The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

robindch wrote: »

You'd be ok with a scientologist or a member of the christian Branch Davidians taking up the post, would you?

The Branch Davidians were Christian in neither practice or doctrine. However, abhorrent as I find their theology to be, that would be no hindrance to them holding such a post if they possessed the necessary attributes.

However, Robin, you know fine rightly that you have chosen them as an example on account of their practices - so unless you are accusing Francis Collins of child abuse or murder that has no relevance to the subject under discussion.

BTW, any poster tempted to imitate this gratuitous sideswipe and trying to portray Christians as being violent will be taking an extended leave of absence from the forum.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

It is in human nature to be superstitious but atheists usually don't openly embrace superstition.

Care to elaborate?

postcynical

Malty_T wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Sure, I was paraphrasing your post. I agree with Wolfsbane here but morality isn't really my area of interest. What does interest me is the idea of objective morality, or objective truth.

Originally Posted by Malty_T
Common misunderstanding. Atheism, or whatever other system of belief that you choose, does acknowledge morality because it is in human nature to be moral. Morals such as the golden rule
'Treat others as you expect them to treat you' or whatever way you want to paraphrase it, goes back alot further than any of the five great religions.

Originally Twisted by PC
Common misunderstanding. Atheism, or whatever other system of belief that you choose, does acknowledge superstition because it is in human nature to be superstitious. Superstitions such as belief in an afterlife
goes back alot further than any of the five great religions.

Your argument for atheists adopting morals is not a good one, as (under the reasonable assumption that scientists can show an innate human tendancy to superstition) the parallel argument does not apply: atheists do not usually openly adopt superstitions.

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

[/I]Your argument for atheists adopting morals is not a good one, as (under the reasonable assumption that scientists can show an innate human tendancy to superstition) the parallel argument does not apply: atheists do not usually openly adopt superstitions.

I must admit I'm still failing to see your point...
Superstitions are still innate in atheists, it's just that they try to be more rational about them.

Superstitions/morals/emotions/ all come from the same place, the notion that atheists (or anyone else for that matter) cannot have any is to suggest they are not human. We cannot just chuck out part of our brain. Although we can learn to shut it off periodically through meditation

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if he was an out right atheist you wouldn't even care about that. The only reason you care about it in Collin's case is because he is a Christian.

I'm pretty sure the last director of the NIH was a Christian, and I would imagine given the make up of the United Sates that the next director of the NIH will be a Christian. As were the others considered for the job along side Collins.

So no, it is not because he is a Christian.

You always know you have won an argument when the people you are debating with start attacking a position you never made. You know you can't defend Collins' views on science so you guys are all pretending this is about something else, him being a Christian, when it is in fact about his views on science and the supernatural.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The Branch Davidians were Christian in neither practice or doctrine. However, abhorrent as I find their theology to be, that would be no hindrance to them holding such a post if they possessed the necessary attributes.

However, Robin, you know fine rightly that you have chosen them as an example on account of their practices - so unless you are accusing Francis Collins of child abuse or murder that has no relevance to the subject under discussion.

Well done, once again you completely miss the point.

People are singling out Collins because of his practices, not the general fact that he is a Christian.

I would have no problem with a religious person being a psychiatrist. Heck I would have slight concern but no over whelming issue with a Scientologist being a psychiatrist (though I would enquire about his views given the general view Scientologists take to psychiatry).

I would have a major problem with Tom Cruise being a psychiatrist, even if he had put himself through medical school and actually qualified himself, based on his publicly expressed views of psychiatry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262RY

What you guys are all claiming is that we have to ignore Collins' views on science and the supernatural because they are religious in nature and to consider religious views a person has is discrimination.

That is nonsense.

It is discrimination to assume a person holds particular views simply because they are a member of a religious organisation. But when they come out and express those views themselves there is no assumption any more.

It is the assumption that is unfair.

You said you would caution a Christian from entering into business with a non-Christian. That is discrimination. It isn't legally enforceable, you can't stop people doing it, but it is discrimination none the less and simply because it is not illegal doesn't make it any less unfair or distasteful. You are assuming something about a person based not on their expressed views, but on what you assume their views will be.

Now on the other hand if a non-Christian came out and said "I hate the idea of paying taxes, in all my business advantures I always try and get out of it as much as I can" and that didn't sit right with you and you didn't go into business with him or recommended not to go into business with him, that is not discrimination at all. That is you making a decision based on the stated views of the person, not assumed views simply because he is not a Christian.

