The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

....these Campaigning Atheists have defined eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists as 'non-scientists' as well as 'non-persons'...and their writings about Prof Collins indicates that they they now consider ALL Christians who are scientists to be BOTH 'non-scientists' and 'non-persons'. This whole thing is quite Orwellian!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

...again please define 'Evolutionary Morality' .... and do tell us HOW we can divine it's ordinances!!!!!:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

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

With Pleaseure

Immoral = Not moral.

...now define moral!!!!:eek::)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....these Campaigning Atheists have defined Creation Scientists as 'non-scientists' as well as 'non-persons'...and their writings about Prof Collins indicates that they they now consider ALL Christians who are scientists to be BOTH 'non-scientists' and 'non-persons'. This whole thing is quite Orwellian!!!

It seems you certainly like foul mouthing atheists as Anti ALL CHRISTIANS. Here's a question though? How many atheists have foul mouthed you as anti ALL ATHEISTS?? I think that answer would be none. Why not play the game fairly, that post is simply a dig at one side because of their lack of your beliefs. Also Orwell recognised that Christianity was owed alot by society.

Moral = Not Immoral :P
Define Spontaneous Evolution?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...see, some Atheists DO believe in God .... the God being in EVERYTHING ... but especially themselves being God ....

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

....so you ARE quite a little THEIST after all!!!!

....and please DO please reflect on who might ultimately be putting the idea into your mind that you are a god!!!:eek:

......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."

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....and please DO please reflect on who might ultimately be putting the idea into your mind that you are a god!!!:eek:

Actually I attribute that to the Goa'uld that resides within me. Kroi!!
You wouldn't dare challenge the might of the Goa'uld? Your one true God- Kneel Before Maltesk:)

Edit: Come to think of it the ORI were more powerful. Dam, wish I was a Prior , Us Goa'ulds have no chance

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....so you ARE quite a little THEIST after all!!!!

Little Theist, largely Atheist Though.:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

It seems you certainly like foul mouthing atheists as Anti ALL CHRISTIANS. Here's a question though? How many atheists have foul mouthed you as anti ALL ATHEISTS?? I think that answer would be none. Why not play the game fairly, that post is simply a dig at one side because of their lack of your beliefs. Also Orwell recognised that Christianity was owed alot by society.

...I didn't say ALL Atheists ... I said 'Campaigning Atheists' ... and I didn't hear EVEN ONE Atheist on this thread, dissenting from the idea that Creation Scientists weren't 'real scientists' ... and not EVEN ONE Atheist dissented from the calls for ILLEGAL job discrimination against Creation Scientists!!!!

Malty_T wrote: »

Immoral = Not moral.
Moral = Not Immoral

...so you DON'T actually know what morality is beyond a vague feeling that you should 'go with the flow' of society as dictated by those you consider to be your 'elders and betters'!!!!

....so your 'morality' isn't worth the paper that it's not written on!!!!:eek:

Malty_T wrote: »

Define Spontaneous Evolution?

Long definition
"The irrational and scientifically defunct idea that pondslime evolved into Man over billions of imaginary years through lifting itself up by it's own bootstraps in contravention of all known Laws of Probability, Physics, Chemistry and Biology."

Short definition
"Any idea which eliminates God as the Creator of life"

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Little Theist, largely Atheist Though.:)

...that was what Adam and Eve ALSO believed ... and we all know where that got THEM!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Long definition
"The irrational and scientifically defunct idea that pondslime evolved into Man over billions of imaginary years by lifting itself up by it's own bootstraps in contravention of all known Laws of Probability, Physics, Chemistry and Biology."

Short definition "Any idea which eliminates God as the Creator of life"

Still haven't explained what the actual idea is though.
I mean certainly my theory of that we're all trapped within the Matrix of an Alien Civilisation isn't spontaneous Evolution.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually I attribute that to the Goa'uld that resides within me. Kroi!!
You wouldn't dare challenge the might of the Goa'uld? Your one true God- Kneel Before Maltesk:)

Edit: Come to think of it the ORI were more powerful. Dam, wish I was a Prior , Us Goa'ulds have no chance

....every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

...I command you Maltesk, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. to cease fortwith the oppression of this Child of God and to return to from whence you have come.

