The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Usual get out of jail card played, nice try but how exactly is bandwidth limitation a form of 'redundancy'?

Since an omnipotent being had knowledge of all possible designs, I don't suppose you could enlighten us as to why he picked one that needs factor of 100 compression rates? If he was a camera designer did that he would certainly be queing outside the post office on a Friday Morning.

...our God thinks BIG...and isn't afraid to splash out on a luxury super-abundant eye ... that the miserable Evolution concept of the 'survival of the just about fit' cannot even begin to explain:pac::):D!!!!!

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not meaningless, it is vague.

According to Wikipedia the word is from the Greek "atheos" which literally means a-theos (god), the opposite of god. An atheist is someone who believes in the "opposite of god", what ever that means. It is generally taken to mean someone who rejects God, or does not believe in God.

The question is well what does that mean in every day usage?

Christians encounter the same issues. Poster one says "I'm a Christian", poster two "Ah so you believe X Y Z", poster one "Er, no"

The difference being that an individual can look at the bible and see what makes a Christian. There is a certain amount of objectivity. The way 'atheism' is bandied about, you'd be led to believe its got a nailed down meaning. As for what does it mean in everyday usage, well it generally denotes someone who has gone through a thought process and rejected the notion of God or gods.

I'm not sure why. If one takes atheism to literally mean you do not believe in gods, then a baby is an atheist, as is anyone who has not encountered the concept of gods.

To 'not believe' denotes a thought process. They neither 'believe' nor do they 'not believe', so why someone would want to start labelling them based on concepts that are foreign to them is just ridiculous.

A baby doesn't believe in the Big Bang theory either

And it would be stupid to say about a baby, 'He doesn't believe in the big bang'. A baby doesn't 'not believe' in the big bang neither. He simply has no idea, interest etc in such a concept. So again, why some folk feel the need to believe that baby's are atheists is beyond me

, I'm not sure why that would annoy anyone.

Have you come across people who are annoyed about it? Or are you mistaking my tone of perplexion as annoyance?

Anyway, there's no doubt its a silly notion. Strange why anyone would even want to apply the label in the first place. Maybe its to push an idea that religion corrupts this 'natural state' or something. Who knows what motivates such sillyness.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...our God thinks BIG...and isn't afraid to splash out on a luxury super-abundant eye ... that the miserable 'survival of the just about fit' concept of Evolution cannot even begin to explain:pac::):D!!!!!

A cursory glance at the facts suggests the exact opposite is the case. A huge are of dead pixels in the middle of the screen, retina fitted inside out, low capacity transmission.

J C wrote: »

...it is nit picking because the 'compression' that you speak of is clearly a form of Intelligently Designed redundancy.

Much more intrested in this bit, how exactly is bandwidth limitation a form of 'redundancy'? Birds of prey have no such bandwith problems.

marco_polo

While wondering why you were ignoring the post below I reread this bit of a previous post.

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with that idea, is that functionality is highly specific and localised, in the case of living systems...so, for example, if the putative pre-cursor of Rhodopsin (which is a key component of the Eye Retina) was actually in some creature's big toe ... it would NEVER become functionally useful, even if by some miracle, Rhodopsin were ever to be formed within the toe, in the first place.

I did some research on this point out of curiosity and I am almost embarrassed to point it out as I am sure a scientist of your eminent standing knows this already, however I discovered that the main component in Rhodopsin is opsin, several non visual types of which are used elswhere in the body.



You missed this post too.

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with that idea, is that functionality is highly specific and localised, in the case of living systems...so, for example, if the putative pre-cursor of Rhodopsin (which is a key component of the Eye Retina) was actually in some creature's big toe ... it would NEVER become functionally useful, even if by some miracle, Rhodopsin were ever to be formed within the toe, in the first place.

marco_polo wrote: »

Like alpha-crystallin?, which bends light and as a result of it high refractive index, enables the lens of the eye to focus light on the retina. Of course because in the case of living systems functionality is so highly specific and localised it could never become functionally useful elsewhere.


