The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

Long post!

wolfsbane wrote:

That is a very helpful clarification of your position. I hold a thing is right or wrong because God says so; you hold it is so because you say so. I must say mine makes much more sense, if our starting points are true. Mine has the infinitely wise, holy Creator of all things telling us the way it is; you have the individual, millions of whom can come up with divergent moralities.

Ah, no. You're referring to your starting assumption, which is that God gave you this information, as if it were a tenable proposition where mine isn't. Yours is a tenable position only by virtue of your faith - and the addition of "infintely wise etc" is just marketing as far as I can see. Every religion says that their way is the only true way - what makes yours any different?

wolfsbane wrote:

If you have references to the theological arguments made by Christians for the seizure of Indian land, I'll be glad to see them. I'm sure many of the imperialists who talked of America's Manifest Destiny used God's name in their greedy plans, but that is no proof they were Christians in my sense of the word. Certainly true Christians have been suckered many times by politicians into thinking unjust wars were really just, that they were to defend the innocent, liberate the oppressed, etc., rather than just to increase power and gain plunder. I confess Christians can be just as gullible as any other decent person.

I'll have dig through various history books for the specific reasoning I cited. Most of what I can find at the moment are secondary, like this:

That self-deception started early. When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women, and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."

I wouldn't imagine it was official policy as such, although Manifest Destiny pretty much was. I accept your defence of "the Devil can quote Scripture"!

wolfsbane wrote:

You missed the other option, the correct one: God is just. If He choses to save any sinner, that is grace and mercy. That He chooses to leave the rest in their sin and so be damned is justice.

Were he not responsible for their creation, that would be acceptable. As it is, no.

wolfsbane wrote:

He saves whom He will, without regard to their background. All deserve His wrath; but He sent His Son to pay the penalty for all whom He chose to save.

That we are all deserving of God's wrath, but that he is good enough to save us undeserving sinners, is a very neat piece of psychology. However, God's penalty on Adam simply does not suggest such an appalling crime that its consequences should still dog our footsteps. Consider that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, wiped out all mankind with the exception of Noah and his family, and so forth. The punishment alloted to Adam is less than these, yet that is the crime used as a justification for "original sin". It really doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I worship Him, for He is wholly righteous, we are not; He is infinitely wise, we struggle to understand how even physical things work; He is merciful, for He pardons all who turn to Him.

Stockholm Syndrome.

Scofflaw

Second long post!

wolfsbane wrote:

Again, I appreciate your honesty in admitting the irrationality of atheistic morality.

Its irrationality remains irrelevant, except to college philosophy students!

wolfsbane wrote:

History has shown that the preaching of the gospel has radically changed even the most wicked of men. Some of them are genuinely converted to Christ and adopt a new lifestyle in keeping with their knowledge of God's will. Others are not converted, but the fear of God restrains them from continuing their evil works.

That does not make it logical, I'm afraid! It means it has "empirically verifiable positive effects" at best. Also, I have at no point said that conversion to Christianity doesn't do what you claim...I just interpret the causes differently, so that you fit neatly into the point below:

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, even false idealogies can give resignation to the inevitable in this life or hope for the next. This important function does not however establish either the truth or falsehood of the idealogy.

Ipse dixit.

wolfsbane wrote:

I deny that unbelievers are just as likely to be moral as believers. Just look around you. That all have a conscience is true, but that conscience is more often overruled in the unbeliever than in the believer.

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers. Anecdotal evidence is of no interest to me.

wolfsbane wrote:

It's is so refreshing to hear an atheist acknowledge his morality is based on faith.:) That's just what I have been saying. That's why I find it rather illogical of them.

Well, not all atheists accept that theirs is a faith-based position.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, God has not made even true Christians perfect yet - that awaits Christ's return. Some indeed are restrained from sinning by the shame it brings, but the main restraint on the Christian is their love of God. The story is told of two boys playing; one wants the other to do something dishonest, but the boy refuses. His friend says it must be because he is afraid of his father hurting him. The boy says, No, it's because I'm afraid of hurting my father.

Except that your story works perfectly well without God, but with compassion.

wolfsbane wrote:

You err in thinking man is not responsible for his sin just because he is incapable of doing otherwise. If you spend the rent money on booze, you can't say you needn't pay it as you are broke. Man is not innocent; he is a sinner. When Adam fell, we fell with him - his sinful nature became ours. God doesn't say why He allowed the Fall to happen - but the reality is still that we are born enemies of God, rebels against His ways.

See above.

wolfsbane wrote:

Excelsior gave a good reply. I confirm that this is indeed the Biblical view of things: none of us deserve mercy, but He grants it to all who come to Him, no matter how wicked they have been. Jesus Christ bore the punishment for the sins of all who repent and trust in Him; God is able therefore to be both just - punishes sin - and the justifier of those who come to Him.

Ipse dixit.

wolfsbane wrote:

If evolution is true, then it does make sense. There can be no moral reason not to, and it would make an interesting scientific experiment. The ego might well like to think the one who brought a leap forward in evolution might be revered for millenia to come. There is no comparison with the Christian and Judgement Day: that Day is for God to deal with His enemies, casting them into hell. No human can do so now.

Clearly, it would be better if you stayed Christian, if this is an example of your morality! God, of course, will be casting the good and the bad alike into Hell on the Day, including a lot of the Tahitians, so I can see how you might think we can do the same.

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe it's because Hitler overdid it and so discredited it in the eyes of ordinary people. The scientific elite didn't seem to have any problems with it at the time.

I'm rather more worried about your lack of difficulty with it now! The "scientific elite" you refer to contained a lot of Christians, who are the real originators of the "kill them all - God will know his own" attitude.

wolfsbane wrote:

If Christianity was not logically tenable, I would not be holding to it. Nor would I hold to any morality that was irrational. I would much rather admit there is no morality and I only behave as I see fit at the time.

