Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is atheism against evolution?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Where exactly does he say that?
I certainly don't recall him saying anything like that, although I do recall many religious people thinking that he did, after his words were misreported.No he doesn't.
You seem to be taking exception to a position that doesn't exist. Which is a bit silly.
If you don't want to watch all of it then just scroll to about 5 seconds from the end. But on reflection he does say it in the context of Adam being merely symbolic which if true does make Christianity barking mad I suppose. But I suspect that even if it were proven to him that Adam really did exist and that Christ paid the penalty for his sin which enslaved all mankind then he would still think Christianity was barking mad. I agree with his appraisal that the God of the Old Testament can be pretty nasty but then if He exists at all then that is His prerogative. As the giver of life in the first place it is His prerogative to take it as He so pleases, if in fact that’s what he was doing in the cases Dawkins cites. Why didn't God in His wrath just wipe Adam out completely when he sinned? That He didn't is tantamount to His Grace. But then Dawkins would never see it like that would he? He is ever ready to put himself in the position of judge and jury on the God of the OT. Who is he to judge what right morals are? And to what standard does he measure them against? If God doesn’t exist then there is no such thing as objective moral values, there's just whatever behavior is beneficial to the herd’s survival and to continue what Dawkins calls it’s only purpose in life, to propagate DNA. If that’s all true then how can he call a God who doesn’t exist immoral?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ok sorry lads, up to my nads all dayCerebralCortex wrote: »Why should he? God's "Grace" the way you describe it seems very subjective no? I mean where you see grace I see weakness.
Well that sort of states that He can’t win either way. If He’s graceful He’s weak if He kills someone He’s immoral.CerebralCortex wrote: »Who are you to judge?
I'm not judging. I was merely pointing out that Dawkins was judging the God of the OT with a set of values that he seems to have adopted somewhere. Where though is beyond me. If there is no God then how can He be adjudged as immoral by Dawkins? What are morals without God? They are nothing. If we are not created by God then all we are is an accidental chance happening race of beings that came about by a multitude of probabilistic chance happenings on an insignificant and chance happening spec of dust we call planet earth located in a meaningless galaxy floating around in a meaningless and hostile universe destined to die a meaningless death individually or collectively once our sun's energy starts to wane and probably even before that.
So what is Dawkins talking about when he says that the God of the OT is immoral? To be immoral He would have to exist and if He exists then He is the judge of Dawkins not the other way around. Dawkins wants us to draw moral values outside the Bible which is fine enough but wouldn’t that make whatever and whoever we derive them from the anchor point from which to hang our moral codes on? The thing Dawkins forgets when he reads the OT is that things were pretty brutal back then. When there was dispute over land it wasn’t settled in the European Court of Human Rights. It was settled with the sword for the most part. It was kill or be killed even without God’s command. So I’m not sure what way Dawkins would have had them act in certain circumstances.
If God exists and decides to reveal Himself to people and wants a certain race of people to become His oracle to teach the world about Him then He is quite within His right to order the taking of any life that hinders that path. If God doesn’t exist then Dawkins is right. The behavior of these people in the Bible is pretty nasty, as it is without divine command. But if it was with divine command then the things they are ordered to do are their moral duties. For Dawkins to use his moral value system to judge the God of the Old Testament then I wan to know where he derives his moral code from and why. And what would be the circumstances if I transgressed it knowing fully well that whether I keep it or not doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to me in the long run.CerebralCortex wrote: »Probably something a little bit closer to reality than the moral standards peddled to us by the religious. Actually, why are the religious so fixated on morals anyway?
Because without objective moral values we would have anarchy. Everyone doing what they think is right in their own eyes. No moral law to observe and to run one’s life by. People who don’t think rape is wrong going around raping everyone. Or those who don’t think anything about killing someone just going around killing. Society is a beast that needs to be bridled and without a higher moral code there would be no controller to keep it in check. We would just have a wild beast running loose. Without objective moral values society as we know it would collapse. I'm not saying that you have to be religious or be part of any religion in order to have morals. All I'm saying is that they mean nothing without God. Because if there is no God then we will not have to account for our actions in the end. We can do what we like and it won't make any difference because we are all doomed to die anyway and without God that is where it ends. Most people are pretty moral though. They have inbuilt into them some moral standard that they adhere to. Why is a mystery if there is no God to answer to. Where does internal moral compass come from if not God?CerebralCortex wrote: »What is so wrong about that?
There is nothing wrong with it if that’s all that we are. Propagators of DNA. Why? Because if that is all we are then there is no right or wrong, no good or evil there’s just instinct and one man’s (evil) actions are no different to any other man’s (good) actions no matter what there are. But somewhere deep inside everybody is the knowledge that there is a big bloody difference.The "historical evidences" are composed of mutually contradictory texts written by persons unknown years and decades after the supposed events.