Except as a heat shock protein in all eukaryotic cells and many bacteria of course. :rolleyes:

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

....and no, I'm NOT over-reacting ... an accusation of Child Abuse, in the current environment is a VERY SERIOUS issue indeed!!!:eek::(

So you think that filling a childs head with the idea that he must stone to death all infidels, or that if they work on the "Sabbath" they will spend the rest of eternity in "hell", never mind the various punishments for apostasy! isn't child abuse?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

To 'not believe' denotes a thought process. They neither 'believe' nor do they 'not believe', so why someone would want to start labelling them based on concepts that are foreign to them is just ridiculous.

Ok, but what would you term someone who does not believe something not because they have rejected it but because they have not encountered the idea?

A person living 4,000 years ago in Australia was not a Christian. I can be pretty confident of that. That doesn't imply that they have heard Christianity and decided to reject it. They haven't. But they are still not a Christian. You wouldn't say they are not not a Christian either. They are simply not a Christian, simply as. They do not believe in Christianity simply because they have never encountered it.

So if someone is using the term atheism to simply mean someone who is not a theist, then that context makes perfect sense when applied to babies. Babies are not theists.

Now I agree with you that I feel there is something to be said for atheism as a rejection of a belief, but I can certainly understand where Robin is coming from.

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, there's no doubt its a silly notion. Strange why anyone would even want to apply the label in the first place. Maybe its to push an idea that religion corrupts this 'natural state' or something. Who knows what motivates such sillyness.

I doubt it, considering that children tend to invent theistic ideas in the absence of them. You may be born an atheist but you don't stay one for long. And since I imagine Robin agrees with that (it is well supported) I doubt this was his motivation.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, but what would you term someone who does not believe something not because they have rejected it but because they have not encountered the idea?

I would not feel the need nor the requirement to call them anything We don't refer to children in such ways. Babies don't believe in chess. Babies don't believe in gravity. babies don't believe in space. Babies don't believe in Canada. babies don't believe in the internet. ETC. What a stupid concept it is to talk about children in such terms.

A person living 4,000 years ago in Australia was not a Christian. I can be pretty confident of that.

Well the fact that Christ didn't come until around 2000 years ago I think you are correct:)

That doesn't imply that they have heard Christianity and decided to reject it. They haven't. But they are still not a Christian. You wouldn't say they are not not a Christian either. They are simply not a Christian, simply as. They do not believe in Christianity simply because they have never encountered it.

'We have found a tribe in Australia who are theists'
'We have found a tribe in Australia who are atheists'

That makes sense because its actually interesting information. These people would have a capacity to 'believe' or 'not believe' things.

'Babies don't believe in God'.

'Babies don't believe that they are atheists'

'They don't believe that they are not atheists'

'they don't believe you exist'

'They don't believe 'YOU' exist.

'They don't believe in spagetti'

Its such a dumb concept to try to argue.

Again, why would you want to cal them anything? A bizarre concept.

So if someone is using the term atheism to simply mean someone who is not a theist, then that context makes perfect sense when applied to babies. Babies are not theists.

Babies are not anything. So why would someone want firstly define a vague concept a certain way (atheism). Then pick out of all the things in the world that a baby doesn't believe in (which is practically everything), and apply it? Whatever technicalities that are discussed, and however pedantic we can get, the bottom line is that it is silly and meaningless. Now the fact that seemingly smart folk do it, suggests to me that there is more to it. Though maybe its just sillyness. Who cares I suppose. Its just moronic.

Anyway, definately this time thats me done.


.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

We don't refer to children in such ways. Babies don't believe in chess. Babies don't believe in gravity. babies don't believe in space. Babies don't believe in Canada. babies don't believe in the internet.

Yes, and they don't believe that god exists either, and there's a word for that

JimiTime wrote: »

Now the fact that seemingly smart folk do it, suggests to me that there is more to it.

A good place to leave this argument, I suppose?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and they don't believe that god exists either, and there's a word for that

Tell me, do they 'not believe' in God? If you asked a 4 year old with no exposure to such concepts. 'Do you believe in God. What would he say?

1.) Yes.
2.) No.
3.) What?

This gives the best insight IMO.

A good place to leave this argument, I suppose?

Tbf, I'm more deriding than arguing:) As a matter of interest though, what is your motivation for trying to push this notion? Or if push is too strong a term, thinking it? It is a curious rationale.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Much more intrested in this bit, how exactly is bandwidth limitation a form of 'redundancy'? Birds of prey have no such bandwith problems.