Yes, you've made that pretty clear. Possibly you are a bad person, or would be if not restrained, and it is a much better idea that you be a Christian, and it would certainly explain your particular view of Christianity. As I said, I don't question the efficacy of Christian belief for that purpose. However, that does not give you the right to assume that other people are bad people, who if not so restrained, would also engage in evil!

Your morality is rational, given your beliefs. Mine is rational, given mine. Neither of us are able to disprove each others beliefs, only to point out the relative appeal of our own...


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I worship Him, for He is wholly righteous, we are not; He is infinitely wise, we struggle to understand how even physical things work;

I always thought that argument was strange.

I mean I'm infinitly more "wise" than say an ant, but I still wouldn't expect an ant (if he could) to worship me. I wouldn't expect anyone to worship me, and I would try and stop them if they did because it isn't exactly healthy.

And it seems a bit funny that someone as righteous and wise as God would still expect (demand?) creatures like us to worship him.

Ah anyway, this is all getting a bit off topic and you are free to worship anyone you want, be it God or a box of Special K (obscure Simpsions reference #758 )

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Why do you say it took 0.6 light years to reach and excite the small ring

Because its true.

J C wrote:

when the gas in the ‘hourglass’ became excited (at distances beyond all of the rings) BEFORE the rings even appeared!!!!

I don't think it did (link?). The gass of the hourglass nebula was largely invisable until Hubble had a look, where the rings had been observed years before. Also the hourglass nebula was there before the rings appears. Also that fact doesn't change the time it took the light from the nova to hit the primary ring.

So whats your point exactly? None of this disputes anything.

Here is a straw, maybe you would like to grasp at it for a while :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

I’ll deal with these so-called “more advance measurement systems” another time.

You will "deal with them? I assume by deal you mean "franticly search YEC websites looking for a rebuttle" ... I can see NASA running to the hills as we speak.

J C wrote:

However, the SN1987A was a triangulation exercise.

It was, and a very accurate excercise at that. There is only a 3% error margin, impressive for something that is nearly 170,000 light years away.

hairyheretic

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm rather more worried about your lack of difficulty with it now! The "scientific elite" you refer to contained a lot of Christians, who are the real originators of the "kill them all - God will know his own" attitude.

To my knowledge, that quote has been traced back to the Cathar heresy in .. 13th century? .. France.

When a young knight asked a church representative (I think an inquisitor) how they should tell the Cathars from the other Christians in a border town, the response was "Kill them all. God will know his own."

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

To my knowledge, that quote has been traced back to the Cathar heresy in .. 13th century? ..

Very close, Beziers 1209, the "Albigensian Crusade" against the Cathar heresy in Southern France, "Kill them all. God will know his own." attributed to the Papal Legate to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux,

Scofflaw

"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens."
("Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His.")

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

OK I have to assume that by 'his redeemed people' you mean Christians after Calvary.

Wrong. Christ redeemed all His people, from the beginning (hopefully Adam and Eve; certainly Abel) down to the final convert on the Last Day.

So God's plan when he created death in Genesis was that it would only operate on the unredeemed,

Wrong again. Death was for all the fallen seed of Adam, redeemed and unredeemed alike. Christians are not perfect in this life. The redeemed would be saved from eternal death.

Did God intend Calvary to put an end to death and the redeemed would never die? Was death able to withstand Calvary and that is what made it God's enemy? There seem to be big problems with YEC theology here.

The problem is only with your understanding. The Cross was not intended to put an end to sickness, death nor sin in this world. It was to put an end to it and the eternal consequences of sin at the Last Day. Then is when all things are put right. Christians now have many spiritual blessings, but we share the same physical world as the rest of humanity.

Apart from the fact that Adam was only called 'very good' and not perfect, he was so far from perfect his creation was described as 'not good' without Eve.

God was describing the final day of creation: it was not good until all was completed. Once the male and female were created, then it was 'very good'.

Paul does not describe Adam as perfect either, but as 'dust', and he tells us flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That sounds odd if Paul thought Adam's flesh and blood could have inherited the kingdom. Instead he says 1Cor 15:48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust. This was not because of the curse but because God made Adam from the earth. Look at the context of Paul's statement 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust. Adam was mortal from the beginning. He was perishable 'dust' as we are because he was made from the earth.

Wrong again. Christ is flesh and blood, so the reference is not to all flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom, but to fallen flesh and blood. Had Adam not sinned, he would have had unbroken eternal fellowship with God, what we look for in the Kingdom.

Without God? Sure. What do you think the tree of life was for? What do you think would have happened if Adam had never sinned, but ignored both trees?

That's an oxymoron. For Adam to have disregarded God's provision of food would have been a sin. Adam as an unfallen being breathed air and ate food as part of the regime God had instituted, and death was no part of it.

I never questioned the biological descent of Jesus. This is talking about Joseph and I am the one who says this was only Jesus' 'supposed' genealogy....
So the genealogy though Mary was correct and inspired scripture, the genealogy through Joseph, Heli and Matthat was wrong and only a supposed genealogy.

The only supposed thing about it was Joseph being His father. You set out to discredit the genealogies as a means of getting us back to the first humans, and said they were only 'supposed' genealogies.

The point of them was to show Christ was the descendant of David, Judah, Jacob, Abraham, and Adam, in fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies. Both genealogies do that. In doing so, they establish the existence of these individuals, confirm the Biblical record of them and give us an approximate timescale of human existence. That timescale is in the thousands of years, not tens of thousands nor hundreds of thousands.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

You mean these universities vet the work their graduates do later?

No, only that these scientists are just as able and learned as their evolutionist peers. To me an evolutionist scientist with a PhD from Harvard is as credible a scientist as a creationist scientist with the same. They differ in their interpretations of the facts.

So without the Holy Spirit, unregenerate racists can see racism just as easily in the Bible as in Origin of Species.

Not just as easily. They would have to misunderstand the Scripture; but a correct reading of Origin of Species could allow their racism. Certainly the learned Social Darwinists saw it that way.

