The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is those who actively seek after God - even without being initially sure He exists or is willing to be found - that find the verification. The pudding is the reality of God, and you only know for sure if you taste and see.

Orange juice tastes awful after toothpaste.
Our eyes and brain : How many F's do they let you see?.
Reliance on the senses : priceless.

I've actively tried seeking God on a few occasion. I haven't stopped, but I've just accepted that the Christian Judeo one is far too simple for what's out there.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wonder how that applies to the conservative, church going, Bush appointed Republican judge who declared intelligent design not to be science when all of its claims were spectacularly debunked in the Dover trial. When everyone is against you, sometimes it's because everyone in the world is engaged in a conspiracy to pretend that what they're supporting has withstood 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and is as well supported as the theory of gravity because their egos won't allow them to see "the truth" but sometimes it's because you're wrong and the reason you can't convince anyone is because you keep getting proved wrong over and over

War on creation, continued
http://creation.com/war-on-creation-continued#jones
This is US federal judge John E. Jones III, whose previous claim to fame was on the State Liquor Control Board, but is now known as ‘the moderate, thoughtful and universally well-regarded Bush-appointed Judge Jones’, giddy with excitement that this case would finally get him noticed—he even made the cover of Rolling Stone! But it is silly to look to a judge to define good science, and justify banning all criticisms of a theory. [Update: a new analysis shows that Jones’ verbose (139 page) decision was largely plagiarized from the ACLU submission. The report summary states:

In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.]

Judge copied ACLU in anti-intelligent design ruling
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330

A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with
Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Orange juice tastes awful after toothpaste.
Our eyes and brain : How many F's do they let you see?.
Reliance on the senses : priceless.

I've actively tried seeking God on a few occasion. I haven't stopped, but I've just accepted that the Christian Judeo one is far too simple for what's out there.

I saw 6 f's, ergo, God is real.

The Christian God is far too simple? But doesn't lord Dawkins say God is much too complex? If He created the universe, then He must be more complex, right?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

War on creation, continued
http://creation.com/war-on-creation-continued#jones
This is US federal judge John E. Jones III, whose previous claim to fame was on the State Liquor Control Board, but is now known as ‘the moderate, thoughtful and universally well-regarded Bush-appointed Judge Jones’, giddy with excitement that this case would finally get him noticed—he even made the cover of Rolling Stone! But it is silly to look to a judge to define good science, and justify banning all criticisms of a theory. [Update: a new analysis shows that Jones’ verbose (139 page) decision was largely plagiarized from the ACLU submission. The report summary states:

In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.]

Judge copied ACLU in anti-intelligent design ruling
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330

A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with
Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186

Wolfsbane, as I've said to you before, I have no interest in anything any of those websites have to say. You can call me blind if you want but I have given those websites and their claims far more of my time than they deserve. Their persistence in putting forward deliberately false claims that have been proven wrong years ago has made me lose interest. As someone who appears to be debating honestly I will engage with you but there is no point entertaining someone who is not being honest, they don't care who's right, only in putting forward their agenda by any means necessary

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note your faith in the impeccability of scientists - at least, those in line with establishment views.

Don't be stupid. We have discussed at length a thousand times that the "impeccability" of scientists is irrelevant since they have to demonstrate their theories independently to their own biases

You are just trolling now, and it is getting rather annoying.

wolfsbane wrote: »

From what I have seen in their internecine spats, that is not as solid as you make out.

I've never made any such thing out. Stop lying :mad:

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

I saw 6 f's, ergo, God is real.

A real word yes.
Btw...Chozo you are rare exception; definitely not human!:p

The Christian God is far too simple? But doesn't lord Dawkins say God is much too complex? If He created the universe, then He must be more complex, right?

Yep he did, in pointing out a flaw in the infinite regress of needing an uber complex God to explain the universe and each God that followed.
Doesn't contradict my view that the Christian God is far too simple for such complexity:p
Ignosticism ftw:)

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

It seems to me that atheists have faith in that they believe science will actually reach some sort of unspecified truth at some point.

Given that it is a corner stone of science that you can never know something for absolute certain, never know absolutely "truth", that would be a funny thing for an atheist to have faith in, since it goes against the principles of science.

I often think that it is theists, who are used to believing they know absolute truth, who have a hard time thinking like an atheist (who often rejects that it is possible to know absolute truth) and as such tends to think atheists think like them, just with science instead of divine revelation.

That would be a pretty inaccurate way to view atheists.

chozometroid wrote: »

I see no reason to believe this. You will always gain further information, but it's no reason to believe you will ever have things right.

