The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Malty_T said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree about human nature. But a real atheist will use his reason to recognise morality is only a biological thing thrown up by evolution - and so is free from any of its claims.
Nonsense! Morality kept us alive as a species, humankind is too far advanced now with over 1000s of years to know that morals are what give us a distinct advantages. It's inbred within us - even if we wanted to we could not lose it, our neocortex is there to give us a conscience.

So you think man, the self-reflective being, is bound by morality even though he recognises it is a 'broad-brush' mechanism of evolution and thus often contradictory?

If so, who is right - the man who thinks homosexuality is abhorrent or the man who thinks it is fine? The man who thinks his wealth and power give him the right to rape anyone he pleases, or the man who thinks any sex outside marriage is wrong?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Mad Hatter said:

So you think a man who recognises that morality is merely a biological conditioning by evolution, is nevertheless bound by its demands? That our self-reflection leads us to conclude we must obey our instincts?

Largely, yes, though I think in a civilised society our instincts should be supported by rational analysis. I also wouldn't say 'merely'.

Just because our morality is a result of evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hence, non sequitur.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, that's a fair summary of the atheist position.

I never said they did. Only that a consistent atheist would hold that there is no real right & wrong. Only current conventions that one may properly violate if one so chooses.
There is 'real' right and wrong but no absolutes. Right and wrong is decided by the society of the time just as it has always been. The big stuff like don't kill, don't steal etc is common across all cultures but some things change like attitudes to women, homosexuality, slavery etc

So homosexuality is wrong if society says so. If you lived 100 years ago, you would have agreed? If you lived in Nazi Germany, you would have agreed that marriage to a Jew was really immoral? If you get a job in Saudi tomorrow you will think drinking alcohol is really immoral?

I'm sorry, if I were an atheist I would find all of that silly, no matter in what age I was.

One cannot violate the current societal morality if one so chooses because society will punish you, be it through prison, shunning, shaming etc. What society considers moral may change over time but that doesn't mean that there can be no backlash for breaking the current moral code

Agreed. As I said, the atheist may have practical reasons for observing contemporary morality, but he has no reason to think any of it is actually right or wrong.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, they recognise they are open to prejudice against creation, but they successfully overcome and are impartial scientists. Not from any of their responses I've read!

Successfully overcoming a prejudice against creationism does not mean they have to accept it. They have investigated it, found it to be completely inconsistent with the observable evidence and therefore rejected it. Ten minutes with a science book and an open mind is all it takes to see the gaping holes in creationism. It doesn't require prejudice

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you think a man who recognises that morality is merely a biological conditioning by evolution, is nevertheless bound by its demands? That our self-reflection leads us to conclude we must obey our instincts?

This is the real problem. You think morality is invalid if it evolved so you're afraid to consider the overwhelming evidence that it did. Morality is a concept of social beings and society is just as capable of punishing transgressions as God, in fact I would argue more so because God does not appear to ever do it

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Largely, yes, though I think in a civilised society our instincts should be supported by rational analysis. I also wouldn't say 'merely'.

Just because our morality is a result of evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hence, non sequitur.

Why should we be in submission to our biological condition? Why are we not free to change what we don't like - our nose, breasts, mental state (drugs), morality? Just because they exist doesn't mean we have to keep them - or does it?

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, they recognise they are open to prejudice against creation, but they successfully overcome and are impartial scientists. Not from any of their responses I've read!
Successfully overcoming a prejudice against creationism does not mean they have to accept it. They have investigated it, found it to be completely inconsistent with the observable evidence and therefore rejected it. Ten minutes with a science book and an open mind is all it takes to see the gaping holes in creationism. It doesn't require prejudice

The scientists who are creationists see it totally differently. Most of them have investigated evolution, found it to be completely inconsistent with the observable evidence and therefore rejected it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you think a man who recognises that morality is merely a biological conditioning by evolution, is nevertheless bound by its demands? That our self-reflection leads us to conclude we must obey our instincts?
This is the real problem. You think morality is invalid if it evolved so you're afraid to consider the overwhelming evidence that it did. Morality is a concept of social beings and society is just as capable of punishing transgressions as God, in fact I would argue more so because God does not appear to ever do it

I'm not questioning if morality was caused by evolution or not. I'm questioning why those who believe it was also believe they are bound by its precepts.

Why should anyone be bound to a biological conditioning? Are we just animals driven by instinct? What place has Reason in the life of an atheist?

J C

DigiGal wrote: »

http://www.stupidshiz.com/media/C874F2D1-1372-527D-08850EFF7C4530A7.JPG

....is quality ultimately not more important than size ???