Darwin wasn't a racist and the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today aren't either. The 'racism' in the Origin of Species, seems to be apparent only to people who are already racists, and creationists.

Some folk are more able to follow the logic of their beliefs, without traditional morality getting in the way.

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. It is your own disobedience that makes you a sinner. Don't try to blame someone else.

Paul is talking about the power of sin in one's life, not about being sinless. And holding to man's natural depravity does not excuse us - we are the ones with the sinful nature. Adam in his fallen state and all his descendants are alike.

How does the bible say people become slave to sin? Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

And it tells us that everyone is in that boat: Ephesians 2 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Ah a Calvinist. Even so you have one dying for many. Does that mean as you suggested: 'that Christ was a number of individuals who suffered to recover for us what the first 'Adam' lost? How many crosses on Golgotha? Or was this a metaphor, the reality being Jesus, Buddha, and other great founders being the 'Christ'?...Which is why comparing Jesus with Adam is figurative.

Adam brought death to all his descendants. Physical and spiritual death. Christ brought eternal life to all His people; resurrection from the dead physically and spiritual life. Adam is a real person; Christ is a real person. Neither are mere metaphors. You would have us believe in many Adams. That does not allow the analogy to be fulfilled in Christ.

Except he was called to be a prophet, a herald of righteousness. That required staying there to be a witness.

Noah could have stayed until the flood was due and then walked out, if it was a local flood. He preached until the day he entered the Ark.

If human civilisation was confined to that area, then all domesticated animals would have been wiped out, also any species or breeds unique to that area.

So you believe all humans were located in a valley basin somewhere on the mountains of Ararat, no more than several thousands of years ago?

These arguments seem to be if the flood was local and they were God, they would have done things differently. They seem to be suffering from a bit of megalomania here. Certainly I don't think they are in a position to figure out a better plan than God.

They just expose the many illogical aspects required for a local flood.

They are assuming it held 'all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed', in other words using global flood presuppositions nd reading them into a local flood interpretation. That is a bad basis for any argument.

No, just asking why the need of a giant ship if only the local animals were needed on board.

Where the local flood happened isn't know. It could have been Mesopotamia, the Black Sea basin or the Med basin. But even a small zoo would need an awful lot of space for animals, food and water for a whole year.

It couldn't have been anywhere in those localities and end up with the ark on the mountains of Ararat. And if it was a local flood, how come it lasted for a year?

When have we seen a whole land submerged and all the people and animals drowned?

Any island overwhelmed by a tsunami.

Really there is no evidence in scripture or geology to support a global flood. We read Genesis through modern eyes and think 'land' has to mean the whole planet and 'under the whole heaven' means 'inside our planet's atmosphere' instead of under the sky they saw above their heads. This is an ancient story written by people describing an ancient event in their terms. The highest hills under the whole heaven did not mean Everest. They did not even know Everest existed. What we read of is water from horizon to horizon, covering all the hills under the sky above them. It does not make sense to read more into the story than the writer intended, without the support of any other passage in scripture, especially when science tells us that interpretation simply never happened.

So you would have us believe in a local flood that covered all the high hills Noah was familiar with; lasted for a year; allowed the Ark to come to rest on the mountains of Ararat? This must have been an enclosed basin, preventing natural drainage. It must also have been very uniform at its edges, otherwise the highest hills Noah knew would still be above water. And of course, all mankind was confined to this basin, and then to the Ark? Your solution is incredible from both a believer's and a skeptic's position. You have fallen between two stools.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No, only that these scientists are just as able and learned as their evolutionist peers. To me an evolutionist scientist with a PhD from Harvard is as credible a scientist as a creationist scientist with the same. They differ in their interpretations of the facts.

Except that if you refer back to your earlier posts you'll find that you've already stated that the creationists are more credible to you. Were they equally credible it seems strange that you would go with a scientific viewpoint held by 0.01% of scientists, rather than the mainstream view.*

* Please spare me any stuff about the minority always being right! The minority are usually wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

Not just as easily. They would have to misunderstand the Scripture; but a correct reading of Origin of Species could allow their racism. Certainly the learned Social Darwinists saw it that way.

Some folk are more able to follow the logic of their beliefs, without traditional morality getting in the way.

Would you care to prove that a eugenics programme logically follows from evolutionary theory? Or indeed tell us what a "correct" reading of the Origin of Species is? Or would you prefer to admit that this is a rather desperate and quite antiquated smear?

wolfsbane wrote:

So you believe all humans were located in a valley basin somewhere on the mountains of Ararat, no more than several thousands of years ago?

Current thinking favours the connection of the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, as far as I know.

wolfsbane wrote:

It couldn't have been anywhere in those localities and end up with the ark on the mountains of Ararat. And if it was a local flood, how come it lasted for a year?

What, those mountains that have never been satisfactorily identified?

wolfsbane wrote:

So you would have us believe in a local flood that covered all the high hills Noah was familiar with; lasted for a year; allowed the Ark to come to rest on the mountains of Ararat? This must have been an enclosed basin, preventing natural drainage. It must also have been very uniform at its edges, otherwise the highest hills Noah knew would still be above water. And of course, all mankind was confined to this basin, and then to the Ark? Your solution is incredible from both a believer's and a skeptic's position. You have fallen between two stools.

It's only a problem for the skeptic if you insist that "all humanity" was wiped out. That's not a skeptic's point of view, though, so, the problem of "all humanity" being confined to the Black Sea basin is not a problem - it wasn't.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Not just as easily. They would have to misunderstand the Scripture; but a correct reading of Origin of Species could allow their racism.

No it doesn't. It is a (very) incorrect reading of the basis of evolution to say that any speices or sub-species is "better" than any other, in any general sense.

As I have explained before (a few times at this stage), evolution doesn't advance, it adapts. And adaptation may improve a species ability to survive and function in a particular environment, but that improvement is irrelivent on its own without the context of the environment to which it is adapting. You cannot compare evolutionary differences between species or sub-species in a general sense and say that species is just better than that other one.