Dr. William Lane Craig says it better than I can:
"The problem with focusing on discrepancies is that we tend to lose the forest for the trees. The overriding fact is that the Gospels are remarkably harmonious in what they relate. The discrepancies between them are in the secondary details. All four Gospels agree:
Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem by Roman authority during the Passover Feast, having been arrested and convicted on charges of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin and then slandered before the governor Pilate on charges of treason. He died within several hours and was buried Friday afternoon by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb, which was sealed with a stone. Certain women followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, having observed his interment, visited His tomb early on Sunday morning, only to find it empty. Thereafter, Jesus appeared alive from the dead to the disciples, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of His resurrection.
All four Gospels attest to these facts. Many more details can be supplied by adding facts which are attested by three out of four. So don’t be misled by the minor discrepancies. Otherwise you’re going to have to be sceptical about all secular historical narratives which also contain such inconsistencies, which is quite unreasonable."
If you genuinely want a better understanding of the reliability if the New Testament accounts then I suggest you read this article by Dr. William Lane CraigI would also require physical evidence of a ressurection before believing it rather than mere personal accounts because people are stupid. If I told you that I was ressurected you wouldn't believe me, but if I write it in a book and wait a couple thousand years then apparently its more credible.
What would constitute reasonable evidence as far as you’re concerned?There's also all that other stuff Christians believe in, like a creator God and divine revelation, belief in which I also find to be uncomfortably close to madness.
Madness is being of unsound mind. How can you adjudge someone as being of unsound mind just because they report what they have seen. That's all they are doing. If Jesus was not who He claimed to be then He was definitely of unsound mind. But according to the best sources for His life, death and resurrection He was who He claimed to be. To say that the Gospel accounts are unreliable based on minor discrepancies in accounts is too rash. They deserve better treatment than that. You can only be right in calling them mad and anyone who believes in them mad if they are in fact false. I fail to see based on what you have said so far that can make you come to that conclusion.Finally, if someone refuses to consider evidence that makes them close minded, not mad.
But why on earth would someone refuse to consider the evidence? That smacks more of willful ignorance as well as close mindedness.That's just extremely blinkered, lots of natural explanations would work for example Erich Von Daniken said Jesus' story was perfectly explained by him being an alien visitor with advanced technology. Now if you allow supernatural explanations, ie explanations with no proof and limited only by our imagination then you have an infinite number of explanations including the one that the Bible was written last Thursday by Satan and our memories altered.
Whatever works for you I suppose. If you genuinely think that is a valid explanation then great.And what happens if one makes up their mind that it is nonsense after studying these things, as most people here did?
I think that is a great thing. If you have studied the evidence for the veracity of the documents and have come to that conclusion based on what you have found out then at least you bothered to look. I respect anyone who does that. It’s the ones who have made up their minds prior to such an endeavor that I think lack any clout in talking about such things. Most people who don't believe in the resurrection have never ever studied the subject. Reason? Because they have already decided that such things cannot happen and therefore didn't happen and therefore don't need to study it. I take my hat off to those who have bothered to look and scrutinize every source and method in order to be done with it and have still come away unconvinced. Fair play to those people. But there have been the most brilliant of men who started out to disprove the resurrection and have come back convincing themselves of its truth. Rank atheists too.Well firstly that isn't true as has been discussed on the Christianity forum (probably no need to get into it again).
What ONE natural explanation can explain the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances, the disciples belief that Jesus was raised from the dead? No ONE natural explanation can rationally explain all these facts.Secondly, and more importantly for this discussion, why can't we use a supernatural explanation like you are doing?
Nobody is stopping you. What is it?Or are you saying that there is only one supernatural explanation that can apply?
Yes I believe that is the case. What’s wrong with that? That is not saying that I am not open to listening to other explanations that people genuinely believe to be the best explanation. I’m all ears. Most of the alternatives given here at least are not believed to the best explanation by those putting them forward. They’re just picking them from the air and throwing them into the mixing bowl of alterative explanations. I actually believe my one
CerebralCortex wrote: »Why supernatural? Jesus being an extraterrestrial wouldn't be supernatural at all. Am I wrong? I'm beginning to take a dislike to the use of this word it seems like a great get out of jail free card for those who want to believe something, without natural evidence, as truth.
"Am I wrong Dude!?" - Walter from The Big Lebowski
I like thinking of the term ‘supernatural’ as being simply ‘more natural’. That which is beyond the natural laws governing our universe, the source from which these laws come is not subject to them but is in control of them. How so you might ask? Well if He's powerful enough to set them in motion in the first place surely He can control them as He wills. If He didn't do it in the first place then He doesn't exists.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7XnKjxp_5w
Advertisement