...or does size only matter to you???:eek::)

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientists who are creationists see it totally differently. Most of them have investigated evolution, found it to be completely inconsistent with the observable evidence and therefore rejected it.

Both you and I know that this isn't true. We can tell it isn't true by the quality of so called "research papers" by creationists.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's an awful lot of pointless waste for a universe that's apparently deliberately designed for us by a perfect designer. That picture, and this one:


Which shows earth as taken by the voyager space probe, would almost make you think that we're an insignificant speck in an infinitely large universe and that it's not designed for us at all

...such is the hopeless worldview of the Atheist....but HERE is the importance which God attaches to the Earth and to individual people therein (and their Salvation decisions):-
Mt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father (knowing).
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

J C

DigiGal wrote: »

All that to contemplate and observe and people are wasting their time arguing about religion...

...for a Christian, who is Saved for eternity, spending some time helping others to be Saved and praising the wonderful God who Saved them, would be the least that they would do ... I would have thought!!!!

...however, IF an Atheist REALLY believes that s/he has just 70 odd years on this Planet ... and after that NOTHING ....it would indeed be a terrible waste of VERY PRECIOUS time to bother debating religion!!!

....this seems to be another IRRATIONAL activity (from their philosophical perspective) that Atheists engage in !!!!:D:)

....and that is why I don't think there are any TRUE Atheists ... most are just anti-God, without a strong view on whether He exists or not...because if they REALLY thought about it .... they would become Theists!!!!:D

J C

PDN wrote: »

Good point. If I were hacking my way through a jungle and suddenly stumbled across a stone obelisk covered in mysterious writing - then I would be justified in inferring that it had not occurred naturally but that someone or something had designed and created it.

The fact that it was not designed for me personally, or even that I hadn't a clue why it was there, would not be an argument against the conclusion that it was designed by someone or something.

....BUT if the writing on the stone claimed that the author died so that YOU (personally) might live ... THEN I think it would be logical to accept that, not only was the stone designed ... but it WAS designed for you PERSONALLY as well!!!!:)

Romans 1 CONFIRMS that God's Created Specified Complexity (on the Earth and beyond) provides UNAMBIGUOUS evidence of His existence and actions ... so that anybody who denies the existence of God is without (logical) excuse in their denial ... and THAT is one of the reasons why the Universe is so amazing!!!

19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {so...: or, that they may be}
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why should we be in submission to our biological condition? Why are we not free to change what we don't like - our nose, breasts, mental state (drugs), morality? Just because they exist doesn't mean we have to keep them - or does it?

Society would break down fairly quickly were we not moral creatures. And morality does change, but in society rather than in individuals. When an individual does something contrary to his or her society's morals, they are seen as an immoral individual, and are shunned by their society or arrested.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Cue the Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot argument and it's relationship to atheism again.

People distort ideologies. This happens with atheism too.

I believe the death toll reached over 100,000,000 people in less than 100 years in state atheist regimes.

This didn't happen because of atheism, but people distorted and used atheism for their personal goals. Likewise atrocities based on religion don't happen because of religion, but because people distort and use it for their own goals. I refer to this as distortionism.

...Satan perverts everything, that he gets his hands on!!!
...and he is just as capable of oppressing or directing an Atheist, who doesn't believe in him, as a Theist, who DOES!!!!:eek:

J C

pts wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what do you think a universe without order but with some form of life in it would look like?

...it would look like an Anti-Christs 'thought processes'!!!!!:eek:

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

The solar system - our immediate enviroment - certainly seems to be. I don't know what physics are involved in the survival of the rest of the universe, but I suspect our solar system in turn depends on a fine-tuned galaxy, and so on.

Where exactly are you getting that idea from???
Current thinking is that this universe is constantly retuning verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy slowly.What makes you think the solar system should be any different???

J C

DigiGal wrote: »

Great I'm being compared to a dictator because I don't belive in religious warfare. Hitler was a good little catholic boy....he killed 6 million jews...why because of their religion

...Hitler was a first rate Anti-Christ ... and he killed Jews primarily because of their RACE...and NOT their religion. The Nurnberg Laws were racially based ... and many Christians with Jewish ancestry were also killed as 'Jews' by Hitler.

He was ALSO an Evolutionist ... and believed in the appliance of SCIENCE to every Evolutionary 'problem' that his evil eugenics mind thought up!!!!!:eek:

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

:):D

[Nothing is ]The logical state of other than Something. I can't think of another option.
God was always there

If God was always there, how can you know what nothing was, if by definition there was always something?

Could I butt in and ask this question that recently struck me? Can one be an atheist and believe in a material universe that is self-aware, ie, that intelligently designs itself? Or is such naturalistic pantheism also taboo for atheists?

Pantheistic Atheist.