I would ask all Christians on this thread to join me in this prayer for Malty_T

Mt 6:9 'Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.
10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
13 Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen.'

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Still haven't explained what the actual idea is though.
I mean certainly my theory of that we're all trapped within the Matrix of an Alien Civilisation isn't spontaneous Evolution.

....you speak of the demonic realm of 'Alien' Demons and their 'Matrix' Hell!!!!:(:eek:

...so some 'Atheists' DO believe in the Super-natural ... after all !!!!:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...again please define 'Evolutionary Morality' .... and do tell us HOW we can divine it's ordinances!!!!!:eek:

Evolutionary morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It's known as the golden rule or the ethic of reciprocity and it's present in, for example Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology.

It's common sense, it's built into us by evolution and it's all you need to live a moral life. There are times when religious morality contradicts it such as a disapproval of consenting adults engaging in homosexuality, allowing slavery or saying that women should "not teach and be silent" but in cases such as that, it's the religious morality that needs updating because it was written thousands of years ago when society said those things were acceptable and they no longer are

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Evolutionary morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It's known as the golden rule or the ethic of reciprocity and it's present in, for example Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology.

It's common sense, it's built into us by evolution and it's all you need to live a moral life.

...it might be sensible to practice and expect ethical reciprocity ... but WHERE is the EVOLUTIONARY basis for this idea...surely the maxim of Evolution's supposed competition for resources, would be to do in others before they do you in !!!!:D


....and how do you think that advocating job discrimination in publicly funded institutions against eminently qualified Christians fits into the idea of "Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".
...or are some Atheists masochists, who take pleasure in being on the receiving end of job discrimination themselves????

In any event, Christianity sets a much higher standard than mere ethical reciprocity ... it commands us to love our enemies ... something that we do NOT expect to be reciprocated ... and, as this thread proves, usually ISN'T reciprocated!!!!!

Lu 6:27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...it might be sensible to practice and expect ethical reciprocity ... but WHERE is the EVOLUTIONARY basis for this idea...surely the maxim of Evolution would be to do in others before they do you in !!!!:D

Humans are social animals, we evolved to work together. Helping our fellow man meant that we also survived better. You know the rule makes sense because Jesus said it and it makes exactly the same amount of sense whether it comes from God or not

J C wrote: »

....and how do you think that advocating job discrimination in publicly funded institutions against eminently qualified Christians fits into the idea of "Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I wasn't discriminating, I was pointing out that he was guilty of confirmation bias. If I did it I would want someone to point it out

J C wrote: »

In any event, Charistianity sets a much higher standard than mere ethical reciprocity ... it commands us to love our enemies ... something that we do NOT expect to be reciprocated ... and, as this thread proves, usually ISN'T reciprocated!!!!!

The rule is not "do good unto others so they will do good unto you", it speaks in the conditional tense, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It instructs you to treat them well whether they're actually going to reciprocate or not. They might, they might not but you still treat them the same way. It works both ways too, someone might not reciprocate a good deed but if you commit a bad deed they might go out of their way to reciprocate.

And anyway the rule does cover that. I would not like people to hate me whether they are my enemies or not. It's better for me if no one hates me so the rule instructs that I should not hate because I would not like to be hated

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

....hardly the only person !!!!:eek::)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....hardly the only person !!!!:eek::)

You're probably right there, I'd say it's a common creationist thing to say. My point is that's not what people who actually understand evolution say

:eek::eek::):(:pac::p

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

It seems you certainly like foul mouthing atheists as Anti ALL CHRISTIANS. Here's a question though? How many atheists have foul mouthed you as anti ALL ATHEISTS?? I think that answer would be none. Why not play the game fairly, that post is simply a dig at one side because of their lack of your beliefs.

...Atheists COULDN'T foul mouth me as 'anti ALL ATHEISTS' ... because I LOVE all Atheists ... and it breaks my heart that they are gleefully rushing towards eternal perdition!!!