If I say Tom Cruise should not run the America Psychiatric Association I'm not discriminating against him because he is a Scientologist. I'm not assuming that because he is a Scientologist that he must hold crazy ideas about psychiatry and thus would not be suited to running their association.

He has told me he has crazy ideas about psychiatry! I'm not assuming anything.

If Cruise was trying to go for the director of the APA, if he studied really hard and got a degree in medicine and specialised in psychiatry and becomes a qualified psychiatry, I still wouldn't think he was suitable for the director of the APA. That is not discrimination. The boards wouldn't be going "Well Mr. Cruise you have certainly obtained plenty of qualifications so I don't think we need to look at this video where you say psychiatry is utter nonsense and Scientology is the only way to cure mental illness. To consider that would be religious discrimination wouldn't it. Har har har"

The idea that you would ignore his views on psychiatry because they are influenced by religion would be nuts.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

So unlike Creationism then...
and we were getting on so well ... I hope we can continue our strangely civil discourse despite my moment of weakness in making this jibe.

...I can take a joke!!!!

...I too hope we can continue 'come up out of the trenches' occasionally!!!!:)

philologos

Wicknight: You're getting desperate now. Tom Cruise and Francis Collins differ in so many different ways that it isn't even funny.

If a Scientologist was as qualified as Francis Collins and running for this job while having no clear evidence that their faith interfered with any of their former work (like Francis Collins), I would think they were well chosen.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

To engage in science, at any level, you must be willing to adopt methodological materialsim. This, incidentally, is why creationism and intelligent design are not scientific.

....this is the outrage that Atheists have gotten away with for so many years!!!!

...science is the observaton of the observable ... the agent which has produced an observable phenomenon MAY be Spontaneous and/or Materialistic
OR it MAY have an Intelligent and/or Supernatural Origin.

...if the Atheists wish to go around with one eye closed, then that is their business ... but they should not be allowed to ALSO partially blind every other scientist to the totality of REALITY!!!!:(:eek:

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: You're getting desperate now. Tom Cruise and Francis Collins differ in so many different ways that it isn't even funny.

If a Scientologist was as qualified as Francis Collins and running for this job while having no clear evidence that their faith interfered with any of their former work (like Francis Collins), I would think they were well chosen.

So far we have had references to Scientology, Branch Davidians, Gary Glitter & Tom Cruise. This thread is like reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Has anyone accused Francis Collins of causing the global recession yet?

J C

PDN wrote: »

What do you mean by 'non-scientific falsities'? Are you saying that Collins holds beliefs that have been scientifically falsified? Or are you, from your biased standpoint, equating theism with belief in fairies?

If its the former then that would be a cause for concern. If it is the latter then you would do well to remember that the person who is doing the hiring (Obama) and the majority of the people who stump up the taxes to finance scientific research, share such a belief.

The kind of atheist bigotry I'm seeing in this thread is, IMHO, more anti-science than Creationism. By seeking to discriminate against Collins on the grounds of his religious beliefs it alienates the well-wishers that are needed if scientific research is to be funded and to be successful. If you try to turn scientific research into a purely atheist preserve then don't be surprised if you end up having to pay for your private party by yourselves.

...the Atheists have had the best of both worlds .... they have re-formulated science into their 'own image and likeness' ... and they have used Anti-God propaganda trading under the prestige of Science !!!

...a great achievement .... when you can get away with it!!!!!

...but they have 'overplayed their hand' this time ... and allowed the mask to slip ... and in their haste to criticise Prof Collins have shown MAINSTREAM Christians the outrageous bigots that some of them truly ARE!!!!

...you see, the Atheists were quite safe telling everybody how Creation Scientists, like myself were 'non-scientists' ... even 'non-persons' not deserving of any of the rights normally accorded to ordinary citizens.... and everyone else on this thread (with a few notable exceptions) NEVER ONCE defended me when they did this....

...but now the Atheists have gone and 'blown it all' by making the exact same scurrilous allegations against the Leader of the Human Genome Project and a Theistic Evolutionist to boot!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Jakkass what is the sub-title of Collin's book?

Jakkass
A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

...sounds like my kind of book ... I must get it and read it!!!:pac::):D

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The Branch Davidians were Christian in neither practice or doctrine.

