Christianity - Plague of the MIND

[jolly]

It is quite evident that you are afraid of the truth, and logic. You push it aside because your scrambled neural connections just... can't... grasp it. Infact your response reveals the backwards nature of the mush we call your brain, indeed. It simply makes no sense, and it saddens me. I don't believe in your manufactured God... you know... the one that has been stabbed into your brain the day you were born like a rusty knife. Watch out for the tetanus. No, I don't have to be afraid of your ridiculous fairytales in order for me to be a good human being. SURPRISE SURPRISE. Sorry old buddy old pal.

Afraid of truth and logic?

No my friend, the unexamined life is not worth living.

It's just that I've been around this rock long enough to see more than one bonafide, dyed-in-the-wool miracle...no logical or scientific explanation possible, and I've got more than one science degree to back up my observations.

Why should one believe in the religion of secularism any more than a religion of a different creed?

[pianistimo]

i have seen bonafide miracles, too!  but they would be too many and too unbelievable to share all of them in one sitting.  one that sticks out in my mind is when a neighbors refrigerator stopped working and she 'had to' unload a bunch of groceries with us that would go bad during the exact same week that we were having some financial difficulties (quite a few years ago) due to unemployment for a few months.  that particular week was nearing the end of the month - and the timing was really amazing. 

my last daughter's birth.  i asked my mom - can you pray for me.  i'm going to be 40 and i think this time might be difficult.  i had my daughter almost as soon as i entered the hospital.  i was so amazed that i just looked at my baby and almost started laughing.  the other two were at least 12 hours and 8-9 hours (with one of them needing pitocin - which is an ugly experience if you've had it.  it helps the labor progress but makes the contractions so close to each other that you can hardly catch a breath).  i thanked God over and over for the ease of the last one.  i finally understood how some women could have more than one child. they're not all the same.  also, with each child i ate less and less during pregancy.  the last one wasn't as heavy as the first.  but, still was 8 lbs. 

[maul]

I'm pretty sure Allah is responsible for those miracles.

[timothy42b]

I simply want want atheists and scientists to acceed that an intelligent person can believe in God. 

  I simply request the same respect in return, for one to say "I don't believe in God, but I can see why an intelligent person who believes they have experienced Him would."  But rarely do they return the same courtesy.

No, you have not stated the disagreement correctly, not even close.

Of course, I am lumping you with the literal creationist camp, and that may be unfair.  But much of what you say matches their rhetoric. 

First, scientists don't show contempt for religious people in general.  The opposite is very much true.  Particularly the creationist camp goes out of their way to show contempt and disdain for science of all kinds.  You have watched Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) tapes, haven't you?  Most creationists will work into their speech somewhere the fact that scientists are so stupid they think bumblebees can't fly.  In times past evangelists were explicit about considering education linked to the Antichrist. 

Secondly, it is not true scientists don't believe an intelligent person can believe in God.  We do, and some of us are believers ourselves.  We don't see how it is possible that an intelligent person with integrity can be a literalist or a creationist.  It utterly mystifies us.  But we have no problem with belief itself. 

Thirdly, most of the proponents of creationism are poster children for superstition and ignorance, inbreeding and lack of education.  It pains me to say this.  But browse the internet a bit.  I think if you are honest you will have to admit the creationist side has not learned even the basics of evolution, cannot spell or use grammar, cannot construct a rational argument, cannot respond to their opponent's points, cannot refrain from abuse whenever anyone disagrees with them.  I don't include you with this crowd, but the damage has been done.  If the creationist camp had fewer wackos speaking for you, you wouldn't be so much of a laughingstock.  Maqybe you'd get a more fair hearing occasionally.  We don't consider you far from Rev Phelps, in general. 

It is possible to be a believer, even a Christian, and not check your brain at the door.  You are welcome to attend services at my church! 

[wishful thinker]

This literalist/creationist versus scientist/evolutionist argument is very American. 

I don't see any inconsistency between the concept of all things having been created, and at the same time having evolved over time.  My garden evolves year after year, but I put the plants there in the first place. 

There has been great success in evolving new colours in the flowers, but sadly none of them have yet spontaneously grown wings and turned into birds.    Maybe I need to give it more time....if only I were immortal....

[prometheus]

I have a quick question. As you claim any religious person is brainwashed from birth, how do explain this sudden growth of Christianity in China.

Ok, lets first establish that the question is fair to ask. But let's also know that if we want to understand if Christianity is often aquired to brainwashing or not we have to look at all cases. One just can't dispute that in most cases one inherets the religion of your parents/family/school/society.

As for Christianity in China. I think it is popular for the saem reason McDonalds conquered the world. And for the same reason western classical music is popular across the world. The western culture is dominant because it has the most money and power behind it. Therefore, McDonalds, wester style suits, wester classical music and also christianity are assossiated with western wealth and power.

As for the growth of christianity in China. I am sure it also has organisations involved to promote it. But I suspect chrstianity in those countries is almost always the liberal form and not the fundamentalist form. Just like in islamic countries christians have more rights. So becomming a christian means becomming more reasonable and more for democracy and freedom. But I am not so sure about this. I have never been in China and I have never studied deep in this subject. If you really want to know the truth try to find out yourself. But if you do you probably need to make sure you don't already know for certain what you will find.


As for the government. I didn't mean to say that the government brainwashes people into believing religion. In China since Mao they have been trying to enforce atheism for political reasons.

[wishful thinker]

I have never been in China and I have never studied deep in this subject. If you really want to know the truth try to find out yourself.

So why jump into comment about the growth of Christianity in China, when you admit that you do not know the first thing about it?

It seems that there are those on both sides of this "debate" that are starting from entrenched positions, and then find whatever "facts" fit their argument. 

[prometheus]

Because someone asked me to comment on it.

[johnny-boy]

"I think if you are honest you will have to admit the creationist side has not learned even the basics of evolution, cannot spell or use grammar" - timothy42b

"Maqybe you'd get a more fair hearing occasionally." -  timothy42b

Grammar check: "fairer hearing"

John

[prometheus]

Why don't you just shut up and get lost?