For someone to claim that Darwin showed that some races of human are just better, or more advanced, or higher evolved than other races of human is not only wrong, it exposes the fact that this person doesn't even understand Darwin or Evolution to begin with.

People who spout nonsense along the lines of "well White people are just naturally more evolved than Africans" show up the fact they don't actually understand evolution at all, and they were probably racist long before they even heard of "The Origin of the Species"

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

So if god says "prostitution and drug abuse are a-ok by me" you think they're good as well, then?
Good to know :?

As I pointed out elsewhere, God cannot commend evil. He has revealed these things as evil, therefore He can never agree with them.

Yes, wolfsbane, all living things deserve their life, or at least to be free from suffering. I need to eat plants to live, but I don't go around killing them to make daisy-chains nor do I go around killing flies at will.

This is bad news for florists and pest-controllers, but I appreciate your scruples.

Common sense is enough of a moral system in this case.

It certainly frees atheists from the meaninglessness the logic of their system demands. I go so far as to say common sense is one of the gifts of God to mankind to save them from the effects of their madness. This goodness of God is what Christian theologians call 'Common Grace'.

People ARE free not to sin. All they have to do is choose this. To sit back and actually think in full "what will the results of this action be? Will it bring harm to me, or to others?" It is not something always easily done - people do often act without thinking, I agree, but it is certainly possible once one puts one's mind to it.

One acts according to one's nature, except an outside force acts upon us. The Bible tells us that man is born in sin and unable to do anything good in God's sight. Even his best is filthy in God's sight, as it comes from a wicked heart.

But to prevent this world being unbearable and quickly descending to extinction, God permits the remnants of His image in us to assert themselves above the fallenness of our nature. So we have compassion, reason, some awareness of spiritual things. The intervention of God in the individual's life causes him to act less wicked than his nature would have him behave.

I was referring to the belief in rebirth of many buddhists, myself included. Or even reincarnation - I am sure many atheists believe in either. Belief in lack of god does not presuppose the belief of a lack in soul, though rebirth does not include a soul either whereas reincarnation might.
In any case, that was my point.

Yes, I see what you mean. Atheism with more than a material universe.

I'm extremely tired so apologies if this post doesn't make the most of sense

On the contrary, a helpful exposition of your position.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

So? Isn't everything? Aren't blow jobs and anal sex (between a straight couple)

Not at all. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. I dare say anal sex is very unwise, for physical and medical reasons, but generally what a married couple do in sharing their love physically is fine with God.

What the big deal, no one has been following their biological purpose for the last 10,000 years.

Christians certainly have. I imagine most others also, except when they are engaged in sex outside marriage. What are you thinking of?

Also, why would God create the genetic systems to have someone be homosexual if it was wrong?

I don't buy into this 'genetics made me a queer' idea. We may have more effeminate traits and so be more attractive to homosexuals, but that is no reason to be one. I think there is more truth to the 'my mother made me a queer' cliche; the reaction of the heart to undue influences.

That doesn't answer the question. Why does he care?

It is the nature of a moral being to care about immorality. Much more so an infinitely moral one.

But morality is (supposed to be) about right or wrong, not about pleasing someone.

It is how we please Him: by being holy (truly moral).

Who says he is?

He says He is qualified to determine right from wrong.

Well if you have a good argument as to why the Nazi's morals are right I'm all ears

No, that's not my problem. My system tells me he is wrong; your system cannot do so, leaving you to pick and choose your preferences.

He can, if he wants. I doubt many would listen to him, since most people including most atheists believe there is right and wrong

Sure - my point is they have no logical defence for their postion.

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with their religion.

It has to do with God stirring their conscience, reminding them of the truth they are seeking to deny.

I don't expect him to do anything. He, if he possesses normal emotional systems placed in his brain by evolution, will feel bad about certain things. This is a frame work for establishing a moral code for ones self.

So reason should submit to emotions?

You don't "use" compassion it is an emotion. Its like saying you can choose to fall in love or not fall in love as you see fit. You might be able to fake falling in love, or fake not being in love, but that isn't really love is it.

Sounds like the excuses men give for dumping their wives (and vice versa): I was unable to be faithful because I fell in love with another. Emotions cannot be allowed to decide right and wrong, for they depend on what sort of person we are. If we are selfish and fickle, following our emotions will lead us accordingly. We are reasoning beings, called to recognise right and wrong apart from how we may feel about it at the time.

For the atheist, reason should dictate that there is no absolute right and wrong, no moral system. For the theist, his understanding of his god's morality should lead him to a logical moral conclusion. If his god is false, false conclusions and an immoral ethics should result. If his God is true, true conclusions and true morality should result.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

There have been wars and genocides carried out by Popes and clergy since the dawn of Christianity. To say they just didn't read or understand the Bible properly is a bit of cop-out to be honest. I would imagine they dedicated most of their lives to reading and understanding the Bible and found with in it justification for their terrible crimes.

Most of these people do not fit the Biblical definition of 'Christian'. The Pharisees also were into knowing what the Bible said, but their understanding and practice of it were desperately wrong. Granted, even true Christians have erred in political matters, e.g, using the sword to enforce the faith at the time of the Reformation.

I mean I'm infinitly more "wise" than say an ant, but I still wouldn't expect an ant (if he could) to worship me. I wouldn't expect anyone to worship me, and I would try and stop them if they did because it isn't exactly healthy.

If you made the ant in your image, revealed yourself to it as God and blessed it with life and pleasure, I think you would expect its worship.

For someone to claim that Darwin showed that some races of human are just better, or more advanced, or higher evolved than other races of human is not only wrong, it exposes the fact that this person doesn't even understand Darwin or Evolution to begin with.

I'm not well-read in Darwin, so I'll take your word that even the title of his work gives no support to 'higher races': Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It seems many learned scientists after Darwin must have misunderstood what he was saying.