That's a separate discussion, but the BD's certainly seem to think of themselves as christian, as far as I can make out from the elements of their confused bible-derived belief-system.

PDN wrote: »

However, Robin, you know fine rightly that you have chosen them as an example on account of their practices - so unless you are accusing Francis Collins of child abuse or murder that has no relevance to the subject under discussion.

As Wicknight points out, it is relevant to the discussion. If I'd left it out -- I recall that I was going to mention the Aum Shinrikyo group, until the BD's came to mind -- I may well have been pulled up (rightly) for introducing something which was not relevant to a debate in the christianity forum.

PDN wrote: »

[...] trying to portray Christians as being violent [...]

I was certainly not portraying christians in general as being violent, just one tiny and very unfortunate group of people who are -- or were -- far, far away from the mainstream.

And just back on topic, I certainly don't see any reason why there's much of a kerfuffle about Collins. His religious beliefs seem pretty benign and there seems to be no evidence at all they're going to influence negatively his ability to do the job he's being considered for.

The best of luck to him.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Jakkass
A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Malty_T
Which there is plenty of. So, he's perfectly entitled to make the argument as his own personal opinion, which he did, didn't he?

...as you have just admitted, there is plenty of evidence for belief in God ... and therefore Prof Collins is ALSO entitled to draw SCIENTIFICALLY valid conclusions from this evidence AS WELL AS having personal opinions about it!!:eek::(

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No anyone can be a scientist as long as they can separate their personal beliefs from their scientific endeavours. Collins has shown that he has difficulty doing this

...which is 'Atheist Speak' for "anyone can be a scientist as long as they become an Atheist in their scientific endeavours. Collins, as a committed Christian won't do that ... so sack him!!!! :mad::(

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Tom Cruise and Francis Collins differ in so many different ways that it isn't even funny.

Of course they differ, that is irrelevant to the point. What is at debate here is whether you can consider the opinions they express when assessing them for positions if those opinions are religious.

Under your logic we would have to ignore Cruise's opinions on psychiatry because he expressed them as part of his religion.

Which is clearly nonsense. No one would ever do that, nor would they be considered to be religious discrimination. Your logic falls apart. You would have no trouble with Cruise not getting the job running a psychiatry association. But because Collins is a Christian and Harris is an atheist you assume there must be discrimination taking place.

Jakkass wrote: »

If a Scientologist was as qualified as Francis Collins and running for this job while having no clear evidence that their faith interfered with any of their former work (like Francis Collins), I would think they were well chosen.

Yes but we aren't talking about "a" Scientologist, we are talking about Tom Cruise, a specific Scientologist who has expressed specific beliefs about psychiatry.

Assuming without evidence that a Scientologist would hold views that are detrimental to the pursuit of scientific standards in psychiatry would be clear discrimination.

Assuming Tom Cruise would hold views that are detrimental to the pursuit of scientific standards in psychiatry would not be discrimination at all, he is publicly expressed those views on numerous occasions.

People are not objecting because Francis Collins is a Christian. They are objecting because he is Francis Collins.

And the continuation of the "its because he is a Christian" straw man just demonstrates you guys cannot defend what is actually being objected to here.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...sounds like my kind of book ... I must get it and read it!!!:pac::):D

Well there, I rest my case :P

J C

wrote:

robindch;
The set of slides that Myers references up above certainly does suggest that Collins believes things that have no reasonable basis, but I still I haven't seen any convincing evidence that these beliefs influence his scientific work in any way. If there is something out there, then I'd love to see it.

..Robin 'rides to the rescue' of his fellow Atheists ... and not before time either!!!!

...so it was all a bad dream then ... and the Theistic Evolutionists can resume their slumber 'safe in the Arms' and clasped to the heaving busoms of their 'friendly' Atheist buddies!!!!

.....when I click my fingers you will not remember that the Atheists have taken over science ... nor that they believe that only a Janitor's job should be open to Christian Applicants!!!! :eek:

J C

wrote:

robindch
The set of slides that Myers references up above certainly does suggest that Collins believes things that have no reasonable basis, but I still I haven't seen any convincing evidence that these beliefs influence his scientific work in any way. If there is something out there, then I'd love to see it.

..Robin 'rides to the rescue' of his fellow Atheists ... and not before time either!!!!

...so it was all a bad dream then ... and the Theistic Evolutionists can resume their slumber 'safe in the Arms' and clasped to the heaving busoms of their 'friendly' Atheist buddies!!!!