...birds of prey are an amazing miracle of minutarisation by our Creator...with an Intelligently Designed pea-sized eye and a bean-sized brain .... that has huge 'bandwith' communication between them!!!!:pac::):)

...and the reason that Humans aren't similarly equipped with visual acuity is that we don't need to routinely spot and swoop upon 'rodent dinners' at distances of 1,000 paces!!! :pac::):D

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

So you think that filling a childs head with the idea that he must stone to death all infidels, or that if they work on the "Sabbath" they will spend the rest of eternity in "hell", never mind the various punishments for apostasy! isn't child abuse?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...as a Christian, I do not teach such ideas!!

... I teach my children about God's perfect love and His perfect justice (in that order) ... and I teach them about the existence of Heaven and Hell (in that order)!!!!

I also tell them of the scientific proofs for Direct Creation and the limitations of Evolutionary Theory (again in that order).

...and finally I point out the reality of God's Moral Laws and the benefits of obeying them and the disaster of not obeying them...

...and, of course I also point out the critical importance of being Saved and reading God's Word in the Bible!!!

...I do not consider it to be Child Abuse to inform my children about these matters ... but I do consider the recent loud proclaimations by Militant Atheists of a supposed linkage between religious teaching and Child Abuse to be a very sinister development indeed ... and I do believe that it should be vociferously and vigorously challenged wherever and whenever it is encountered!!!!:pac::):D

...this relatively recent development, indicates that Militant Materialists are no longer content to merely indoctrinate our children in school and via the mass media with their Evolutionist and Atheistic ideas ... they are now conditioning the public ... to acquiesce in the forcible removal of Christian children from our homes, under the spurious pretext that handing on our God-given faith is a form of CHILD ABUSE!:(:eek:

....and many churches are so debilitated that they appear to have neither the ability nor the inclination to challenge this very ominous development!!!!:eek:

philologos

I just hope that these ideas don't ever actually motivate the law. For people who advocate secularism you are quite happy to interfere in peoples belief, and you are quite happy to attempt to separate people from their faith. That's state atheism, not secularism.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...and the reason that Humans aren't similarly equipped with visual acuity is that we don't need to routinely spot and swoop upon 'rodent dinners' at distances of 1,000 paces!!! :pac::):D

Now you're getting it!

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I just hope that these ideas don't ever actually motivate the law. For people who advocate secularism you are quite happy to interfere in peoples belief, and you are quite happy to attempt to separate people from their faith. That's state atheism, not secularism.

...Secularists don't believe in God having any honour or role in Civil Society ... so they don't believe in the Divine precept to Render unto Caesar the things of Caesar ... and unto God the things of God.
...for a secularist, EVERYTHING is of Caesar ... and that is why this attempt to link the teaching of Christian Fath with Child Abuse REALLY IS such a sinister development!!!!

I too hope that these ideas don't ever actually motivate the law ... but I wouldn't bet on it!!!

Lu 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...and the reason that Humans aren't similarly equipped with visual acuity is that we don't need to routinely spot and swoop upon 'rodent dinners' at distances of 1,000 paces!!!

Mickeroo
Now you're getting it!

...sorry to disappoint you Mick ...
... while the reason that Birds of Prey RETAIN their visual acuity may be because of Natural Selection ... NS CANNOT EXPLAIN how they came to have the visual acuity, in the first place...
....and the miserable concept of the 'survival of the just about fit' using a series of 'happy mistakes' cannot even begin to explain it!!!!!:)

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

...as a Christian, I do not teach such ideas!!

... I teach my children about God's perfect love and His perfect justice (in that order) ... and I teach them about the existence of Heaven and Hell (in that order)!!!!

I also tell them of the scientific proofs for Direct Creation and the limitations of Evolutionary Theory (again in that order).

...and finally I point out the reality of God's Moral Laws and the benefits of obeying them and the disaster of not obeying them...

...and, of course I also point out the critical importance of being Saved and reading God's Word in the Bible!!!