I have found this quote from him that bears out that he would not have followed Hitler's methods:
With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887

It could be argued that he was opposing 'the noblest part of our nature' to the vital means that he claimed led to man's existence, and so was being emtional and irrational from a atheistic standpoint.

wolfsbane

Apologies for the long mails previously. So much worthy of full reply. But I will try not to cover ground we have went over several times.

Scofflaw said:

That we are all deserving of God's wrath, but that he is good enough to save us undeserving sinners, is a very neat piece of psychology. However, God's penalty on Adam simply does not suggest such an appalling crime that its consequences should still dog our footsteps. Consider that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, wiped out all mankind with the exception of Noah and his family, and so forth. The punishment alloted to Adam is less than these, yet that is the crime used as a justification for "original sin". It really doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

To be a sinner is to warrant eternal death. It is not so much the enormity of Adam's crime that is against us, but us being of his fallen, sinful nature. We are treated like he was, for we are like him. The punishment you referred to in the other cases was no different: they died physically before their time, as Adam did. They were born dead in their sins, as Adam became when he sinned.

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers. Anecdotal evidence is of no interest to me.

In the real world, not the world of national notions, it is the godless young thugs in our housing estates one bewares of, not the folk walking to their church or chapel.

Except that if you refer back to your earlier posts you'll find that you've already stated that the creationists are more credible to you. Were they equally credible it seems strange that you would go with a scientific viewpoint held by 0.01% of scientists, rather than the mainstream view.*

I'm using credible is two senses: one to describe the intelligence and knowledge of the individual; the other to describe the conclusions they reach, and perhaps the prejudices they allow to overcome their scientific abilities.

Would you care to prove that a eugenics programme logically follows from evolutionary theory? Or indeed tell us what a "correct" reading of the Origin of Species is? Or would you prefer to admit that this is a rather desperate and quite antiquated smear?

It's history, Scofflaw. It is documented how Social Darwinism arose. Its practices are with us today.

Current thinking favours the connection of the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, as far as I know.

So the Black Sea was flooded to cover all the high hills and settle the ark on a mountain range? Flooded for a year?

What, those mountains that have never been satisfactorily identified?

The general location is given as the mountains of Ararat - there is no doubt about their identity. Since a specific landing place was not given, it's a very big area to go look for any remains, and it is snow-capped.

It's only a problem for the skeptic if you insist that "all humanity" was wiped out. That's not a skeptic's point of view, though, so, the problem of "all humanity" being confined to the Black Sea basin is not a problem - it wasn't.

It is the theistic evolutionists view though - at least the one Assyrian was giving.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

If you made the ant in your image, revealed yourself to it as God and blessed it with life and pleasure, I think you would expect its worship.

Not if I put an acid trap into the bottom of the antfarm, into which 90% of the ants were going to fall.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm not well-read in Darwin, so I'll take your word that even the title of his work gives no support to 'higher races': Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It seems many learned scientists after Darwin must have misunderstood what he was saying.

You are correct on all counts! Races is used in its widest sense (e.g. "...it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature..."), and "favoured" is not used in the same sense as "favoured by God". Have you really not read the book? Out of date, of course, but nevertheless pretty much a requirement for understanding evolutionary theory.

wolfsbane wrote:

It could be argued that he was opposing 'the noblest part of our nature' to the vital means that he claimed led to man's existence, and so was being emotional and irrational from a atheistic standpoint.

Hmm. Darwin's religious views:

Charles Darwin came from a Nonconformist background. Though several members of his family were Freethinkers, openly lacking conventional religious beliefs, he did not initially doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He attended a Church of England school, then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman and was fully convinced by William Paley's teleological argument that design in nature proved the existence of God. However, his beliefs began to shift during his time on board HMS Beagle. He questioned what he saw—wondering, for example, at beautiful deep-ocean creatures created where no one could see them, and shuddering at the sight of a wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs; he saw the latter as contradicting Paley's vision of beneficent design. While on the Beagle Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but had come to see the history in the Old Testament as being false and untrustworthy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

I dare say anal sex is very unwise, for physical and medical reasons, but generally what a married couple do in sharing their love physically is fine with God.

Then I'm not understanding the difference. If a straight couple can have loving sexual intercourse that doesn't and cannot produce children, why can't a gay couple have loving sexual intercourse that doesn't and cannot produce children. You say God demands that sex take place inside a straight marriage because the purpose is to produce children, which cannot happen in a homosexual relationship. But if a straight couple are having sex that cannot produce children is that not exactly the same thing? Is this not exactly the same perversion of God's plan as homosexual sex?

wolfsbane wrote:

Christians certainly have.

Christians have never had masterbated, recieved or given blowjobs, had anal sex or normal sex with steps taken to stop conception, just for pleasure? I find that very hard to believe

wolfsbane wrote:

I don't buy into this 'genetics made me a queer' idea.
...
I think there is more truth to the 'my mother made me a queer' cliche; the reaction of the heart to undue influences.

Well all modern biological and psychological evidence would disagree with you on that one. But I suppose if you don't "buy it" ....

Also I never got the "my mother made me a queer" logic. Why would being very close to your mother make you attractive to men. Surely it would be being very close to your father that would make you attractive to men?

wolfsbane wrote:

It is the nature of a moral being to care about immorality.

But its only immoral because God says its immoral. There is no logical reason for it to be immoral, its not hurting anyone, it doesn't cause pain or suffering to anyone etc. If God didn't care it would not be immoral. So I ask again, why does God care what a homosexual couple does with relation to sex, when, as you said, he doesn't care what a heterosexual couple does with relation to sex even if that sex isn't and cannot produce children.

wolfsbane wrote:

He says He is qualified to determine right from wrong.

And you believe him?

wolfsbane wrote:

No, that's not my problem. My system tells me he is wrong; your system cannot do so, leaving you to pick and choose your preferences.

My system tells me its wrong also. Would you like me to list the reasons I believe it is wrong (they are a bit longer than "God says so")?

wolfsbane wrote:

It has to do with God stirring their conscience, reminding them of the truth they are seeking to deny.