Good reason not to be a theist then, isn't it?

chozometroid wrote: »

They become more advanced and knowledgeable about the subject through theoretical observation, yet actually never come close to the truth.

That is actually a pretty good way of putting it.

But let me guess, you think theists do come close to the truth by merely following their gut feelings?

chozometroid wrote: »

That said, I see atheists being responsible people as far as trying to be fair and impartial about what is true. Skepticism regarding any random claim is definitely not a bad thing. The problem is the hostility towards the idea of God, especially if God is real, and we as humans have the right to live spiritual lives and accept God as authority, which may not be respected by atheists.

You have the right to believe anything you want. But equally people have the right to point out the hypocrisy when you lambaste science for its limitations (which science itself recognises) yet embrace utterly untestable faith based beliefs.

chozometroid wrote: »

Atheists may have the best chance at creating a world where everyone has equal rights, society is ran fairly and efficiently, and the search for knowledge is the number one priority. This world would inevitably reduce humanity to a society of organic robots whose sole purpose is to further the race as a whole and find ways to evolve into higher creatures, all at the loss of the individual.

Wow. What exactly have you been reading?

Have you ever read a humanist manifesto? You will notice a distinct lack of mention of organic robots and "evolve into higher creatures" (such an idea demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of evolution, since there are not "higher" creatures)

chozometroid wrote: »

One must question what the point is, in the first place.

I think that before one questions what the point is one should probably question if that is actually what atheist and humanists believe or want?

I might as well argue that all Christians want to kill heretics :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't be stupid. We have discussed at length a thousand times that the "impeccability" of scientists is irrelevant since they have to demonstrate their theories independently to their own biases

You are just trolling now, and it is getting rather annoying.



I've never made any such thing out. Stop lying :mad:

Who determines that they have demonstrated their theories independently to their own biases?

You say the theory has been supported by the findings of these scientists. I say their findings are open to debate, as scientists differ.

You say their work speaks for itself. I say two or more completing views can't all be right. I point out further more that they at times rubbish each others work as non-science while vigorously defending their own.

Yet you ask me to accept that their conclusions about evolution must be accepted as demonstrated. If they don't accept their evolutionary opponent's work on that basis, why should I accept their dismissal of creationism and believe your assertion that the fossil record supports them?

Seems to me your assertion of the credibility of their work depends on your belief that what they are claiming is beyond debate. It's not.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

A real word yes.
Btw...Chozo you are rare exception; definitely not human!:p


Yep he did, in pointing out a flaw in the infinite regress of needing an uber complex God to explain the universe and each God that followed.
Doesn't contradict my view that the Christian God is far too simple for such complexity:p
Ignosticism ftw:)

Funny, but you just got my mind reeling with some different ideas..

Perhaps God is not uber complex, but just plain different. If God has some sort of substance, whether it be spiritual or multi-dimensional "wave") and it is not physical, then how would it be more or less complex than the physical universe He created? Perhaps God is more simple, but His nature (be it spiritual and/or some wavelength that pervades all of creation)allows Him to have access to all information in the universe without actually consisting of that information.
Through what would be an effortless shift in state, He could create particles, and energy, and have instant access to their information. This may also explain why God is naturally true and just. His nature requires a certain state, and things of a different state (spiritual or wavelength if you will) are in conflict. Sin results in a change of state of His creation. God created us to have our own will and impact on the world, and we have fallen out of tune with His state. By inviting His Spirit into us, we get closer to His state. He stablizes us and helps us to act more closely in accordance with His original standard of perfection.
Of course it's a bit hard to go in-depth when trying to explain the spiritual and what sort of reality or substance it exists in. But if it is even possible to explain in human terms with the human mind a theory on how God works, my theory that it is some sort of wave system will have to do for now. It would follow that quarks are made of waves. Waves themselves are the result of spiritual pulse fluctuations. .....okay I'm done.

Science and religion both come to a dead end at some point, and both sound equally out of their minds when they get there.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow. What exactly have you been reading?

Have you ever read a humanist manifesto? You will notice a distinct lack of mention of organic robots and "evolve into higher creatures" (such an idea demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of evolution, since there are not "higher" creatures)

I think that before one questions what the point is one should probably question if that is actually what atheist and humanists believe or want?

I might as well argue that all Christians want to kill heretics :rolleyes:

Can you tell me what the pinnacle of atheist endeavor is supposed to be? What sort of world is ideal?
What should people try to do with their lives?
Are emotions worth having, or do they cause more trouble than they are worth?
Why should our emotions matter?
Do you believe life has meaning?
What should be the goals of an individual who believes life has meaning because they can make difference for the human race?
Does it matter if the human race ends today or in 20,000 years?
Should our goal as a species be to increase our life span indefinitely?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who determines that they have demonstrated their theories independently to their own biases?