You don't want to discuss anything. You are only here to provoke and insult. Then when you do have the maturity to discuss something with out people you can return.

If you read timothy's profile you will read he is from Europe. He may be from the UK but english isn't spoken in every European country.

Why don't you show us how sophisticated your german, spanish or french grammar is?


And is this even a real error? It may lack elegance. But isn't it 'more fair' and 'fairer' and not 'more fairer'?

But then again what do I know. My posts are totally littered with spelling error and grammar novelties.

[johnny-boy]

Why don't you just shut up and get lost?

You don't want to discuss anything. You are only here to provoke and insult. Then when you do have the maturity to discuss something with out people you can return.

If you read timothy's profile you will read he is from Europe. He may be from the UK but english isn't spoken in every European country.

Why don't you show us how sophisticated your german, spanish or french grammar is?


And is this even a real error? It may lack elegance. But isn't it 'more fair' and 'fairer' and not 'more fairer'?

But then again what do I know. My posts are totally littered with spelling error and grammar novelties.

As usual, you missed the point Promey. 

Timothy made the first remark about creationists being ignorant and can't spell or use grammar. I was just pointing out we all make mistakes in grammar - even him. Of course you let his remark slip by without comment.

And where did you come up with "more fairer"? I stated "fairer hearing".

You'd like all people that disagree with you to go away wouldn't you Promey? 

John

[prometheus]

But most creationists do not know the theory of evolution. Just like you don't.

I don't think I agree with Timothy. I think I disagree with him on some important point.

As with you, I don't disagree with anything you say since you don't actually say anything.


As for them going away. If they do then reason lost. I like reason. I don't want creationist to ignore that what I say and go away. But you don't even think those that don't agree with you are worth an argument. You only have insults and ad hominem.


And what about "fairer hearing"?

[timothy42b]

I actually considered both usages (fairer and more fair) and couldn't decide which was more correct.  So I guessed. 

Honestly I still don't know.  If you say I was wrong I'll accept it and apologize. 

I think a cursory examination of most creationist posts will show more egregious errors than that one.  That doesn't necessarily make their arguments wrong.  But, the ubiquity of these does tend to categorize creationists a bit. 

Yeah, I know, to a purist verbification (categorize) is a big sin.  That particular one is fairly common and made the point more succinctly, so I transgressed. 

[prometheus]

I think that it is either 'more fair' or 'fairer' and that only 'more fairer' would be wrong.

I guess it is just that Johnny thinks 'fairer' is more elegent. And I agree that it is. But that doesn't mean 'more fair' is wrong.

[johnny-boy]

“But most creationists do not know the theory of evolution. Just like you don't” – Promey

Do you know most creationists?  General remarks like this destroys your credibility.

I understand the theory of evolution. I just don't buy it.

John

[prometheus]

Now, then let me change it into 'most creationists that I heard talk about evolution'.


If you really understand the theory of evolution you wouldn't have called it a 'chance theory'. The only conclusion I can draw based on the things you said is that you do not understand the theory of evolution.

[johnny-boy]

"Now, then let me change it into 'most creationists that I heard talk about evolution" - Promey

Much better Promey.

John

[prometheus]

Do you really think that the creationists I heard talk about evolution aren't representative?


I think they are.

[wishful thinker]

OK, forget the grammar, it isn't be the subject two hand 

For all the "ignorant creationists" out there, this is the gist of evolutionary theory (as purported by Darwin):

Random mutations in a organism give it some competitive advantage over the other organism in its environment.  Because of this competitive advantage it tends to flourish and pass on its mutution (called "survival of the fittest"). The process is repeated ad infinitum over millions of years to create the diversity of species that we know have.

Darwin supported this theory through observation of the mutuations of finches etc in the south seas.  Dog breeding would also support it (take a wolf and over time you have pekinese and greyhounds).  But, no one has ever successfully bread a dog into a cat; only variations between types of existing species.  Doesn't mean it can't be done, doesn't mean it can.

And there is not a shred of proof, that despite all the skeltons of extinct creatures and plants, that although they may exhibit progressive changes in anatomy, that one actually spontaneously mutated into the other.

And that is why it is a theory, not a law.  It is as logically flawed as the theory of the existance  of a god/creator.   Because there is no proof of either;  you can make the kind of connections that Darwin did up come up with evolution, or you can believe the words of a few "prophets" (Moses, Jesus et al) who say this is the way it is.  Up to you really.

CS Lewis raises a powerful argument for creationism in Miracles, where he argues that it is logically impossible for intellegence to spontaneous arise.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally in every respect.  Some of it yes; the Gospels, and Jewish history and law, but much of it is allegorical.  The literal seven day creation is one (and by the way, Genesis agrees with evolutionists that the first animals crawled out of the sea - spooky or what ? ) as is the allegorical Book of Revelation.  It has to be read as a whole and taken in its historical and social context. 

[johnny-boy]

Do you really think that the creationists I heard talk about evolution aren't representative?


I think they are.

I have no idea.

John

[outstretchedarm]

hello all

Well, just want to say that this thread has become a bit difficult, because there are more insults flying around than anything.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where we are in our discussion.  Its become somewhat clouded.

Again, I'm not seeking to change anybody's mind.  I kindly submit that it may not be wise for certain atheists to refer to theists as idiots. I for one don't think atheists are idiots.  Many of them are quite brilliant.  I just think they haven't had an encounter with God, which may not even be their fault.  After all, you can't just whip up an encounter with God.

Before I met God, I was something of a theists, even then.  But I could, especially as a philosophy student of a university, "play" with the idea of there being no God.  Now, years later, after certain experiences, I no longer have that luxury.

Unfortunately, certain atheists on this thread are committing the very crimes they accuse believers of.  Consider:

1) You accuse believers of being narrow minded and dogmatic.  Yet, in discussion thus far, the atheists have demonstrated the most dogmatic behavior.  It simply must be your way, and noone else's way can possibly be right.  I, on the other hand, respect your views.