No, not really. Well I mean you can believe that the emotional systems in a human mind are the work of God, but they work just as well without that assumption.

wolfsbane wrote:

So reason should submit to emotions?

No?

Emotion provides a framework for morality, that is expanded by logic and reason, as I said.

wolfsbane wrote:

I was unable to be faithful because I fell in love with another.

*Groan*

There is a difference between not being able to control your emotions and not being able to control your actions. A person can't control who he falls in love with, he can control what he does with that love.

wolfsbane wrote:

Emotions cannot be allowed to decide right and wrong, for they depend on what sort of person we are. If we are selfish and fickle, following our emotions will lead us accordingly.

It doesn't work like that. Because someone is a psychotic serial killer doesn't mean there morality, based on their emotions (or lack of) is validated.

Everytime you describe a situation you either are describing emotion with no reason and logic, or reason and logic with no emotion. You need to combine them together. A serial killer might have no emotional objection to killing some, that doesn't mean that logically killing someone is a good thing. A normal person might find no logical reason to not rob someone, that doesn't mean he won't feel emotionally bad if he does.

wolfsbane wrote:

For the atheist, reason should dictate that there is no absolute right and wrong, no moral system.

But thats not the same as saying there should be no right or wrong. It just a realisation that all morality must come from humanity itself, even religious morality. To an atheist your morality is no different, it also comes from humanity, not from God.

wolfsbane wrote:

Most of these people do not fit the Biblical definition of 'Christian'.

Well they would disagree. Its the great thing about religions the followers always thing they are the special ones, the ones who know the true meaning of the religion.

wolfsbane wrote:

If you made the ant in your image, revealed yourself to it as God and blessed it with life and pleasure, I think you would expect its worship.

No, I wouldn't. Firstly that implies I did all that just to be worshiped by these ants. I'm certain not a perfect creature, but even I wouldn't be so vain as to require or seek the worship of creatures just because I made or helped them. Secondly I don't believe that any creature should have to owe obedence to any other. That is slavery, and immoral (in my logical and emotional opinion).

The true sign of goodness, in my opinion, is doing something for someone without expecting anything in return.

If God created all of us, and then sat back content in the knowledge that he did this, that he helped a lowly species, that would be fine in my book. But he didn't, he created us and then expects us to give him worship in return. It seems strange that a being of perfect goodness would expect or require reward for his goodness.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

To be a sinner is to warrant eternal death. It is not so much the enormity of Adam's crime that is against us, but us being of his fallen, sinful nature. We are treated like he was, for we are like him. The punishment you referred to in the other cases was no different: they died physically before their time, as Adam did. They were born dead in their sins, as Adam became when he sinned.

A fair interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote:

In the real world, not the world of national notions, it is the godless young thugs in our housing estates one bewares of, not the folk walking to their church or chapel.

Your experiences, like my experiences, are irrelevant to settling questions like this, both because they are statistically insignificant, and because our perception and memory of them are highly subjective.

In the real world of Iraq, for example, it appears that it is necessary to be wary of the godly young Marines, as well as the godly insurgents. Clearly the experience of a Palestinian is likely to reflect rather more badly on Jews than my experience of them - both are irrelevant to judgements on the religion itself.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm using credible is two senses: one to describe the intelligence and knowledge of the individual; the other to describe the conclusions they reach, and perhaps the prejudices they allow to overcome their scientific abilities.

A scientist really is only as credible as their methodology. As a scientist, I find the methodology of "Creation scientists" to be suspect, particularly in that they do little if any primary research, but instead, in effect, make highly partial use of other sources.

wolfsbane wrote:

It's history, Scofflaw. It is documented how Social Darwinism arose. Its practices are with us today.

Doesn't make it logical, though, does it? Is the Inquisition a logical outcome of Christianity? Certainly it's a historical one.

wolfsbane wrote:

So the Black Sea was flooded to cover all the high hills and settle the ark on a mountain range? Flooded for a year?

Why would you find that strange?! I'm not suggesting that the flood c.5600BC corresponds exactly to what is written in Genesis, but then you know I don't consider Genesis reliable in that sense. On the other hand, the entry of 10 cubic miles of water per day, raising the level of the Black Sea by several hundred feet, certainly fits the outline story well enough.

Interestingly, of all flood myths, the closest comparison I know of to Genesis is the Greek myth of Deucalion and his ark, although I believe the story also has many points of correspondence with the epic of Gilgamesh.

wolfsbane wrote:

The general location is given as the mountains of Ararat - there is no doubt about their identity. Since a specific landing place was not given, it's a very big area to go look for any remains, and it is snow-capped.

It is a big area, and roughly in the right place for the Black Sea flood, particularly if one doesn't assume that "on the mountains of Ararat" actually means on top of one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

J C wrote:

An Evangelical Christian Responds By Excelsior

Could I start by saying that I found about 90% of what you wrote to be perfectly consistent with my own worldview as a Christian.

Really? Of course you don't literally mean "90 per cent" do you? You use "90%" figuratively to suggest a large amount. Or do you actually raally mean 90 per cent? If so then please care to quote the actual ten per cent of words you do not agree with? Mind you everything you believe is not contained in the words you have written is it? I am sure you have not written down all your arguments and beliefs? Have you? Maybe you had discussions with people which you havent written down? Is that possible?


[snip Ot discussion on Jesus - this discussion is about whether the Bible is literally true and totally complete and that no other Traditions other than the written word in the bible are acceptable. also it is about whether scientific "evolution" is as scientifically plausable (or more so ) than God making manking out of muck.

Creation Science is a VERY OLD SCIENCE and numbers among it’s ranks some of the best scientific brains to have ever lived including Newton, ...snip next twelve which I can also criticise

Newton? Would this be Isaac Newton? The Arian heretic Isaac Newton?
When you argue from authority be sure to check out when you begin that the authorities you use are not heritics.