The standards of science! That is the point.

Who determines that a mathematician has demonstrated his maths problem independently to his own bias. The standards of maths.

Mathematician - I've solve this problem
Other mathematicians - Er, no you haven't, look here
Mathematician - Silence!

wolfsbane wrote: »

You say the theory has been supported by the findings of these scientists. I say their findings are open to debate, as scientists differ.

That is because you are confusing findings with conclusions.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You say their work speaks for itself. I say two or more completing views can't all be right.

Which is why the work speaks for itself. Evolutionary biologists are right and Creationists are wrong because the work speaks for itself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yet you ask me to accept that their conclusions about evolution must be accepted as demonstrated.

I'm not asking you anything. You are one of the most close minded people I've ever discussed this with, I doubt you would accept evolution even if you did see a dog give birth to a cat!

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they don't accept their evolutionary opponent's work on that basis, why should I accept their dismissal of creationism and believe your assertion that the fossil record supports them?

If you were interested, genuinely interested, you would look at the research itself. You aren't, so you don't. You rely on people who agree with you to tell you what to believe, and you dismiss people who don't agree with you no matter what they are saying to you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems to me your assertion of the credibility of their work depends on your belief that what they are claiming is beyond debate. It's not.

Nothing is beyond debate. Everything must be demonstrated. But they have demonstrated their case, you just ignored it because you don't care. You have already made up your mind, you made up your mind before you even heard of evolution.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Can you tell me what the pinnacle of atheist endeavor is supposed to be? What sort of world is ideal?

Atheism is the rejection of the concepts of theism. Theists say "Look here is my god, here is what he says, here is what he wants us to do" and atheists say "I don't believe that is true"

There is no pinnacle of atheist endeavour nor is there a world ideal.

chozometroid wrote: »

What should people try to do with their lives?

Personally I think people should try and find happiness and contentment with their lives.

chozometroid wrote: »

Are emotions worth having, or do they cause more trouble than they are worth?

Emotions are worth having, though how someone chooses not to have emotions is some what beyond me. That would seem biologically impossible without major brain surgery.

chozometroid wrote: »

Why should our emotions matter?

"Matter" in what context?

chozometroid wrote: »

Do you believe life has meaning?

I believe people give their own lives meaning, including theists. I don't believe life is given meaning by others, nor do I think that is desirable. From looking at people who lead their lives to goals set for them, such as their parents (Be a doctor!) they tend not to ever find contentment.

chozometroid wrote: »

What should be the goals of an individual who believes life has meaning because they can make difference for the human race?

I would imagine the goal should be trying to make a difference for the human race. Did you not sort of answer that question with the question itself?

chozometroid wrote: »

Does it matter if the human race ends today or in 20,000 years?

Well given that billions would die, yes I think it matters. I don't want billions of lives to end. I don't have a god to justify such a genocide as being a "good thing"

chozometroid wrote: »

Should our goal as a species be to increase our life span indefinitely?

I don't think we have a goal as a species. There is nothing particularly special about the biological classification of "species"

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

I would imagine the goal should be trying to make a difference for the human race. Did you not sort of answer that question with the question itself?

What would be the desired result of making a difference?

Well given that billions would die, yes I think it matters. I don't want billions of lives to end. I don't have a god to justify such a genocide as being a "good thing"

My question is more about what is the difference between the human race ending today or ending in 20,000 years? This has nothing to do with some God-ordained world catastrophe that destroys us all.

I don't think we have a goal as a species. There is nothing particularly special about the biological classification of "species"

So, why should atheists care if religion controls the world and puts an end to scientific advancement? (which seems to be the fear of atheists)
If there is only the goal of the individual (which I didn't expect to hear), and you think we should all just try and enjoy our lives, where exactly are we headed? You have to think of species-wide goals. Do we not work together to meet certain ends?

I know you say that atheism is not a worldview, and all atheists are different, just common in their disbelief, but..
If everyone was an atheist, how would the world be different? What would be the result? Would there not be a code to follow, which everyone has agreed is the most intellectually sound? Wouldn't there then be some sort of goal to pursue? Doesn't society as a whole have to have some common thread holding them together, whether it be the pursuit of economic, technological, or medical advancement?

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Can you tell me what the pinnacle of atheist endeavor is supposed to be?

For me, it is understanding everything about this world and living in harmony with its inhabitants.

What sort of world is ideal?

Preferably one where we haven't fcked it up so much that a reset switch is no longer possible. Preferably one where science is more easily and readily communicated with the general public without nutjobs distorting the finds.