2) You accuse believers of all kinds of atrocities.  But if the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that once you devalue people's ideas, you devalue their personhood.  When you say christians ideas are like "Modern caveman thought," you are suprisingly close to throwing them in a gas chamber.  

Certain atheists on this thread really are showing their buttcheeks.   While all the while proclaiming how they can be good people without our fairy tale god, they treat people like morons.  You really aren't making a very good case for becoming an atheist, if atheists act and talk the way some of you in this thread do.  

I like you guys.  I think you're probably great people.  So I have a divine Friend.  So what?  Be happy for me.  

The problem, I suspect, is that many people's viewpoints are so western.  You see everything in terms of truth and logic.  Though truth and logic are important, know that they are not the only lenses through which people throughout the world view reality. Its only one persective, known as modernism.

Interestingly though, most social scientists agree that they age of modernism in western society is probably over.  For this reason, you'll hear people discuss post-modernism.  While post-modernism is very difficult to define, it can be summarized this way: truth has no meaning outside the context of love, relationship, and power.  

In other words, what atheists often fail to grasp is that the contemporary mind doesn't just seek out all the alternative explainations of a thing (such as "where did we come from?" and "is there a God?") and then evaluate them on the strength of the argument's merits.  (In fact, I doubt human beings ever made decisions this way).  Rather, as we experience power, within the context of a relationship, we begin to ask, "how do others in this relationship perceive reality?"  Then, we adopt that paradigm into our worldview.  This is how people become believers.

Thus it is with God.  As you get to know Him, and other believers, and they minister to your life: they love you, they pray for you when you are sick, they listen to your story when you fail, or He strengthens you when you are weak; something begins to happen.  You begin to ask "God, you're the One making these significant changes in my life.  Teach me to view reality your way, because its working."  Thus, one develops spiritual/biblical worldviews.

You can ignore this if you want, but its a pretty accurate description of why this christianity thing hasn't died out.  Its not an issue of brainwashing or having a rusty spike driven into our brains, its an ongoing series of encounters through which we make choices to believe God's report over the reports of others.

I suppose one can grow to love the atheistic worldview through similar procesees.  But until atheists begin loving people instead of cramming their arguments down people's throats in the pedantic style demonstrated in this thread, they'll never succeed in winning people's hearts to the extent that Jesus Christ has.

[prometheus]

But, no one has ever successfully bread a dog into a cat; only variations between types of existing species.  Doesn't mean it can't be done, doesn't mean it can.

No one claims that this needs to happen. The theory of evolution surely does not. The problem here is that you imply there is a limit to mutations. Creationist try to claim that while microevolution does happen, macroevolution does not happen. For evolutionists the only difference between the two is time. There is no system that prevents mutations from reaching too far away from the 'basic template'. This means that over time there can be enough cumilative mutations where you have something that has an ancestor that was a dog but that would no longer be called a dog because it can no longer reproduce with other creatures that have the dog as an ancestor as well.


If you accept that microevolution happens then you can only deny that macroevolution also ought to happen is when you can make a case for why micro-evolution can't be cumulative creating what one would call macroevolution.

Only creationists make this destinction because they ignore genetics. Genes don't care about how far away they are from a particular 'template'. Copy errors will happen anyway.

Also, what is defined as macroevolution has happened. New species have also been created through evolution.

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Also, that which I already got into myself:
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_3.html

And there is not a shred of proof,

There is no shred of proof in all of science. But still science has made it possible for us to communicate using computers, which work on very sophisticated physical processes. Maybe you don't understand the difference between proof and evidence. Science works on probablitity. Not certainty. Science hasn't proven that when I hit the button in a minute nature will work according to the laws of physics we think we figured out. No one can guarantee this. But it is so probable that I can assume I am not typing this for nothing.

that despite all the skeltons of extinct creatures and plants, that although they may exhibit progressive changes in anatomy, that one actually spontaneously mutated into the other.

That's because different fossils didn't mutate into each other. Depending on the actual fossils there are thousands or hundred thousands of generations and mutations inbetween them.

Each generation would basically stay the same. Though there was a very minor mutation that is really unobservable. But because of the large amounts of generations in the end they would cummilate to make a significant difference.

And that is why it is a theory, not a law.

This is another thing that shows ignorance of science in general as well as the theory of evolution. There reason why evolution is not a law is because it doesn't make definite claims about what will happen in the future. A law generally are generalisations, principles and patterns of nature. A theory is something on a higher level that explains how laws work. For example, the theory of evolution rests on the laws of natural selection and the laws of genetics.

The theory of evolution will never turn into a law. No matter how much evidence there is in support of it.

This argument is one made by Bush the First. And it would mean one has so doubt all theories in science. You don't want to do that because it would make your life very hard.

It is as logically flawed as the theory of the existance  of a god/creator.   Because there is no proof of either;

So I have proven this to be false.

Also, there is not theory of god or creation. There is not even a hypotisis. If someone would come up with one it would instantly get refuted. Therefore no one tries to create one.
If you disagree just try it for yourself. You will definitely end up getting famous if you succeed.

...you can make the kind of connections that Darwin did up come up with evolution, or you can believe the words of a few "prophets" (Moses, Jesus et al) who say this is the way it is.  Up to you really.

Frankly, I don't care about a single word Darwin said. I don't really care what he said. I never read his book. All the stuff that Darwin did was essential but is now generally obselete. In the strict sense there are no Darwinists left. There are only neo-Darwinists.

Also, I don't believe words. I believe observations and accounts of observations.

CS Lewis raises a powerful argument for creationism in Miracles, where he argues that it is logically impossible for intellegence to spontaneous arise.

Why is that? And should one call the laws of nature 'spontaneous'. Surely for some reason they seem to be able to create things without guidance. Be it atoms, stars or life itself.