...I do not consider it to be Child Abuse to inform my children about these matters ... but I do consider the recent loud proclaimations by Militant Atheists of a supposed linkage between religious teaching and Child Abuse to be a very sinister development indeed ... and I do believe that it should be vociferously and vigorously challenged wherever and whenever it is encountered!!!!:pac::):D

...this relatively recent development, indicates that Militant Materialists are no longer content with merely indoctrinating our children in school and via the mass media with their Evolutionist and Atheistic ideas ... they are now conditioing the public ... to acquiesce in the forcible removal of Christian children from our homes, under the spurious pretext that handing on our God-given faith is a form of CHILD ABUSE!:(:eek:

....and many churches are so debilitated that they appear to have neither the ability nor the inclination to challenge this very ominous development!!!!:eek:

It worries me that you have children to brainwash with this drivel.

And please elaborate on the phrase "scientific proofs for Direct Creation", because to me it sounds like some sort of oxymoron.

philologos

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

It worries me that you have children to brainwash with this drivel.

And please elaborate on the phrase "scientific proofs for Direct Creation", because to me it sounds like some sort of oxymoron.

And your post wasn't drivel?

Parents have a right to teach their children about morals and ethics, and luckily they are given the opportunity and the discretion to decide for yourself.

State atheism has no place in an impartial legislature and in law.

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

...sorry to disappoint you Mick ...
... while the reason that Birds of Prey RETAIN their visual acuity may be because of Natural Selection ... NS CANNOT EXPLAIN how they came to have the visual acuity, in the first place...
....and the miserable Evolutionist concept of the 'survival of the just about fit' using a series of 'happy mistakes' cannot even begin to explain it!!!!!:)

You clearly know nothing about evolution, try reading one of the many books on the subject.(the selfish gene) Or even watching one of the many documentaries on the subject ie. the blind watchmaker, and nice guys finish first.etc etc etc.

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

It worries me that you have children to brainwash with this drivel.

...I wonder how quickly 'worry' can get translated into action????

...in our modern society, it can be VERY RAPIDLY indeed!!!!

...THEY ARE MY GOD-GIVEN CHILDREN ... and NEITHER YOU NOR ANY OTHER SELF-APPOINTED MATERIALIST WILL TAKE THEM FROM ME ... to fill them full of irrational contradictions and amoraliy!!!!!!:(:eek:

... I would urge all Christians to seriously evaluate the exchanges on this thread on this issue ... and I know that any fair-mided person will agree that there is indeed a real danger that Christian Children could be from their parents... and I know of a few cases WHERE IT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED!!!!!!!!:(:eek:

...not in Ireland, as far as I am aware ... but in another Western Country!!!!

The Mad Hatter

Moving from mere conspiracy theory into genuine fear-mongering I see, J C.

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

You clearly know nothing about evolution, try reading one of the many books on the subject.(the selfish gene) Or even watching one of the many documentaries on the subject ie. the blind watchmaker, and nice guys finish first.etc etc etc.

...the SELFISH GENE ... and NICE GUYS FINISH FIRST...an irrational contradiction, if ever I saw one!!!
...or perhaps an attempt to 'sweeten the bitter pill' that Evolution truly is!!!

...the concept of a selfish ... nice guy does require plenty of mental dexterity ... that only materialists seem to be capable of!!!!:eek:

...by the way I have read both the Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker !!!

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Moving from mere conspiracy theory into genuine fear-mongering I see, J C.

...I'm not the guy who said that Religious Teaching is Child Abuse...
...and Diarmaid confirmed that Materialists DO have 'worries' about Christian Children in Christian homes ... actually, specifically my children in my home!!!!

...so I'm not making it up ... nor engaging in fear mongering ... the threat to the transmission of the Christian Faith is VERY REAL!!!:eek::(

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

...the SELFISH GENE ... and NICE GUYS FINISH FIRST...an irrational contradiction, if ever I saw one!!!
...or an attempt to 'sweeten the bitter pill' that Evolution truly is!!!

...by the way I have read both the Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker !!!

So that's why you believe what you believe!! - You prefer the ideas of fairy tales and happy endings* to the "bitter" idea of truth.

Or you just don't have a head for science, and like to fall back on the fluffy idea of "god".

Answer me this one question (without using bull****;)) - If "god" made people and animals and trees and the rest of the universe - what kind of supernatural being made god? -and why don't you pray to him?!

philologos

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Answer me this one question (without using bull****;)) - If "god" made people and animals and trees and the rest of the universe - what kind of supernatural being made god? -and why don't you pray to him?!