What should people try to do with their lives?

Live them, stop worrying and help others to.

Are emotions worth having, or do they cause more trouble than they are worth?

Science has hypothesised that it is impossible to make a decision without using emotion and that emotion plays a far greater role than people would like to believe. Thus far the experimental evidence seems to reinforce this hypothesis. Emotions are necessary to make decisions, but if everyone had a better human understanding on these emotions would definitely help.

Why should our emotions matter?

Emotions make us, like all the other animals out there, alive; we cannot live without them.

Do you believe life has meaning?

Of course I do, I just haven't figured it out yet. My goal is simply to understand and, more importantly, appreciate, as much as I can in the limited time frame that I've been given

What should be the goals of an individual who believes life has meaning because they can make difference for the human race?

Knowledge,fulfillment, peace and quality lives for all humans.

Does it matter if the human race ends today or in 20,000 years?

Yes it does, assuming we don't descend into some nonsense like fundamentalism theocracy our potential to survive extinction should not be over estimated : Fingers crossed NASA gets go ahead for asteroid mission by Whitehouse Panel.
Either way we've got to make the best of we've got by trying.

Should our goal as a species be to increase our life span indefinitely?

Living for an eternity will eventually get boring, however our goal should be to make life spans as comfortable and inclusive as possible, by this I mean that in no way should we resort to eugenics. The longer the human species survive the better our chances become for solving the ultimate mysteries.:)



If you'd like you can sum up my beliefs by saying :
I have faith in humanity.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

What would be the desired result of making a difference?

Depends on what the person defines as making a difference.

For example, if a person defines making a difference as helping teach children then the desired result would be that they manage to teach children.

The whole area of philanthropy is too big to narrow down to a specific "This is how you do it" guide.

chozometroid wrote: »

My question is more about what is the difference between the human race ending today or ending in 20,000 years?

You are going to have to be more specific. The obvious difference is that everyone alive today gets to live out their lives rather than all dying tomorrow. I'm not sure I can answer if that is better or worse than everyone dying in 20,000 years time. Purely logically I would say it is better than everyone dies in 20,000 years time, since if everyone dies today then no one even gets to exist in 20,000 years time.

chozometroid wrote: »

So, why should atheists care if religion controls the world and puts an end to scientific advancement? (which seems to be the fear of atheists)

Because scientific advancement tends to be a very good thing. It increases understanding while also increasing technology that helps improve lives.

That is not the primary reason I would fear religion controlling the world though, though it is a pretty bad one now you mention it.

chozometroid wrote: »

If there is only the goal of the individual (which I didn't expect to hear), and you think we should all just try and enjoy our lives, where exactly are we headed?

I'm not sure how you get from we should all try and be happy and content in our lives to "there is only the goal of the individual"

Do you believe that you can only be happy by focusing only on your own individual goals forsaking all others? That would be a peculiar view for a Christian

chozometroid wrote: »

You have to think of species-wide goals. Do we not work together to meet certain ends?

Certainly, which in turn improves happiness and contentment (at least in my view, you may disagree) though defining this as "species-wide" seems a bit odd.

Are you saying we should forsake other non-human life?

chozometroid wrote: »

If everyone was an atheist, how would the world be different? What would be the result?

That all depends on why everyone is an atheist. You cannot draw too much from someone simply being an atheist. 40,000 years ago we were all atheists, and that didn't do very much for us.

If everyone is an atheist because of the embrace of rational philosophy and science then I think the world would be a much better place. But I don't think that is a particularly realistic goal, given the instinctive tendencies of humans. I think religion will always be around because people will always seek easy comforting answers to difficult confusing problems.

chozometroid wrote: »

Would there not be a code to follow, which everyone has agreed is the most intellectually sound?

I'm not sure what you mean? You mean like the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Yeah I support ideals like this, though it is difficult to get everyone to agree with it.

chozometroid wrote: »

Wouldn't there then be some sort of goal to pursue?

I doubt it. If one person wants to make films about badgers and another wants to dedicate their life to inventing a better database program I don't think these people are going to unite under a common goal just because they are atheists.

chozometroid wrote: »

Doesn't society as a whole have to have some common thread holding them together, whether it be the pursuit of economic, technological, or medical advancement?

No. I think society has a lot of common goals holding them together, I don't see why this has to be restricted to one single goal

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Science has hypothesised that it is impossible to make a decision without using emotion and that emotion plays a far greater role than people would like to believe. Thus far the experimental evidence seems to reinforce this hypothesis. Emotions are necessary to make decisions, but if everyone had a better human understanding on these emotions would definitely help.