Also, attacking evolution is pretty meaningless unless you postulate an alternative theory. Providing evidence that suggests that evolution could for some reason could never happen would also be possible were it not for the fact that we have observed for sure that it does happen.

The question is if evolution can explain the development of all live on earth. Maybe there are other processes at work as well. So try to work on that.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally in every respect.  Some of it yes; the Gospels, and Jewish history and law, but much of it is allegorical.  The literal seven day creation is one (and by the way, Genesis agrees with evolutionists that the first animals crawled out of the sea - spooky or what ? ) as is the allegorical Book of Revelation.  It has to be read as a whole and taken in its historical and social context. 

Yes, very true. For example Revelations is about the Roman empire. Not about the apocalypse. At least according to most scolars on the subject. And it makes perfect sense because allegorical text always need to be placed in their context, exactly like you destribe, to understand them.
So I agree totally here.

But for one thing. Genesis doesn't claim that the first animals crawled out of the sea. It only says that land animals were created after sea and air animals. This means it claims that dolphins/whales and birds were created before reptiles. Observations have indicated that this is totally false.

Also, if we place Genesis in the cultural context we know that these people knew nothing about science and little about nature. So we can easily see it is just a fairy tale. Just like all other old societies had fairy tales about creation, stories we don't give a single thought because of what they are.

[timothy42b]

hello all


Again, I'm not seeking to change anybody's mind.  I kindly submit that it may not be wise for certain atheists to refer to theists as idiots. I for one don't think atheists are idiots.  

I think you're still missing the point, and at the risk of nearing insult myself, am beginning to wonder if it is deliberate.

There are no atheists here who have referred to theists as idiots.

There are some believers here, including myself, who do think a certain subset of believers act publically like idiots to the point of being proud of it.  This subset is a smaller subset of the group of literal creationists.  However it is a very vocal subset which is giving the world a bad impression of US Christianity in general.  It would be really nice if some of the more rational literalists would disclaim the worst examples of this, but it isn't going to happen.  "If man came from monkeys, why doesn't a man come from a monkey today?"  If you insist on saying something that stupid, and continuing to repeat it after it has been patiently and tactfully explained to you, you are going to attract some contempt yourself.  And if you as a slightly more educated and well spoken seminarian do not speak against this approach, you risk being tarred with the same brush.  

You say you don't think of atheists as idiots.  (Not that I'd care much, I'm not one.)  I believe you.  I think you would have to admit though that most of your peers consider all scientists to be both atheists and idiots.  And, possibly linked to the Antichrist.  

No?  

[prometheus]

1) You accuse believers of being narrow minded and dogmatic.  Yet, in discussion thus far, the atheists have demonstrated the most dogmatic behavior.  It simply must be your way, and noone else's way can possibly be right.  I, on the other hand, respect your views.

So what is so dogmatic about the things I, since I think I am the only atheist, in one sense of the word, in this discussion?

The fact that I think I know that observations other people have made are correct does not mean I am dogmatic. You on the other hand have claimed that it is dogmatic to think that humans have clearly observed that birds are not nearly as old as reptiles.

If this is your definition of being dogmatic, then yes I am very much dogmatic. But I don't think there are many people that adhere to this definition of dogma.

2) You accuse believers of all kinds of atrocities.

I only said that in the OT God tells her people to commit genocide.

But if the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that once you devalue people's ideas, you devalue their personhood.  When you say christians ideas are like "Modern caveman thought," you are suprisingly close to throwing them in a gas chamber.

There were not my words. But the bible is a book written by people from the stone age with thoughts from the stone age. Therefore, letting the bible guide your life is taking ethical lessons from stone age people.

And if you think this comes close to throwing people in the gass chambers. That is a very sad thing. People engaged in intellectual debate generally don't throw others in the gass chambers. A scientist has never thrown another scientist into the gass chamber because they disagree about the charge of an electron.

No, you will observe that entities of power commit atricities. If you have read my posts about politics you will realise I am very critical about all entities of power because of this reason.

Certain atheists on this thread really are showing their buttcheeks.    While all the while proclaiming how they can be good people without our fairy tale god, they treat people like morons.

If I thought you were a moron I would just laugh at you and give up. As you see I have been able to not even consider Pianistimo as a moron eventhough I have been here quite some years already.

I also believe you are being good, certainly all people commit acts of goodness, without this behavior having much to do with your religion. I think that religion makes people feel more certain of themselves, more secure. I don't think it makes them more moral. It only allows morality that is already there to florish. This also means that it can strenghten people to commit acts they think are good but are closer to what I call evil. It takes religion to make good people do evil things.

You really aren't making a very good case for becoming an atheist, if atheists act and talk the way some of you in this thread do. 

I think you aren't doing very good from an intellectual point of view because you have made all kinds of claims I refuted and you just gave up on them.
Also, I am not making a case for atheism. I already know you can't talk people into atheism when they are ready to debate defending their religion. I am arguing for the sake of reason.

I like you guys.  I think you're probably great people.  So I have a divine Friend.  So what?  Be happy for me. 

You entered the debate. Frankly, I don't know you. I don't care if you are a nice person or not. I am only looking at your arguments.

The problem, I suspect, is that many people's viewpoints are so western.

Christianity is western. If you don't live in the west then the middle east is pretty western too. Its the source of western civilisation.

You see everything in terms of truth and logic. Though truth and logic are important, know that they are not the only lenses through which people throughout the world view reality. Its only one persective, known as modernism.

I have a friend that is a post-modernist. I don't really want to get into another anti-post modernist debate. I find those very tiresome.

But I am not interested in which viewpoints people have. I am interested in those that can learn us something about the world around us. I don't see now an irrational view of the world learns us something about the world aroubd us.

Interestingly though, most social scientists agree that they age of modernism in western society is probably over.

There are no true scientists in sociology. They use scientific method, after the great sucess of it in other fields, but in the field of sociology it never got anywhere. There aren't any laws of sociology. We haven't learned anything because it is so complex. Human society is the most complex thing in the universe because it consists ouf of 6 billion interacting human brains.