Creation Science is at least several hundred years old as I have already pointed out and contains within it’s ranks people from all Christian denominations, other mono-theists and people with no particular religious conviction.

And Arian Heritics.

I am a Christian who BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ and a Creation Scientist who KNOWS that ‘muck didn’t evolve into MAN’.

You "Know" it? you dont just believe it? You actually know because you have facyual evidence?

By the way shouldn't "evolve" be in capitals rather than "MAN"?
What do you mean be "evolve"?
do you believe ther were no species capable of breeding with human beings and that god came along and actually placed the first human man and woman on the Earth?

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, your instrumentation errors are based on theodolites. Last time I looked, astronomers weren't using theodolites to triangulate stars, so your assumptions are effectively irrelevant.

Also, this is not the same kind of triangulation. It's a measurement of the angular size of an object as seen in Hubble, compared to its absolute size - this is not the same as a parallax measurement, which you are assuming it to be. Before we have any excitement about measuring the angular size of the circumstellar ring, it is easy to do so to very small fractions of arc-seconds, because the measurement is direct (1/1000th of a field of view covering 1 arc-second gives a thousandth of an arc second).

It is much much more than 30 or sop light years you claim. As regards direct parallax.
Before the Hipparcos sattelite, there were about 50 stars whose distances were measured to within 1% accuracy using ground-based telescopes, out to a distance of about 10 light-years. Distances to about 1000 stars within 50 light-years were known to within 10% accuracy. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=261
Before Hipparcos, no Cepheid distances could be determined directly using the parallax method, but had to be measured using an intermediate method known as the "Cluster Method," in which the bulk motion of a cluster of stars is used to obtain their distance.

Thanks to Hipparcos satellite, distances to a handful of Cepheids are now known directly. Hipparcos was able to measure the parallaxes for 400 stars within 30 light years to 1% accuracy, and 28,000 stars within 300 light years to 10% accuracy. About 7 or 8 Cepheids are among these, including the North Star, Polaris.

For 118,000 selected stars, Hipparcos measured their parallax accurate to .001 second of arc. That's the apparent diameter of a coin at a distance of 5000 kilometers, or putting a quarter in New York and viewing it from San Francisco or the amount the hair on a person a meter away appears to grow in one second!

A secondary mission named Tycho measured another million stars to an accuracy of "only" 0.01 second.

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers. Anecdotal evidence is of no interest to me.

Well you claim it you produce the stats. Mind you he made the original claim. Anyway my poinmt is that I do not agree with you on this. Far more people die as a result of atheistic or anti religious regimes. Communism, naziism, maoism, pol pot, etc. if you add them up you will find far far more than milirary deaths in WWI or WWII

Yes, you've made that pretty clear. Possibly you are a bad person, or would be if not restrained, and it is a much better idea that you be a Christian, and it would certainly explain your particular view of Christianity. As I said, I don't question the efficacy of Christian belief for that purpose. However, that does not give you the right to assume that other people are bad people, who if not so restrained, would also engage in evil!

Smacks to me of confusing an informed conscience with following rules. One could be an anarchist and a christian (but many organised churches wouldnt approve of that). It also confuses who is making the rules. Many churches will say their rules are faith and God's law. These same rules didnt exist before they made them! So are they an independent creation?

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

Well you claim it you produce the stats. Mind you he made the original claim. Anyway my poinmt is that I do not agree with you on this. Far more people die as a result of atheistic or anti religious regimes. Communism, naziism, maoism, pol pot, etc. if you add them up you will find far far more than milirary deaths in WWI or WWII

This article, with the catchy title of "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" is both comprehensive and recent.

You appear to be confusing "countries with lots of atheists" with "countries where the State represses religion in favour of another ideology". All of the regimes you cited replaced religion with another ideology, frequently involving a personality cult of the leader. They are irrelevant to personal atheism, and to my discussion with wolfsbane.

By the way, where you have quoted me above (post 1881), you appear to actually be arguing with JC. Certainly I'm not the person claiming that we can only measure 30 light years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

You appear to be confusing "countries with lots of atheists" with "countries where the State represses religion in favour of another ideology". All of the regimes you cited replaced religion with another ideology, frequently involving a personality cult of the leader. They are irrelevant to personal atheism, and to my discussion with wolfsbane.

I was just about to say the same thing, and I think I had this discussion with someone a few weeks ago on the Atheism forum.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. You don't replace the moral belief system of a religion like Christianity with Atheism.

Take for example the USSR, which always comes up in this discussion since they outlawed religion so it is an example almost devoid of religion aspects.

The Communists in Russia didn't replace Russian Orthodox Christianity with Atheism. The replaced it with Communism. Communism is a belief system, Atheism isn't. Communism tells you what to follow, what to believe. Atheism doesn't.

It is incorrect (and also a bit unfair on atheists) to judge the actions of atheists bases on the fact they are atheist. Instead you want to look at what they actually believe, rather than simply what they don't believe.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I was just about to say the same thing, and I think I had this discussion with someone a few weeks ago on the Atheism forum.

Atheism isn't a philosophy. You don't replace the moral belief system of a religion like Christianity with Atheism.

Take for example the USSR, which always comes up in this discussion since they outlawed religion so it is an example almost devoid of religion aspects.

The Communists in Russia didn't replace Russian Orthodox Christianity with Atheism. The replaced it with Communism. Communism is a belief system, Atheism isn't. Communism tells you what to follow, what to believe. Atheism doesn't.

It is incorrect (and also a bit unfair on atheists) to judge the actions of atheists bases on the fact they are atheist. Instead you want to look at what they actually believe, rather than simply what they don't believe.

The quote i refer to is

The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

the point is self defeating. If you define those who massacre people (the likes of a regime who takes control of a country - this could be one where personal belief is by law seperated fromthe State e.g. the US in Iraq or it could be communism or it could be theocratic rulers) ... any way id you define them as a group of people who had faith in something (what God told them; what Maos bool told them etc...) then you have already tampered with teh sample and defined those with a belief as being those who cause harm.