So, while emotions cannot be eliminated, why shouldn't they be altered or controlled? I guess what I'm getting at is the value of life. If religion was eliminated, and all ideas of a spirit or some actual transcedent worth of a human soul were done away with, we would be left with purely naturalistic interpretations of life. It is only wishful thinking that lives have value or humans actually have "rights" as a naturalist. It seems inevitable that society would eventually reach a point where the value of the individual would start to fade away and regulations and controls would be set in place "for the good of mankind." I mean, someone or some group would have to decide what are the most important things in life. You can't let people do whatever they want, or pursue mindless religions when they could be contributing to scientific advancement.
Certainly, a united world with a common government and set of standards is the most desirable arrangement, no?

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

So, while emotions cannot be eliminated, why shouldn't they be altered or controlled? I guess what I'm getting at is the value of life. If religion was eliminated, and all ideas of a spirit or some actual transcedent worth of a human soul were done away with, we would be left with purely naturalistic interpretations of life. It is only wishful thinking that lives have value or humans actually have "rights" as a naturalist. It seems inevitable that society would eventually reach a point where the value of the individual would start to fade away and regulations and controls would be set in place "for the good of mankind." I mean, someone or some group would have to decide what are the most important things in life. You can't let people do whatever they want, or pursue mindless religions when they could be contributing to scientific advancement.
Certainly, a united world with a common government and set of standards is the most desirable arrangement, no?

This is why the study of humanities is very very important.
Religion may be eliminated (though, in my view, that will only happen once poverty is eliminated) but the study of humanities needs to be forever focused on lest we forget who we really are. Given our evolved senses of empathy, I think, what you fear would never come to pass in world without religion.

Edit: Forgot to add; if the future society really does follow science then it would be well known that helping others (even unselfishly!) leads to a happier you - proven by science!
Altruism ftw

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who determines that they have demonstrated their theories independently to their own biases?

You say the theory has been supported by the findings of these scientists. I say their findings are open to debate, as scientists differ.

Although Sir Wicknight responded,

I feel I gotta too.

All theories are open to debate in the scientific arena, creationists tried this and were given a bollicking. So they decided to fight by trying to use religion and politics to influence science - hardly a scientific debate? Why do ID proponents appeal to church, politicians and lay people? Would you like it if I started preaching a motive for astrology instead of astronomy in you church, or more to the point, if a scientist starting preaching science itself?

Science in the short term is based on egos and personalities; in the long term it is based on repeatable and testable evidence.
*Cannot remember who said that.
Even if the science is wrong, the evidence will eventually be too hard to ignore. Unfortunately creationists seem to think that twisting evidence counts as evidence.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

So, while emotions cannot be eliminated, why shouldn't they be altered or controlled?

Why should they be altered or controlled?

chozometroid wrote: »

It is only wishful thinking that lives have value or humans actually have "rights" as a naturalist.

Define "wishful thinking"?

Humans have value if humans value other humans. Which we do. We don't need God to tell us that other humans are valuable, we can value them all on their own

This come back to the old atheist saying that theists seem to be good only because they are told to and fear the consequences if they don't. Which seems to be a bit of an odd way to be.

Take say my 21st birthday present from my parents, a first edition book. I consider it valuable for a number of reasons. One it is financially valuable, because other people want to buy it, because they like first editions. It is also emotionally valuable to me because it was a gift from my parents.

You will notice that no where in that was "Also God says so"

It seems to me to be perfectly possible to value something without having to be informed by something else that it is valuable. And in fact if you are merely informed of it's value, rather than understanding it, you don't really think it is valuable.

If Christians only pay lip service to valuing human life because God tells them to (and to listen to some of you guys talk about the genocide in the Old Testament that seems horrifyingly true), then you don't value human life, you are just doing what you are told, like someone being told their record collection is valuable because someone else wants to buy it, but placing no value on it themselves. .

chozometroid wrote: »

It seems inevitable that society would eventually reach a point where the value of the individual would start to fade away and regulations and controls would be set in place "for the good of mankind."

Only if people think the good of mankind is to devalue the individual. I'm not going to pretend that atheists wouldn't do this, Communism did that to a horrific degree. But there is nothing about atheism, naturalism or humanism that demands you do this.

Theism places worship of God as the most important thing, at the expense of the rights of individuals (again the genocide of the Bible is a classic example, or a religious suicide bomber blowing up a school bus for God)

Human ideologies such as Communism also have placed things such the State as the most important thing, at the expense of the rights of individuals.