For this reason, you'll hear people discuss post-modernism.  While post-modernism is very difficult to define, it can be summarized this way: truth has no meaning outside the context of love, relationship, and power.   

Now you are turning this into a debate about why religion exists and why people aren't rational. I already said I think people are inherently very irrational. And yes, religion is very dominant in this world. But it has nothing to do with the debate we were trying to have.

The fact that religion exists doesn't mean it is 'right' in the moral sense, it still has to be debated. And it also doesn't mean that we should accept its dogma as true.

Also, there is a danger that without standards of universal human rights, freedom and democracy, reason and enlightenment, the world will be plunged into more violence and war. I am not saying that religion is responsible for this. I am saying that there are ideas in modern society that can prevent war. The people of Europe are able to prevent their governments from waging endless wars on each other. Something they have done throughout history. Now because of religion or science. But because of rationality and democracy.

[wishful thinker]

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

This is in the timeline between the creation of vegitation, and the creation of animals.  Which is logical.  No point in animals crawling out of the sea if there is nothing to eat etc.

I am not going to try and refute all your points Prom, as my point is not to persuade you of something that you cannot be persuaded on, but that as I said, I do no see to the two concepts, namely evolution and creation as being mutually exclusive.

There is no such thing as "proof" anyway, because that would imply that imperfect/irrational man is able to interpret all available "evidence" in the correct way, which I think to be impossible.

And quite frankly I don't give a Tinker's cuss, because I am not uncomfortable at all with the origin of things; where we came from is of minimal importance compared to where we are going to 

[outstretchedarm]

@tim: no.  I value scientists, and their contributions.  I'm thankful for them.  I think most christians do as well, which is why they take medicine and use computers.

@prom: wow your tone is nasty!

I have no problem with science.  I just think that, parallel to science, there is another way of viewing reality.  It is possible to live one's life taking one's cue from spiritual entities.  The one I am fond of is God.  There are others.

I think these beings, the fact that they exist and have historically have had such a profound influence on individuals, are interesting, and worth acknowledging.  I coud see why a person, in the absense of any direct connection to these entities, would find them irrelevant.  But I think it would be unwise to completely disregard their significance or metaphysical import based simply on one's lack of experience of them.

I'm not yelling "THERE IS A GOD GOSH-DARNIT!!!!!  AND YOU HAD BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!"    No, I'm simply saying "Hmm, there's alot of people who claim to have experienced this God, and they say there is a God, and alot of people who haven't experienced Him, and they say there is no God.   Hmmmm."  I don't think it would wise to believe all these other people are wrong because you can't grasp His existence.

Earlier in this thread, you've called on posters to delineate a (falsifiable) theory of God.  Though I'm sure you'll pick this apart in your own way, here it is:

God is am entity who is eternal in nature, that is, he exists before and beyond time.  His essense is spirit, that is, He is not fundamentally material.  His essential nature is also "holy," which means a cut apart from all other things.

He is uncreated, being before time, and created all other things.  Because He created everything, He owns it.  He is sovereign, which means he reserves the right to do as he pleases over His creation.  However, in practice, three guidelines guide how he interacts with his creation: 1) Love - he acts with goodwill towards his creation 2) Justice - people are punished, in the final analysis, according to what they deserve 3) His Word - He behaves accord to how He has promised.

God is transcendent, which he means he exists apart from the creation, although He is imminently involved with it, much like a peson might place their hand in a fishbowl.  The person and the fishbowl are separate entities, though the person is influencing the fishbowl.

God has chosen to communicate a message with His creation.  This would make sense; why would God create beings that need Him without making Himself available to Him).   That's a long story, but the end of it that this message takes two forms.  One, Jesus Christ himself is the message in personified form.  Second, the Bible is the message in literary form.  Furthermore, I'm a little old fashioned in the respect that I believe that God, being very competent, would "nail" the message with one good try, so there really is no need for multiple religions.  But that's my personal view, and I don't want to offend the sentiments of readers of other religions.

There is obviously much more to God; He is inexhaustable.  Some of you will say I'm deluded and nit-pick little definitions of things that miss the basic point; nonetheless I feel the above description is fairly coherent.

as far as the claim that "my arguments have been refuted", well, I disagree.  I think all you've done is demonstrate how anchored your mind is to logic and closed off to other ways of acquiring insight; for example, from the spiritual and from experience.

[prometheus]

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth

That's where the sea animals get created. The land animals are 'brought forth from the earth' in Genesis 1:24.

No point in animals crawling out of the sea if there is nothing to eat etc.

What do you mean? They don't crawl from the waters, they live in it. In that way 'the waters bring forth'.

I am not going to try and refute all your points Prom, as my point is not to persuade you of something that you cannot be persuaded on, but that as I said, I do no see to the two concepts, namely evolution and creation as being mutually exclusive.

But that is not the point. I don't think there are mutually exclusive either. The point is that you made an inaccuare critisicm of evolution, which I corrected. And I pointed out that while they aren't mutually exclusive one is quite strong and the other doesn't just lack in evidence, it also lacks in substance.

There is no such thing as "proof" anyway, because that would imply that imperfect/irrational man is able to interpret all available "evidence" in the correct way, which I think to be impossible.

You can proof things in math.

[prometheus]

I have no problem with science.  I just think that, parallel to science, there is another way of viewing reality.

Which is? And what if they contradict each other?

I don't think it would wise to believe all these other people are wrong because you can't grasp His existence.

This doesn't hold up to logic. And you probably realise this. But you don't think that is bad? If you don't believe one has to be reasonable and adhere to facts and observation then how can we have any argument at all?

Like I said before, I can't grasp evolution either. It doesn't matter if I can grasp something. What matters is evidence and the value of scientific theory.

The fact that a lot of people have a particular opinion is totally meaningless to me. For example, 45% of the people in the US think the universe is younger than 10,000 years. Something that is off with observation and not by a small margin because observation clearly indicated that the universe is somewhere around 13,7 million years old. Sure the error margin is a few hundred thousands years(note the contrast) but we have a good idea.