I don't respect any false beliefs, but I do the person's right to hold them.

Emmm,I'm afraid I don't understand that
So can I just ask whether you'll allow someone to worship a golden calf in public???

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Hitler was a first rate Anti-Christ ... and he killed Jews because of their RACE.

Godwins law -Your out JC!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have to admit I find it amazing to see someone talk about the earth being created in 7 days and the garden of Eden etc the way I'd talk about going down to the shops. I had heard of people who believed the literal word of the bible but to hear someone talk about it as if it's hard fact is very strange to me

Do the mountains of evidence that conclusively prove it didn't happen that way not trouble you at all?

...I used be an Evolutionist ... and I thought that 6-Day Creation was 'strange' ... but since I was Saved and became a Creationist ... I now think that it is Spontaneous Evolution's claim that 'primordial soup' evolved into Man with nothing added but time and mistakes that REALLY IS STRANGE!!!:eek:

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you think a man who recognises that morality is merely a biological conditioning by evolution, is nevertheless bound by its demands? That our self-reflection leads us to conclude we must obey our instincts?

WTF

Morality is what got us to where we are now, why would we ignore it? I see morality as a process from evolution and I'm certainly not immoral!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...I used be an Evolutionist ... and I thought that 6-Day Creation was 'strange' ... but since I was LOST Saved and became a Creationist ...

FYP:pac:

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Malty_T said:


who is right - the man who thinks homosexuality is abhorrent or the man who thinks it is fine? The man who thinks his wealth and power give him the right to rape anyone he pleases, or the man who thinks any sex outside marriage is wrong?

I think you need to get your moral checked?:pac:
It should be pretty obvious only the dude/dudette who thinks homosexuality is fine and the person who thinks cheating on a wife/husband is wrong : the rest are immoral .

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Society would break down fairly quickly were we not moral creatures. And morality does change, but in society rather than in individuals. When an individual does something contrary to his or her society's morals, they are seen as an immoral individual, and are shunned by their society or arrested.

...so WHO decides on societies 'morals'???

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I used be an Evolutionist ... and I thought that 6-Day Creation was 'strange' ... but since I was Saved and became a Creationist ... I now think that it is Spontaneous Evolution's claim that 'primordial soup' evolved into Man with nothing added but time and mistakes that REALLY IS STRANGE!!!:eek:

That is strange. It's lucky that the only person who has ever made such a claim is you

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sam VimesWhat place has Reason in the life of an atheist?

The only way to find out is to become one :pac:

Reason, is what got us to where you are not.Perhaps, we should ask what place has reason in the religious fundamentalist?
Answer : No place -believe, do not question, do not understand, ignore, ignore ignore!!

Sorry if that seems harsh, but if you imply atheists have no reason, I can do the same for you.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientists who are creationists see it totally differently. Most of them have investigated evolution, found it to be completely inconsistent with the observable evidence and therefore rejected it.

There are no scientists who are creationists. Only people who claim to be scientists to further their agenda. No one who follows the scientific method accepts creationism

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not questioning if morality was caused by evolution or not. I'm questioning why those who believe it was also believe they are bound by its precepts.

Why should anyone be bound to a biological conditioning? Are we just animals driven by instinct? What place has Reason in the life of an atheist?

Morality evolved because it was useful and we'd do well to heed it, just as we'd do well to heed our fight or flight response because it kept our ancestors alive. Just because something evolved doesn't mean it has no rational basis and cannot be reasoned to be good. Saying "god says so" is not the only way to tell a child what is good, asking "would you like that done to you?" and then explaining that they shouldn't do things to others that they wouldn't like done to them works just fine. No god required

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so WHO decides on societies 'morals'???

Society.

Duh.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Could I butt in and ask this question that recently struck me? Can one be an atheist and believe in a material universe that is self-aware, ie, that intelligently designs itself? Or is such naturalistic pantheism also taboo for atheists?

Malty_T
Pantheistic Atheist.

...see, some Atheists DO believe in God .... the God being in EVERYTHING ... but especially themselves being God ....now where did I hear THAT one before????


Ah yes....

......Ge 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."...Satan even told them that THEY could decide on their OWN 'morals' i.e. he promised that they would "be like God, knowing good and evil" i.e determining what is 'moral' and what is 'immoral' without reference to God!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

WTF

Morality is what got us to where we are now, why would we ignore it? I see morality as a process from evolution and I'm certainly not immoral!

....please define 'immoral'!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...see, some Atheists DO believe in God .... the God being in EVERYTHING ... but especially themselves being God ....

Yes but that's still not the personal God that YOU believe in.

With Pleaseure

Immoral = Not moral.
(Yay's an equation finally this thread may be proving something:rolleyes:)