I don't see any of these as inevitable though.

chozometroid wrote: »

I mean, someone or some group would have to decide what are the most important things in life. You can't let people do whatever they want, or pursue mindless religions when they could be contributing to scientific advancement.

Why not? What happens if you do?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

It seems to me that atheists have faith in that they believe science will actually reach some sort of unspecified truth at some point.

Then you'd be completely wrong on at least 3 things in that sentence.

1. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists etc all follow science because it deals with the facts of our world.

Its a creationist straw man to call science an atheist pursuit.

2. We don't 'believe' in science. Science is true because it deals with facts not belief. Science is applied maths, I don't believe 1 + 1 = 2, I 'know' 1 + 1 = 2 because its a fact based on our mathematical system and the concepts we have applied.

3. Truth about what ? I don't care if Science never answers where we came or who we are or what is the meaning of life or any other number of questions. It doesn't change the fact that the scientific knowledge we do and can possess is absolutely priceless.

I see no reason to believe this. You will always gain further information, but it's no reason to believe you will ever have things right.

True. Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow by some kind of evidence, I can't think what that would be, but if it were you know what the Scientific community would do ? They would say "Oh thats a shock but X is interesting" and do research into the new explanation for life as best they could.

Science can never prove something 100%. We can't prove gravity for 100% thats why science uses the word 'theory'.

You obviously started from a point of knowing nothing, and at some point, knew the wrong thing. Then it changed, and you knew something to a greater, yet not necessarily more true, extent. I guess this is good enough for you, knowing you are wrong, but gradually getting better at being wrong. It seems just a blunt truth that we will always be wrong in our conclusions about reality. We are just too limited and are obviously not at a limit where we can say we have all the senses(5) that there can be and know of all dimensions.

So its better to throw all that out the window and just concentrate on being good christians hoping that god will provide us with the scientific truths we need like, oh I don't know, vaccines and Earthquake predictions.

Atheists are like blind people coming up with a way to explain the visual quality of symmetry and color balance in pictures. They become more advanced and knowledgeable about the subject through theoretical observation, yet actually never come close to the truth.

Wrong again. Scientists are not atheists.

And what is theoretical about observation ?

The problem is the hostility towards the idea of God, especially if God is real, and we as humans have the right to live spiritual lives and accept God as authority, which may not be respected by atheists.

1. Many scientists ARE religious people.
2. Evolution is not incompatible with religion.

Atheists may have the best chance at creating a world where everyone has equal rights, society is ran fairly and efficiently, and the search for knowledge is the number one priority.

So all scientists are atheists ? Ok then :rolleyes:

This world would inevitably reduce humanity to a society of organic robots whose sole purpose is to further the race as a whole and find ways to evolve into higher creatures, all at the loss of the individual. One must question what the point is, in the first place. Whoever is in power in this world is going to have the freedom to do as they please and steer the human race as they see fit, all in the name of Science.

Religous world leaders may do no better, controlling the masses and feeding them the information they see fit, but this is just the fault of man. In the atheist utopia, this would be done and it would be accepted as the best way to do things. Everything that may hinder scientific advancement will be eliminated. Societies where everyone is controlled and given a specific role would certainly become reality, because let's face it, it would be best for humanity. The individual shouldn't matter much to the naturalist. Emotion and individual expression are meaningless, and are actually more trouble than they are worth. Naturalists ftw.

Are you talking about scientists or atheists ? Are you attacking atheism or science ? Make up your mind.

Flamed Diving

All these blasted atheists and their meddling science.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Then you'd be completely wrong on at least 3 things in that sentence.

1. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists etc all follow science because it deals with the facts of our world.

Its a creationist straw man to call science an atheist pursuit.

2. We don't 'believe' in science. Science is true because it deals with facts not belief. Science is applied maths, I don't believe 1 + 1 = 2, I 'know' 1 + 1 = 2 because its a fact based on our mathematical system and the concepts we have applied.

3. Truth about what ? I don't care if Science never answers where we came or who we are or what is the meaning of life or any other number of questions. It doesn't change the fact that the scientific knowledge we do and can possess is absolutely priceless.

True. Evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow by some kind of evidence, I can't think what that would be, but if it were you know what the Scientific community would do ? They would say "Oh thats a shock but X is interesting" and do research into the new explanation for life as best they could.

Science can never prove something 100%. We can't prove gravity for 100% thats why science uses the word 'theory'.

Wrong again. Scientists are not atheists.

And what is theoretical about observation ?



1. Many scientists ARE religious people.
2. Evolution is not incompatible with religion.



So all scientists are atheists ? Ok then :rolleyes:


Are you talking about scientists or atheists ? Are you attacking atheism or science ? Make up your mind.