So what does that mean I should conclude? That these people must be right or that they are deluded? Or maybe they do understand spirituality?

as far as the claim that "my arguments have been refuted", well, I disagree.  I think all you've done is demonstrate how anchored your mind is to logic and closed off to other ways of acquiring insight; for example, from the spiritual and from experience.

If this is so why don't you argue for this point? You just gave up. I think that suggesting that the fossil record doesn't indicate birds came into existance much later on in the history of earth is quite a strange claim. And one that requires extraordinary evidence for anyone to accept it because it strongly contradicts everything we know about this.

The fact that you can't convince me of extraordinary claims without making any argument for them doesn't mean I am anchored and closed off.

I also don't think that spirituality has anything to do with how birds came into existence.

All this came from your claim that the bible doesn't contradict each other. I was actually suprised when you didn't just try to bend the interpretation of the bible but instead pushed away all science as 'dogma'.


As for your other comments. They are irrelevant to me. I don't see what your personal religious experiences have to do with this discussion. And I don't want to take them away either. I can do nothing with that information. There is nothing to argue about and nothing to learn for me.

I must say that I am getting a bit frustrated by people making claims I think are clearly inaccurate or false, me responding to them and people then ignoring what I said.

[wishful thinker]

Prom, Gen 1:20 deals also with birds, which come from the waters, and "the moving creature that hath life" it doesn't say creatures that live only in the sea.

My point is that even in its allegorical state, it is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory, i.e. that the fist animal forms had come from the sea in the form of amphibious reptiles, which later learned to fly.

I prefer John I as the explanation of the existence of the unverse, anyway.  Much more poetical   *

You can prove things in math?  Well maybe; but then again I refer to my point that your "proof" is your human brain (or more correctly the collective human brain) interpreting things in the light of available sensory evidence.  So on that basis, we have thus proven the excistence of God, because I, and an number of others in this thread it would seem have seen the evidence.

* and you even get a mention, my friend "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not"  

[prometheus]

Yes, sea animals and birds. Haven't you been reading my posts? I already had a long argument about the bible claiming birds were created before reptiles.

I don't see your point.

Yes, it does have it wrong. The chronology is off. Birds are only seen in the last 120 to 80 million years of earth history. Life on land is a lot older.
Also, if you don't know which way to interpret it you won't read evolution. It states that animal life was created in two stages; sea and air animals and land animals. It does not understand that bats aren't birds and that whales aren't fish. It doesn't describe that what we observe though you may claim it does not contradict evolution itself.
But the chronology clearly does contradict.

[wishful thinker]

Determined to have the last word, aren't you 

Anyway, you can have it "I don't see your point"

[prometheus]

What do you mean? I meant to ask for clarification.

[outstretchedarm]

I never said anything about birds.  That was someone else's argument.  I also could care less.

No, I will not bend my interpretation of the Bible around science's latest findings.  Also, please stop with the "stone age" comments about the Bible.  They Bible was completed in about 90 ad, which, as a man of science will know, was long after the stone age.  

And so what if its ancient?  If anything, that gives it more credibility with me.  Why would I want to base my life around a thought-system someone developed the other day?  

Finally, I don't engage you on every point because many of the points you argue are nit-picky.  Like "sociology isn't really a science" etc.  The point is that social science gives us significant insights into human behavior, and I shared one of those insights.

I don't want you to take away my "religious experiences."  I want you to respect them.

I'm here to discuss who God is, and why it is reasonable to believe in Him.  I think it is reasonable because I think the existence of a spiritual realm is reasonable, and, if it is real, then interacting with it wise.  Science cannot disprove the existence of this realm (yea, they lack the apparatus to observe/measure its movements), and many people experience it firsthand.  Why wouldn't I want to work with something powerful and life changing just because science hasn't developed the means of measuring it?

[prometheus]

You said: "The bible is not reliable. For example genesis claims that birds were created before 'land animals'. Which is wrong."

- Why is this wrong?  Because it contradicts a theory that you hold to be true with religious fervor. The only way we could be sure which was created first would be if we were there and recorded the incident. In the absense of that, any theory which claims to explain the order of events with certainty (I assume you're using the theory of evolulution here) are being just as dogmatic as the religious folk.

Here. You do do it. You reject observation and reduce it to dogma.

No, I will not bend my interpretation of the Bible around science's latest findings.  Also, please stop with the "stone age" comments about the Bible.  They Bible was completed in about 90 ad, which, as a man of science will know, was long after the stone age.

I was talking about the old testament. But I have to correct myself. I should have said bronze age. I became confused because of the topic starters use of the word 'stone age'.

Stupid mistake, I admit. But the point remains.

And I do think it does matter. The people of the old testament were worse than the Taliban in terms of woman rights and the like. I am sure there have been people that called the taliban 'stone age-like people'. I am not sure I would disagree with the symbolism they try to imply with these words.

Also, I don't understand why you adhere to tradition. Why would something that is old be more true or more valuable?

I know this is the way humans act but I do not understand why? Why does a tradition have to maintained with more fervor the older it becomes? Like you claim, why shouldn't you accept something that is brand new? Yes, why not? I just don't understand and I am not the only one. This is one of the absurd properties of religion.


And I am quite sure that you still didn't explain to me what god actually is. Is it a creature, an entity, a force? How does it operate? How does it relate to conservation of matter and energy? Does it have a long white beard? Things like that.

[outstretchedarm]

thanks for keeping this up 

yes...I could care less about your observations, because next year science will make a new finding that will cause you to rethink your whole little theory.  You mentioned it; I didn't.  (I don't know what you mean by dogma in this case; whatever). But the order of birds and what not doesn't personally interest me.  That's your fight, not mine.

Next year, National Geographic or something will headline "Recent Findings Show Birds May Have Preceded Land Animals."  And you'll be all in a lurch trying to compsensate. And I still won't care.  I'm reading from an ancient text with an unchanging message.