...and I have NEVER advocated discriminating against them for jobs in public institutions ... indeed, I have found that they make excelllent operational science colleagues!!!!

...it's only when they start speculating about millions of years - and confusing themselves with stories about 'hopeful monsters' and 'miising links' .... that NEVER existed, that I have to disagree with them ... in order to defend the integrity of Science itself!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The rule is not "do good unto others so they will do good unto you", it speaks in the conditional tense, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It instructs you to treat them well whether they're actually going to reciprocate or not. They might, they might not but you still treat them the same way. It works both ways too, someone might not reciprocate a good deed but if you commit a bad deed they might go out of their way to reciprocate.

...is that WHY you advocate discrimination against Creation Scientists then ... because you think that you will get away with it!!!!:(:eek:

...anyway, the so called 'Golden Rule' isn't worth a lot unless it is underpinned by Judeo-Chrisitian Morality ... for example, if a sex pervert wanted to apply the rule of "doing unto others as s/he would have them do unto him/her" ... I would advise running a mile in the other direction!!!!:eek:

...equally, the Golden Rule doesn't provide any protection from a self-cutting masochist with a penchant for being forcibly ... and I'll leave the rest to your imagination!!!!:eek:

The Golden Rule of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" could ACTUALLY be a licence for evil for somebody who believes that they themselves should be sterilised from puberty or somebody who believes that they themselves should be euthanized at 50 !!!!

....so the Golden Rule provides little or no moral guidance in the absence of a complete transcendent moral framework, like the Judeo-Christian one ...
...and the Golden Rule provides little or no protection from (or indeed any objective moral code) with which to assess the behaviour of the morally corrupt, the hypocrite or the pervert!!!

...so what is 'moral' or 'immoral' in the eyes of an Atheist ... and HOW do you justify your moral code, whatever it may be?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Evolutionary morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It's known as the golden rule or the ethic of reciprocity and it's present in, for example Bahá'í Faith, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ancient Egyptian, Hinduism, Humanism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, Roman Pagan Religion, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Unitarian, Wicca, Yoruba, Zoroastrianism, Epictetus, Kant, Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Scientology.

It's common sense, it's built into us by evolution and it's all you need to live a moral life. There are times when religious morality contradicts it such as a disapproval of consenting adults engaging in homosexuality, allowing slavery or saying that women should "not teach and be silent" but in cases such as that, it's the religious morality that needs updating because it was written thousands of years ago when society said those things were acceptable and they no longer are

If it is so inbuilt into us then why do so many of us fail to adhere to it on a daily basis? Or are you one of the few who believe that on a daily basis the golden rule of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is as instinctively adhered to by the masses as any other basic instinct is like eating, keeping warm and so on? When was the last time you 'instinctively' went into town and brought a homeless person back to your house and fed him, clothed him, gave him advice on how he should rebuild his life and then gave him a warm bed for the night, and also gave him some money to stay at a B&B for the next few nights so that he could gather his thoughts and reflect on his life without the distraction of half freezing and starving to death on the streets? The golden rule is no more built into us than stuffing is built into live chickens.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it is so inbuilt into us then why do so many of us fail to adhere to it on a daily basis?

Because firstly evolution isn't perfect and also we're intelligent beings who are able to overrule our instincts. People who are doing wrong still know they're doing wrong. It's built into them but they're ignoring it

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or are you one of the few who believe that on a daily basis the golden rule of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is as instinctively adhered to by the masses as any other basic instinct is like eating, keeping warm and so on? When was the last time you 'instinctively' went into town and brought a homeless person back to your house and fed him, clothed him, gave him advice on how he should rebuild his life and then gave him a warm bed for the night, and also gave him some money to stay at a B&B for the next few nights so that he could gather his thoughts and reflect on his life without the distraction of half freezing and starving to death on the streets? The golden rule is no more built into us than stuffing is built into live chickens.