I don't get it, you think that I was talking about scientists on every point, when I wasn't. Not sure why you had to mix that up.
I'm talking about atheists. I never said religious folk don't use or believe in science. It's just that atheists are sort of tied to science and whatever it says at the moment. Perhaps you don't believe in science, but it seems most atheists base their beliefs on what scientists tell them. Is this not the case?
Do you not think science holds the key to all knowledge?

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNftnJZX1Y

8m30secs in...

JC and Wolfsbane have same interpretation of variation "within kinds" as none other than Adolf Hitler:

Even a superficial glance is sufficent to show that all the innummerable forms in which the life-urge of nature manifests itselfs are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it the iron law of nature - which compels the various species to keep within definite limits of their own life forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each anaimal mates only with one of its own species.

Deviations from this law take place under only exceptional circumstances. Nature abhors such intercourse...the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of the descendants is limited.

The fox remains always a fox. The goose remains always a goose. It would be impossible [for fox to bear geese, etc], such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator.

Mein Kampf: Vol 1, Chp XI

Sound familiar?

LOL. Hitler was no Darwinist, nay, not even an evolutionist of any description.

JC, Wolfsbane and Hitler. All cosy. :pac:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, it does not make creationism true. It just establishes that all the hype about solid proof of evolution from the fossil record is, er, less than factual.

The article carried refs. to the non-creationist papers quoted.

The article talks about a disagreement between two scientists on their categorization of a fossil. How is that questioning the proof of evolution from the fossil record ?

Categorizations are human concepts. What is a homo sapien and what is a Cro-Magnon ? When was the first human born and the last human ancestor ?

When did Homo heidelbergensis first become homo sapien ?

You are talking about tiny changes over MASSIVE periods of time.

An organism will never differ to any great degree to its parents because the changes are too small. An organism (such as a mammal) will differ to a substantial degree to its 100,000+ year old ancestor. But where do you draw the line ?

This is absolutely no proof against evolution at all, this is a problem with categorisation.

This is also why the creationist argument of a 'dog' giving birth to a 'non-dog' is complete rubbish.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I saw 6 f's, ergo, God is real.
The Christian God is far too simple? But doesn't lord Dawkins say God is much too complex? If He created the universe, then He must be more complex, right?

I don't care what Dawkins said about anything, you make the mistake of thinking we are the same as you. i.e > we 'worship' something or someone.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Can you tell me what the pinnacle of atheist endeavor is supposed to be? What sort of world is ideal?

My opinion of an ideal world has nothing to do with atheism. My ideal world is a world where humanity thrives to improve itself.

What should people try to do with their lives?

I don't care what people do with their lives. I want to live a good life, take care of my family and have some fun doing it.

Are emotions worth having, or do they cause more trouble than they are worth?

What kind of nonsense is that ? Of course they are worth having.

Why should our emotions matter?

Because being happy is a good thing

Do you believe life has meaning?

Yes. To live, to better oneself, to love.

What should be the goals of an individual who believes life has meaning because they can make difference for the human race?

Improve humanities situation.

Does it matter if the human race ends today or in 20,000 years?

Define 'matter' and define 'ends'.

Should our goal as a species be to increase our life span indefinitely?

I don't think so. I don't want to live longer. Other people may disagree but I don't see the reason a yes or a no answer here is relevant to religion.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not asking you anything. You are one of the most close minded people I've ever discussed this with, I doubt you would accept evolution even if you did see a dog give birth to a cat!

Actually in fairness I'd see that as proof against evolution. Its definitely not evolution.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't get it, you think that I was talking about scientists on every point, when I wasn't. Not sure why you had to mix that up.

Because this is a thread on evolution vs creationonsense.

Biologists religious beliefs have no bearing on their work as scientists, yet you keep referring to atheists.

Do you want the atheism vs religion thread ? because this isn't it.

It's just that atheists are sort of tied to science and whatever it says at the moment.

Nonsense. Plenty of atheists are clueless about science.

Perhaps you don't believe in science, but it seems most atheists base their beliefs on what scientists tell them. Is this not the case?

I have no 'beliefs'. I accept scientific fact because its observable and testable. I also accept scientific theories as the best explanations we have for many things, if tomorrow the theory changes with new evidence then I accept the new evidence and the new theory.

Do you not think science holds the key to all knowledge ?

Yes. But I'm sure my definition of knowledge and yours may differ somewhat.

marco_polo

Malty_T wrote: »

Wolfy,

I cannot debunk that, maybe someone else will bother? Does that make creationism true though?