I think you're mistaking being reasonable with suscribing to the latest views of science. I am the former and not the latter.

We're actual debating apples and oranges.  What interests me is that I am taking my cues from a spiritual being.  If this being has metaphysical import, and is powerful, knowing him is a reasonable thing to do.

You still never engaged the theory of God I put forth.  I don't suspect you'll buy it, but I just wanted you to stop saying there is no theory of God to not believe.  Of course you'll try to refute it as a non-theory, as if millenia of theologians which you are smarter than have been  discussing a non-theory, but nonetheless- there it is for you to either believe or disbelieve.

[prometheus]

thanks for keeping this up 

yes...I could care less about your observations, because next year science will make a new finding that will cause you to rethink your whole little theory.

And what do you think I will do when we have new observations? I will accept those and work from those. Rejecting an observation today because there may be another observation tomorrow is silly.

Why do you use your computer? It functions based on principles that according to your logic may be totally incorrect tomorrow. Right?

Anyway, I don't know if you realise it or not. But you switched tactic. Before observation wasn't really what it claimed to be and instead was a dogma. Now it just doesn't matter.

But the order of birds and what not doesn't personally interest me.  That's your fight, not mine.

So you claim that the bible is totally reliable but when it isn't you just don't care. It doesn't interest you. Then why do you make the claim?

Next year, National Geographic or something will headline "Recent Findings Show Birds May Have Preceded Land Animals."  And you'll be all in a lurch trying to compsensate. And I still won't care.  I'm reading from an ancient text with an unchanging message.

This way of thinking is exactly the problem of religion and exactly the big danger. You are beyond reason. I am not. If we were immortal then in 2000 years, assuming humans still exist, I would have made a lot of progress. You still have the same silly idea. You don't want to know what birds are and where they come from, how amazing creatures they are, etc.
If you are wrong you will remain wrong. If I am wrong I can be convinced.

I think you're mistaking being reasonable with suscribing to the latest views of science. I am the former and not the latter.

If you think that the current views of science aren't reasonable then make a case for it. Scientists are generally reasonable people. You can convince them. And if the issue is important you will win a Nobel prize and a lot of people, including me, will be glad you allowed us to understand a new part of nature.

You still never engaged the theory of God I put forth.

I did not recognise it. Maybe you can point me towards it.

And yes, I do think a theory needs to be falsibiable. Because if it isn't there is no way to know if it is accurate or not. In that case we still have nothing.

[outstretchedarm]

um...here  :

Earlier in this thread, you've called on posters to delineate a (falsifiable) theory of God.  Though I'm sure you'll pick this apart in your own way, here it is:

God is am entity who is eternal in nature, that is, he exists before and beyond time.  His essense is spirit, that is, He is not fundamentally material.  His essential nature is also "holy," which means a cut apart from all other things.

He is uncreated, being before time, and created all other things.  Because He created everything, He owns it.  He is sovereign, which means he reserves the right to do as he pleases over His creation.  However, in practice, three guidelines guide how he interacts with his creation: 1) Love - he acts with goodwill towards his creation 2) Justice - people are punished, in the final analysis, according to what they deserve 3) His Word - He behaves accord to how He has promised.

God is transcendent, which he means he exists apart from the creation, although He is imminently involved with it, much like a peson might place their hand in a fishbowl.  The person and the fishbowl are separate entities, though the person is influencing the fishbowl.

God has chosen to communicate a message with His creation.  This would make sense; why would God create beings that need Him without making Himself available to Him).   That's a long story, but the end of it that this message takes two forms.  One, Jesus Christ himself is the message in personified form.  Second, the Bible is the message in literary form.  Furthermore, I'm a little old fashioned in the respect that I believe that God, being very competent, would "nail" the message with one good try, so there really is no need for multiple religions.  But that's my personal view, and I don't want to offend the sentiments of readers of other religions.

There is obviously much more to God; He is inexhaustable.  Some of you will say I'm deluded and nit-pick little definitions of things that miss the basic point; nonetheless I feel the above description is fairly coherent.

The Bible is reliable.  Your observations will probably change. I suspect once science has gathered enough observations, good science and logic will point it to a picture that God presented in the Bibe the firstplace.  So science doesn't threaten.  The only thing menacing is when scientist expect the whole world to rearrange their beliefs based on has discovered as of today.

No, logic will not change and will not be incorrect tomorrow.  But your observations will, I suspect.  But for the record, I do believe God can supercede logic at will, because logic, mathematics, and the laws of physics are the fabric he used to construct the universe.  But he stands beyond it.

[wishful thinker]

OK.  The original poster did not refer to the stone age, but "Modern cave man thought".

And the subject is specifically Christianity.  Genesis is from the Torah (OT); all of which (doctrinally) is superceded by the New Testement.  

So we can stick with "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".  Doesn't specify whether he made chickens before eggs, or whether Macdonald's is the root cause of Chinese Christianity.  

Now, Christianity, is the following of the teachings of Jesus Christ.  The interpretation of the nature of JC varies from denomination to denomination (a Catholic's being different from a Lutheran's etc).  But lets look at the "Modern cave man thought".

Well, we'll assume that the "modern" was just a joke, as I don't think that there are any modern cavemen (except possibly Bin Laden and his friends).  Does this quote from James:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: "

Sound like a cave man to you?  

[berceuse]

Ok prometheus, I guess I will keep asking questions even though you kind of dodged my last one. How do you explain occurences such as stigmata? The first case being St. Francis of Assisi in 1224. What about Blessed Christina von Stommeln which to this day you can still see the remenence of the Crown of Thorns in her skull. Since there is no medical or scientific answers for this, do you just ignore it and deny that it ever happened? What about Holy Fire ?(the yearly miracle that takes place in the Holy Sepulchre) There is video and pictorial evidence of it occuring in which people engulf their faces, hands, arms in the flames and are unharmed. And how about the Black Nazarene? Church of Domine Quo Vadis?