Unless every single religious person in the world does that you haven't in any way shown that religious morality is better than evolutionary morality. The point is that we instinctively know that it is wrong to hurt others, we don't need an old book to tell us that. People can still overrule it or look at it realistically. I can't take home every homeless person in the world and people regularly rationalise like that whether they're rationalising their instincts or what their holy book says. It being in our instincts does not mean we have to follow it like zombies any more than it being written in a book has ever been shown to make people follow it like zombies

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so what is 'moral' or 'immoral' in the eyes of an Atheist ...

I've already answered that question. We're discussing it right now

J C wrote: »

and HOW do you justify your moral code, whatever it may be?

Through societal consensus as human beings have always done. Society decides what is acceptable and what isn't. If it was taken directly from the bible then values wouldn't have changed in the past 2000 and clearly that's not the case

J C wrote: »

...is that WHY you advocate discrimination against Creation Scientists then ... because you think that you will get away with it!!!!:(:eek:

...anyway, the so called 'Golden Rule' isn't worth a lot unless it is underpinned by Judeo-Chrisitian Morality ... for example, if a sex pervert wanted to apply the rule of "doing unto others as s/he would have them do unto him/her" ... I would advise running a mile in the other direction!!!!:eek:

...equally, the Golden Rule doesn't provide any protection from a self-cutting masochist with a penchant for being forcibly ... and I'll leave the rest to your imagination!!!!:eek:

The Golden Rule of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" could ACTUALLY be a licence for evil for somebody who believes that they themselves should be sterilised from puberty or somebody who believes that they themselves should be euthanized at 50 !!!!

....so the Golden Rule provides little or no moral guidance in the absence of the complete transcendent Judeo-Christian moral framework ... and it provides little or no protection from (or indeed any objective moral code) with which to assess the behaviour of the morally corrupt, the hypocrite or the pervert!!!

The 'Golden Rule' is often not to do unto others as you would have them do unto you...but to do what you like if you think you can get away with it"!!!!

Firstly I think it's hilarious that you're so bad mouthing a direct quote from your lord and saviour

Now, all your examples where someone does things to people that they would like themselves but others wouldn't. I wouldn't like somebody to inflict their personal tastes and beliefs on me if I don't share them so even if I like something, it's not ok to force it on others unless they like it too. The rule covers it (lots of superfluous smilies)

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because firstly evolution isn't perfect and also we're intelligent beings who are able to overrule our instincts. People who are doing wrong still know they're doing wrong. It's built into them but they're ignoring it

It's built into them? If something is built, then it needs a builder. If it's not built in then it's instinctive, so if it is so instinctive then why isn't it practiced instinctively on a daily basis after so many millions of years of evolving it?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unless every single religious person in the world does that you haven't in any way shown that religious morality is better than evolutionary morality.

Christianity is not a teaching of morals which are better than others. It is the good news that for immoral godless and unrighteous people God gave His only begotten Son. That through His righteousness we too can be made righteous. In order to become a Christian you must first recognize that your righteousness is as filthy rags and that in your own effort you can do nothing to attain unto God's righteousness. Only through Christ can we be made righteous and that by faith in what He has already done for us while we were yet ungodly and unrighteous in His sight.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point is that we instinctively know that it is wrong to hurt others, we don't need an old book to tell us that.

Under naturalism there is no such thing as right or wrong. There are no absolutes. Which means that what's wrong for one person does not mean that it is wrong for another person. So under naturalism there are no objective moral values only subjective ones. But the fact that there are objective moral values in reality as you have pointed out (they are built into us) proves that there must be a higher power to which we must give account not only for our actions in the negative but also for our in-action in the positive. But under naturalism there is no survival benefit for acting unselfishly toward another, as it will invariably get you killed early on and hence not be naturally selected for as a good mechanism for survival, and hence will not find a niche in which to flourish, and yet here we are???