Anyways, the honest answer is I probably could debunk it but I simply coudn't be arse into researching such a minor detail about fossils that doesn't even offer proof for creationism. In future, though, could you please link to non creation biased sources so emm we can compare what the creationist claims to what has actually been found.:)

In this case the references on ther creationist website for the Ardi specimens date from 1994 just after the initial discovery, whereas 15 solid years of rigorous restoration and analysis have been undertaken in the meantime.

As always any claims made about any potential hominid fossil is subjected to the most intensive of scrutiny by other experts. so it is not unusual at all.

Depending on how the wind is blowing in the current argument, creationists will either zoom out to highlight the 'cosy consensus' that exists amongst scientists who are apparently oppressing them, or else zoom in to focus in on a single highly technical aspect of a debate between experts to 'support' their position.

EDIT: You could waste a few hours going off and be able to debunk any article posted on a creationist website, but like Groundhog day you will come back a few day/weeks/months later and find the same copypasta all over again.

man of faith

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually if you are to watch it with an open mind then you need to be open to possibility that personal experiences can easily be confabulated (unintentionally too). Ask yourself have you ever had a dream that makes perfect since?? Also, do you even hear about the ex theists who had these NDEs and realised...uh oh something missing here? Or those people who don't remember or experiencing anything?

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient being only appear to a minute insignificant percentage of the general population when their mental states are clearly compromised? He's really working hard to make himself obscure isn't He?

I can give my opinion in relation to your perception of His obscurity, but as I am not God, I can not profess to be able to give you His exact response to your question. Firstly I completely disagree that God has made Himself obscure. He has set up churches all around the world and the message of the gospel is preached far and wide. The Christian movement is massive with the Bible being available in massive supply.

He has made Intelligent Design perfectly clear in creation - His fingerprint is all around us, the biggest kicker being us (the pinnacle of His creation). Our own dna shows a very complex programming of creation itself. Evolution claims to give a perfectly acceptable explanation for this. Thats just like saying that a computer operates without computer programming - no offence intended to anyone who accepts evolution. It requires the intelligence and creativity of something outside of the computer itself which is a computer programmer, for the computer to perform the application of the desired function.
He now has to convince people that this is not Allah, Buddha, Krishna etc. and that it is The God of the Bible. This is where faith comes in, and the Bible tells us that God has given an equal measure to every man. To me, one way to see whether or not a religion is the truth or not, is to examine its origins, see how far it goes back in history and see how well it correlates with known fact outside of what is recorded in The Bible. We can look at the historical, fossil, geological and astronomical record. The region known as Soddom and Gamorrah is believed to have been destroyed by deluge of an apocalyptic event - meteorite collision causing the whole city to be burnt at extremely high temperatures. Just one observation of many that exist and can be absolutely proven. Some will argue this statement and say that it all depends on how the facts are interpreted, but nevertheless, the facts remain. But the main question I pose is this: Is this enough to convince the world that the 'I Am' is the 'I Am' - Most Holy One and Only True God? Obviously not, as if this were true then there wouldn't be any other religions or atheism and agonsticism. His Spirit in the earth is wanting to align itself with the very consciousness given to you from birth. So how will you ever really know? Ask Him (even if it be a hypothetical prayer) He promises this - Seek and you will find. The following link explains this perfectly:
http://brentbarnett.blogspot.com/2009/01/seek-and-you-will-find.html

There is also a very evil being at work non stop to deceive you into believing God doesn't exist, as you will fail to acknowledge His Son Jesus Christ, the only way He can restore you to Himself. Now I don't know what your beliefs are, whether they are athiest, agnositic etc., so can you please fill me in? I apologise if anyone feels I have ridiculed them for their beliefs. This was arrogant and insensitive of me, and I feel I have made a mistake by this. I got carried away in the heat of the debate. I wish no disrespect to anyone on this forum, even those who hate me and view me as a mindless fool. I was acting out of the instense ridicule I came under. We should understand that it is absolutely detrimental to the whole discussion when undermining of people's intellect and rights of belief are disrespected.
Getting back to what I was talking about, a battle rages for the souls of man. Satan has gone to extreme lengths to sow doubt into the minds of men all over the world. He has infiltrated science with misinterpretation and has instigated thousands of religions to make man feeling completely bewildered and confused, not knowing what to believe. As differing religion has been the source of fighting, I understand why people just say 'Stuff religion' and decide to become agnostic or atheist. They consider what science shows them to be absolute proven fact, and cling to this for their entire belief system. I am sure we all agree, whether Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc that the minds perception of what appears to be common sense is flawwed. If you want to understand the truth, you have to seek it with your all your heart, not just your mind. Cheers. I hope this answers your questions.