.....when I click my fingers you will not remember that the Atheists have taken over science ... nor that they believe that only a Janitor's job should be open to Christian Applicants!!!! :eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

..Robin 'rides to the rescue' of his fellow Atheists ... and not before time either!!!!

...OK it was all a bad dream... and the Theistic Evolutionists can resume their slumber 'safe in the Arms' and clasped to the heaving busoms of their friendly Atheist buddies!!!!

.....when I click my fingers you will not remember that the Atheists claim to have taken over science ... and they believe that only a Janitor's job should be open to Christian Applicants!!!! :eek:

J C wrote: »

..Robin 'rides to the rescue' of his fellow Atheists ... and not before time either!!!!

...so it was all a bad dream... and the Theistic Evolutionists can resume their slumber 'safe in the Arms' and clasped to the heaving busoms of their friendly Atheist buddies!!!!

.....when I click my fingers you will not remember that the Atheists claim to have taken over science ... nor that they believe that only a Janitor's job should be open to Christian Applicants!!!! :eek:

Ahh hypnosis, only works when you say it twice

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

People are not objecting because Francis Collins is a Christian. They are objecting because he is Francis Collins.

Totally confused now

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Bear in mind that I'm not going to storm the white house to get the guy removed from his position, I'm just trying to explain that what's going on here is not discrimination against christians. It's a worry about one person's published unscientific positions and inconsistencies.

Whether the concerns are valid or not is another question but it's not discrimination against christians

...so you don't give a Christian the job, because he is a Christian .... BUT this is not discrimination against Christians!!!!

...WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHRISTIANS THEN in your hopelessly mixed up MIND????

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...as you have just admitted, there is plenty of evidence for belief in God ... and therefore Prof Collins is ALSO entitled to draw SCIENTIFICALLY valid conclusions from this

Nope he isn't.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

People are not objecting because Francis Collins is a Christian. They are objecting because he is Francis Collins.

It's circular reasoning all the same. It's not because Francis Collins is a Christian, it's because Francis Collins believes in the supernatural and thinks that God is compatible with science, which is pretty much a mainstream Christian belief.

Francis Collins couldn't be more apt for the job. It is who he is and what he has done as a scientist that makes him apt.

I can't help but think you are seriously clutching at straws here. Your views are indefensible in the light of Collins' record, I wasn't actually expecting that you would actually attempt to justify something like this, but here we are.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...which is 'Atheist Speak' for "anyone can be a scientist as long as they can be an Atheist in their scientific endeavours. Collins, as a committed Christian won't do that ... so sack him!!!! :mad::(

I make no secret of that. Religion has no place in a science lab

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope he isn't.

...when there is "plenty of evidence for God" WHY isn't Prof Collins entitled to draw Scientifically Valid conclusions from an OBJECTIVE evaluation of this evidence ?!!!!:(:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so you JUST don't give a Christian the job, because he is a Christian .... BUT this is not discrimination against Christians!!!!

...WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHRISTIANS THEN in your hopelessly mixed up MIND????

No I just don't give Francis Collins a job because of publicly expressed unscientific and inconsistent positions. He's also a man but it's not sex discrimination either

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...when there is "plenty of evidence for God" WHY isn't Prof Collins entitled to draw Scientifically Valid conclusions from an OBJECTIVE evaluation of the evidence and under 'peer review' by non-atheists?!!!!:(:eek:

I'm not going to get dragged into this. The obvious answer is there is plenty of evidence for no God too.
Neither side can win, therefore no conclusion can be drawn.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...which is 'Atheist Speak' for "anyone can be a scientist as long as they can be an Atheist in their scientific endeavours. Collins, as a committed Christian won't do that ... so sack him!!!!

Sam Vimes
I make no secret of that. Religion has no place in a science lab

...you guys have some neck ... is all I will say to that!!!

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I make no secret of that. Religion has no place in a science lab

Whereas atheism should have a place in the science lab? What nonsense :pac:

I wonder if we were discussing Richard Dawkins and his rabid bias and a similar position to Francis Collins would a similar response be given. I think Richard Dawkins as a biologist has a good record just as Collins has a good record. I wouldn't be opposed to either getting an administration position in a scientific field.

Apparently atheists have descended into promoting favouritism in allocating such positions, which is really quite disappointing to say the least.

As PDN said, I think this view is as much anti-science as you claim Creation Science is.