Care to please list ten "countries without a belief system" which have some of the lowest crime and violence rates?

If you just redefine "non religious countries/societies" as "low violence" countries I would like to see a sample of these.

For my part I offer a society steeped in religious beliefs- the Vatican State. I think we can then compare their murder or violent crime rate with your list.

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

You appear to be confusing "countries with lots of atheists" with "countries where the State represses religion in favour of another ideology".

What non religious countries with loads more athiest have lower crime and death rates than the Vatican for example? You claimed coutries with large atheistic populations have lower crime than countries with large numbers of believers. Where is your evidence?

By the way, where you have quoted me above (post 1881), you appear to actually be arguing with JC. Certainly I'm not the person claiming that we can only measure 30 light years.

I know that. Now we both do! sorry if it confused you in any way. Not intended to.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Because its true.
I don't think it did (link?). The gass of the hourglass nebula was largely invisable until Hubble had a look, where the rings had been observed years before. Also the hourglass nebula was there before the rings appears. Also that fact doesn't change the time it took the light from the nova to hit the primary ring.

JC seems to be in a "causality trap" here. Einstien suffered from the same. If the first postulate is true - speed of light is finite and the second postulate of Relativity also true - you musty get the same results then events can be considered observer dependent. The hourglass nebula does something when we see it do that.

Put it another way. The Sun is about eight light minutes away. Suppose it is just setting and I ask you where the Sun is. You point at the Sun and I say "but you know it takes eight minutes for the light to reach us so NOW the Sun is really a bit below the horizon isn't it?"

Well is it or isnt it? -bugs me that. the answer is above by the way.

the other prob;e with causliity in JC arguments is the idea of cause and effect. Forgive me if this has been mentioned already. Quantum theory explains elements of nature which we could not explain. It is strictly not deterministic not a cause and effect theory. IU have gone over it many a time and it maakes perfect sense. But I look at youngs slits and it still boggles me. I really don't get what a photon is! And I still have a problem with non local causal effects. Anyway the point is everything in science is not explained by cause and effect.

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

What non religious countries with loads more athiest have lower crime and death rates than the Vatican for example? You claimed coutries with large atheistic populations have lower crime than countries with large numbers of believers. Where is your evidence?

Did you, perhaps, not follow the link to the article I cited? This link here?

ISAW wrote:

I know that. Now we both do! sorry if it confused you in any way. Not intended to.

No, no, I'm fine, thanks, I remember what I posted.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

the point is self defeating. If you define those who massacre people (the likes of a regime who takes control of a country - this could be one where personal belief is by law seperated fromthe State e.g. the US in Iraq or it could be communism or it could be theocratic rulers) ... any way id you define them as a group of people who had faith in something (what God told them; what Maos bool told them etc...) then you have already tampered with teh sample and defined those with a belief as being those who cause harm.

What? I don't think anyone has suggested what you appear to be saying, alhtough it's a little difficult to tell. Possibly you are claiming that we are explaining away the crimes of "atheist" regimes by pointing out that they were in the grip of ideologies that specifically set out to replace religion, while attributing violence to the theism in countries such as the US that actually have a separation of church and state?

That might be a good point, were it not for the fact that you yourself brought up the comparison in terms of warfare and purges.

Repressive "atheist" regimes are as likely as the next repressive regime to engage in warfare, or commit massacres, because pretty much all repressive regimes are interested in the retention of power first and foremost. Do you have an alternative theory?

ISAW wrote:

Care to please list ten "countries without a belief system" which have some of the lowest crime and violence rates?

Again, no-one has suggested that we look at this in terms of states except yourself. Have a look at the srticle - the definitions are reasonably clear.

ISAW wrote:

For my part I offer a society steeped in religious beliefs- the Vatican State. I think we can then compare their murder or violent crime rate with your list.

Really? You think a couple of acres of buidlings staffed entirely by celibate members of religious orders is a good comparison to a nation-state?

regards,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

Did you, perhaps, not follow the link to the article I cited? This link here?

Where does it say what you claimed? You post a reference to an article of several thousand words. It is taken as standard practice that if you cite some work you should quote the particular argument whener that is supported in that work.

In any case your reference uses a sample of 18 "prosporous democracies". This is not all countries in the world or all societies as you claimed. In some cases eleven are cited and of those eleven countries like Ireland and the US skew the sample. In fact the author admit this. Also it is not proven that murder rates were higher in past centuries BECAUSE of belief, which is what you claim. Nor that lack of belief was a causal factor in decreasin murder rates in the sample. It shows a correlation between practice and certain beliefs in some "christian countries" and in crime. That is about all it does.

No, no, I'm fine, thanks, I remember what I posted.

If I indicated you stated something (whether you believe it from memory or not) which you did not state or attributed something to you which you didn't state then care to please indicate that to me?

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, no-one has suggested that we look at this in terms of states except yourself. Have a look at the srticle - the definitions are reasonably clear.

The article you cited refers to eighteen STATES!

Really? You think a couple of acres of buidlings staffed entirely by celibate members of religious orders is a good comparison to a nation-state?

Now who is mentioning "states"?
Here by the way is your original claim:

The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

Now the Vatican State is a "society" as is the "society" of friends (a completely non violent group I believe) or a monastary, or a plethora of other "societies" of believers.

You are claiming that athiesm causes a drop in criminality and violence. What evidence have you that supports that claim? all you have provided is a sample of eighteen states which have (in general) had a drop in criminality and a drop in worship and/or people who say they believe over the same period. Maybe they also had a drop in coffee drinking or chocolate consumption. Does that mean coffee or chocolate is a causal factor in murder? Also, there are other States with significant drops in murder. five centuries ago there were far more assisinations in the Vatican. It has radically curtailed. Yet the same percentage of clergy believe in God and in number far more believe in God. How come there hasnt been an increase in clergy being assinated?