

Which goes back to my point to CDfm about the philosophies in Christianity. Christianity, taken as a whole, is a horrific philosophy. Any quaint pleasantries about loving one's neighbor or turning the other cheek has to be taken part and parcel with the justification and excuse of mass genocide on, well, Biblical levels.

It has indeed - and with the coming Judgement and damnation of all similar sinners. As I pointed out above, you see this as horrific only because you refuse to acknowledge God and His right to judge sinful man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Canaanites were guilty of such practices as sacrificing their children in the fire to Moloch
I'm sure the Canaanite children were so pleased then when the Israelites came to save them from this horrible fate by butchering the lot of them all to death.

That wasn't the purpose of the judgement. Sin is primarily an offence against God, even when it is committed against our fellowman.

Why is sacrificing some Canaanite children to Moloch worse that sacrificing all Canaanite children to Jehovah?

Because Moloch was an idol, Jehovah is the true God - and the owner of all life. When He decides to end our lives is up to Him.