[thalbergmad]

Peace be with you brothers.

Chill

Thal

[ahinton]

Peace be with you brothers.

Chill

Thal

I relise and appreciate that you're making good sense here, but must you write such interminably long answers in order to do so?(!)

Best,

Alistair

P.S. - don't forget the sisters...

[berceuse]

I wonder if this thread will eventually have more responses than "Who thinks it's time for another word association thread?"

I went to bed last night after my last post. I wake up and there is around 20 new responses.

[pianistimo]

i think that many christians send their children to public school (and many do not and send them to private).  probably, because of the expense nowdays, the trend is to public.  not sure on the numbers.

anyway, i send my children to public and realize that they are not always taught both sides of the evolution vs. creation matter.  but, i am extremely grateful that they are being taught to 'rightly divide.'  you can't argue something unless you know both sides of a matter.  and, my daughter and son and now kindergartner daughter are learning what they teach in public school.  it has long been an issue of whether they would eVER hear the creationist side in school.  that's ok with me right now because i teach them that at home  (and have since they were small). 

i am extremely grateful for the math and science classes too.  i never avoided taking them in college - it's just that i'm not as mentally equipped as my daughter.  she is getting straight A's in everything and is taking 9th or 10th grade math in 7th grade.  her dad is probably the one to blame for that - since he spends a lot of evenings going over her work and helping her (i am totally a dud when it comes to math past algebra).  anyhew, my husband is christian and a very smart one - and i feel that there is no imperative to be dumb and christian.  it's just that some happen to be (just as there are probably dumb athiests).

now, in other things - i feel i have a lot of wisdom.  but, if i need to know the answer to a math or science question - i will probably not trust my own judgement but ask my 11 year old daughter if something sounds right or not.  (or my husband).  there's so many subjects to study in life.  i feel that i tend to gravitate toward the arts and language (freely grammarized) and although i may not write graduate papers as well as i'd like - i now have a book that i got from grad classes to study and practice.  with practice - almost any subject is learnable.  even over the long term.  i was thinking that this booklet was so helpful to me - that i'd like to write portions of it somewhere in pf.  hopefully, the instructor won't be angry.  it was just incredibly helpful BECAUSE of the detail.  sometimes people are lost when it comes to writing 'perfectly.'  and RULES CHANGE.  what i wrote 15-20 years ago is a totally different style now.  so you can learn one thing and have it go obsolete.

anyhow, my point is to say that whether a person believes that life is random or full of miracles (one of which i believe is just living) - you can persuade with simple reasons.  they don't have to be so incredibly complex.  God is evident to me through creation.  He would not be random as so many things in the theory of evolution are spoken as 'coming to be' without evidence of a divine designer. 

[aliena]

Oooooo..  you are all mad.. quite mad!

How wonderful - welcome to my world!      

[pianistimo]

have you met thalbergmad, yet?  or ingagroznya?  just a few.  our famous koji found a voodoo woman.  so many people you think are normal.  it's just not true.  alistair hinton has sorabjiitis.  lau goes around in a bathrobe.  well, these are a few of our friends here.  oh, i almost forgot ramseytheii and his mozart cadenzas.  those make me go mad looking at them.  and, well,m1469has been missing for some time.  i think it's all bob's fault.  everything seems to be his fault when she's angry. 

[timothy42b]

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 20:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The order of creation differs between the first creation story and the second, both found in Genesis. 

I know it's not relevant to the argument at hand, but thought I'd point it out anyway. 

The two stories CANNOT be reconciled. 

That could be a hint from God not to consider it science. 

[timothy42b]

No, I will not bend my interpretation of the Bible around science's latest findings.  

Good, that's a clear and succinct expression of your stance.

I find it incomprehensible.  Really.  And I am a religious person myself.

The Bible was written at a time when people believed God had created everything in its present permanent form.  He made the mountains, the deserts, the seas, the forests, exactly as they appeared, including buried fossils.  There was no problem with a 6,000 year age, 20 minutes would have been enough.  (well, 7 days I guess) 

Now we know that mountains grow, erode, are thrust up, are sucked down and recycled.  Continents move.  The Earth did not always have its present form.  We can watch small parts of it happening, we can see the evidence left from slower processes.  This is something that does not take a specialized scientist.  Even the layperson can see the difference between older and newer mountain ranges.  Clearly that could not have happened in 6,000 years.  Even the casual observer, IF he accepts the evidence of his senses, must realize hundreds of millions of years are required.  That fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old takes more sophisticated understanding and I don't blame the layperson for being doubtful, but the claim of 6,000 years is so ridiculous even children have trouble with it.  Or should. 

We know there was no global flood.  A global flood could not have occurred without leaving evidence.  It is easy to figure out what evidence should have been left, and go look for it.  That is what early geologists, who were mostly Christian, did;  they couldn't find any.  They had the integrity to go with the evidence instead of their interpretation of the Bible.

Just two easy examples. 

Ignoring this is like sticking fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la when you hear something you don't like.  I am sure as a seminarian you are familiar with Augustine's exposition, which paraphrased a bit said be careful you don't make stupid scientific assertions, or people will ignore what you say about salvation.

Buddhism claimed the moon generates light.  Science says it is all reflected sunlight.  The Dalai Lama looked through a telescope and saw shadows on the moon, evidence of the sunlight theory.  So HE CHANGED HIS MIND!  I hope a Christian could as well. 

 

[ada]

dear timothy42b

your words do more to salvage the reputation of christianity and repair the damage inflicted on it by the ill-informed and halfwitted posts in this thread than any number of miracles.

cheers and hallelujah
 

[wishful thinker]

Oooooo..  you are all mad.. quite mad!

How wonderful - welcome to my world!      

Grazie a lei, cara 

Flattery will get you everywhere 

[ahinton]

hallelujah

Hallelujah? From you? Now there's a thing! (now go on, tell me that it's an Aboriginal word...)

Best,

Alistair