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now, all your examples where someone does things to people that they would like themselves but others wouldn't. I wouldn't like somebody to inflict their personal tastes and beliefs on me if I don't share them so even if I like something, it's not ok to force it on others unless they like it too. The rule covers it (lots of superfluous smilies)

But, to Do unto others as you would have them do unto you IS to express your view of the world unto others. That’s what we are all doing in this thread, expressing our worldview to others and trying to show that our view is the right view and that the other's view is not as right as our view. If you are so apposed to people inflicting their tastes on you then you should stop doing the same thing to everyone else here who doesn't share the same view as you.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's built into them? If something is built, then it needs a builder.

Do we really have to have this argument again? Is there even a point in me saying "no it doesn't, evolution does not require intelligence"?

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it's not built in then it's instinctive, so if it is so instinctive then why isn't it practiced instinctively on a daily basis after so many millions of years of evolving it?

It is. Mostly people who do wrong are driven to it in one way or another through poverty, anger, mental illness, desperation etc. You don't walk out your door every morning and get robbed by 50 people before you've even reached the road. People are for the most part good. Good is not universally practiced but again, practicing and knowing are two different things, whether they're following instincts or a book. You be hard pushed to find someone who had no concept that killing was wrong unless they had some kind of mental illness

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christianity is not a teaching of morals which are better than others. It is the good news that for immoral godless and unrighteous people God gave His only begotten Son. That through His righteousness we too can be made righteous. In order to become a Christian you must first recognize that your righteousness is as filthy rags and that in your own effort you can do nothing to attain unto God's righteousness. Only through Christ can we be made righteous and that by faith in what He has already done for us while we were yet ungodly and unrighteous in His sight.

Right so. What does that have to do with not doing things to others that I wouldn't like done to myself?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Under naturalism there is no such thing as right or wrong. There are no absolutes. Which means that what's wrong for one person does not mean that it is wrong for another person. So under naturalism there are no objective moral values only subjective ones. But the fact that there are objective moral values in reality as you have pointed out (they are built into us) proves that there must be a higher power

The fact that humans all think similarly is no more miraculous than that we all have noses or that chinese people have chinese children. It's called evolution mate

If objective morality was instilled by god it would be exactly the same in everyone but values change based on location, time, upbringing, traumatic events, mental illness etc etc etc etc. The entire personalities of people who get bangs on the head can change, they can become horrible people, effectively proving that it's a natural feature of the brain and not stored in the soul somewhere

Soul Winner wrote: »

But under naturalism there is no survival benefit for acting unselfishly toward another,

Yes there is. Just as a wolf who tries to kill his pack will find himself shunned, alone and very soon dead, our species survived better by working together and caring for each other's needs.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

But, to Do unto others as you would have them do unto you IS to express your view of the world unto others. That’s what we are all doing in this thread, expressing our worldview to others and trying to show that our view is the right view and that the other's view is not as right as our view. If you are so apposed to people inflicting their tastes on you then you should stop doing the same thing to everyone else here who doesn't share the same view as you.

The wonder of the golden rule is that the only view you can validly impose on someone is that they cannot impose their views on you. Anything else is forcing your morality on others

panthera

There is no god.SCIENTIFIC FACT.:D

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The wonder of the golden rule is that the only view you can validly impose on someone is that they cannot impose their views on you. Anything else is forcing your morality on others

How can the only view I can validly impose on someone be that they they cannot impose their view on me? You are saying that I should impose on others their non imposition of their view on me? You know what that is called Sam? It's called Fascism.

Soul Winner

panthera wrote: »

There is no god.SCIENTIFIC FACT.

There are a lot of atheists here that would disagree with you on that as they hold that atheism is not necessarily the assertion that there is no God, rather that it is simply the lack of belief that there is such a Being. Big difference! Please show us the scientific FACT that there is no God.

panthera

Fascism
noun
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

AtomicHorror

panthera wrote: »

There is no god.SCIENTIFIC FACT.:D

Incorrect. There is no evidence of the existence of God. That's a fact, but rather a different one to what you are asserting.

Some interesting abiogenesis-related news:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet-found.html

Haven't looked at the research paper yet, but if the findings are confirmed it's quite fascinating. If they can identify nucleotides (the components of RNA and DNA) on icy bodies, then that suggests that the raw materials for abiogenesis may be basically ubiquitous in our solar system.