Your question concerning the infinite regress in the cosmological argument has already been answered by many philosophers including James Sadowsky. Get a decent book on Philosophy of Religion it'll help you a lot

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

...I'm not the guy who said that Religious Teaching is Child Abuse...
...and Diarmaid confirmed that Materialists DO have 'worries' about Christian Children in Christian homes ... actually, specifically my children in my home!!!!

...so I'm not making it up ... nor engaging in fear mongering ... the threat to the transmission of the Christian Faith is VERY REAL!!!:eek::(

Just because atheists don't believe in a "god" doesn't mean that we don't care about those close to us, so I would appreciate it if you stopped using the phrase "Materialist".

DiarmaidGNR

Jakkass wrote: »

Your question concerning the infinite regress in the cosmological argument has already been answered by many philosophers including James Sadowsky. Get a decent book on Philosophy of Religion.

I said - no bull****.

philologos

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

I said - no bull****.

It depends on what you classify as BS, I don't consider legitimate academia in the field of philosophy to be BS.

DiarmaidGNR

Jakkass wrote: »

It depends on what you classify as BS, I don't consider legitimate academia in the field of philosophy to be BS.

I consider the majority of books on religious philosophy to be BS.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I would not feel the need nor the requirement to call them anything

I imagine you would if you were discussing Christianity or religious belief. You may think that it should be obvious that a baby or child does not believe anything with relation to God, but how many times do you encounter people saying that baby such and such is a Christian baby, or a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. They aren't. They are an atheist baby, they do not believe in any of these concepts. Saying the baby doesn't believe anything and saying it is an atheist are the same things (given the context that Robin is using the term)

JimiTime wrote: »

We don't refer to children in such ways. Babies don't believe in chess. Babies don't believe in gravity. babies don't believe in space. Babies don't believe in Canada. babies don't believe in the internet. ETC. What a stupid concept it is to talk about children in such terms.

Well yes, that is the point.

In fact a lot of atheists, such as Sam Harris, think the need for the word "atheist" itself is some what silly even applied to adults since it is a default position. You become a theist by believing in a theistic religion. Until you do that you are an atheist. You do not believe. People do not believe things without being exposed to them.

But since the whole world is religious, like a vegetarian, a person is often defined by what they don't believe because that is a smaller set within the bigger group of common belief. Often the default is religious belief and if you are outside that group you get a special name for that.

JimiTime wrote: »

'Babies don't believe that they are atheists'

Atheism isn't a belief. It is either the absence of a belief or the rejection of a belief.

Used in the context Robin is using it you do not need to be aware that you do not belief something. Atheist is a description of the state of someone's beliefs.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, why would you want to cal them anything? A bizarre concept.

Well often you want to call them something because someone has already called them say a Christian or Muslim baby. This is one of Dawkins pet peeves, inferring that a baby born to Christian parents is Christian.

We have long long discussions on the A&A forum that atheism is not a belief system. I think part of your issue may be that you think by calling a baby an atheist someone is implying that they believe certain things. They aren't. Atheism is not a belief system. It is the description of the state of someone's beliefs. Depending on how you are using it the person either a) does not believe in God or b) has rejected the concept

To call a baby an atheist is not to suggest what the baby believes, as you say babies don't believe anything, it is merely a description of the baby, the same as saying it is a human or a carnivore.

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

So that's why you believe what you believe!! - You prefer the ideas of fairy tales and happy endings* to the "bitter" idea of truth.

Or you just don't have a head for science, and like to fall back on the fluffy idea of "god".

....I prefer the TRUTH ... whatever it may be ... and the empirical evidence points towards God!!!!!

...and could I remind you that the Sovereign Creator of the Universe ISN'T 'fluffy' ... His infinite Justice is tempered by His infinite love!!!!

I fear His Justice and I rejoice in His love!!!!

...and for the Unsaved there is no 'happy fairytale ending' ... only the nightmare of everlasting Hell, as a result of being on the receiving end of God's perfect Justice!!!!

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Answer me this one question (without using bull****;)) - If "god" made people and animals and trees and the rest of the universe - what kind of supernatural being made god? -and why don't you pray to him?!

... God is logically transcendent to His Creation ... and is therefore logically eternal in both directions (i.e. He has always existed and always will exist).

...and because God is Monotheistic, Omnipotent and Omniscient there is no other God before or after Him ... so we don't need to pray to any other non-existent 'god'!!!!!