 |
|
|
|
|
June 10th, 2014
02:40 PM ET
Meet the atheist ... who believes in GodOpinion by Frank Schaeffer, special to CNN
They are meaningless because participants lack the objectivity to admit that our beliefs have less to do with facts than with our personal needs and cultural backgrounds. The words we use to label ourselves are just as empty. What exactly is a “believer?” And for that matter what is an “atheist?” Who is the objective observer to define these terms? Maybe we need a new category other than theism, atheism or agnosticism that takes paradox and unknowing into account. Take me, I am an atheist who believes in God. Let me explain. I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood. I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator. It seems to me that there is an offstage and an onstage quality to my existence. I live onstage, but I sense another crew working offstage. Sometimes I hear their voices “singing” in a way that’s as eerily beautiful as the offstage chorus in an opera. My youngest grandchildren Lucy (5) and Jack (3) are still comfortable with this paradoxical way of seeing reality. Most grownups don’t have the transparent humility to deal with the fact that unknowing is OK. But Lucy and Jack seem to accept that something may never have happened but can still be true. For instance they take Bible stories we read at face value, and yet I see a flicker in their eyes that tells me that they already know the stories are not true in the same way boiling water is true and can be tested—it’s hot! It's like that mind-bending discovery from quantum mechanics that tiny objects like electrons can actually be in two places at once and act simultaneously like a particle and a wave. Maybe my grandchildren will embrace quantum theory, and won't look for ways to make the irrational rational by hiding behind words like “mystery” in order to sustain their faith in science or God. Or maybe they'll embrace apophatic theology, the theology of not knowing. Atheists in the Bible Belt: A survival guide But it's not the easiest thing to do. Our brains are not highly evolved enough to reconcile our hunger for both absolute certainty and transcendent, inexplicable experiences. Nor can I reconcile these ideas: “I know that the only thing that exists is this material universe,” and “I know that my redeemer liveth.” Depending on the day you ask me, both statements seem true. And I don't think I'm alone in that. Behold, the six types of atheists We’re all in the closet, so to speak. We barely come out to ourselves and never completely to others. I have met people who claim a label - evangelical or atheist - until you really get to know them. Then, things get more complicated. Many of us, even the devout, have many more questions than answers about God and religion. In other words, people just like me: atheists who pray and eloquent preachers who secretly harbor doubts. I believe that we’re all of at least two minds. We play a role and define that role as “me” because labels and membership in a tribe make the world feel a little safer. When I was raising my children, I pretended to be grownup daddy. But alone with my thoughts, I was still just me. I’m older now, and some younger people may think I know something. I do: I know how much I can never know. Many Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians inherited their faith because of where they were born. If you are an atheist, you hold those beliefs because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born. Don’t delude yourself: There are no ultimate reasons for anything, just circumstances. If you want to be sure you have "the truth" about yourself and our universe, then prepare to go mad. Or prepare to turn off your brain and cling to some form or other of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. You will always be more than one person. You will always embody contradiction. You—like some sort of quantum mechanicals physics experiment—will always be in two places at once. Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His latest book is "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace." The views expressed in this column belong to Schaeffer.
« Previous entrySister Act: Singing nun wins 'The Voice' in Italy
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
(CNN) - All the public debates between celebrity atheists and evangelical pastors are as meaningless as literary awards and Oscar night.
Letting go of superstition
from "50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceHh5khkXo
[after discussing inevitable galactic & terrestrial destructive forces out there that want to kill us] "..none of this is a sign that there is a benevolent anything out there…" –Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, host of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey"
"..but to me saying that there was a designer does not help at all.." –Alan Guth, MIT professor of physics
"..I'm not militant by nature – and if people want to believe, well then that's their business; I mean what concerns me is when belief is used to influence and corrupt education or politics. And it seems to me monstrous that Creationism or so-called intelligent design is taught next to evolution or instead of it. And I do think that it is almost as a form of madness." –Oliver Sacks, world-renowned neurologist, Columbia University
"I think a lot of theology is grappling with phantoms. So theologians have invented this almost self-consistent subject which has no contact with physical reality at all. And they invent all sorts of questions which they then taunt humanity with . One of them is cosmic purpose. They say 'there must be a purpose; you and your science can't explain it.' And typical of theologians, they don't respect the power of the human intellect anyway. And they infer that no one will ever understand it; it is ineffable; God's purpose cannot be discerned. And of course that's – those are fine words, but utterly meaningless–why should the thing have a purpose?" –Peter Atkins, world-reknowned Oxford professor of chemistry
"M-Theory doesn't disprove God, but it does make him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing without the need for a creator." –Stephen Hawking, Cambridge theoretical physicist
"Another thing which I think that science, of any kind, teaches us is that even the simplest things are hard to understand: the hydrogen atom, for instance. And that makes me rather suspicious of anyone who claims to have a quick and easy answer to any deep aspect of reality. I think the most we can hope for in an incomplete and metaphorical understanding. And therefore, I'm not myself someone who can accept any specific religious dogmas." –Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
vin Annett: Vatican rumors Pope Francis health/resignation to av
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCX_oujvuMg
Maybe there will be a pope story ?
Kevin Annett
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2014/05/kevin-annett-vatican-rumors-pope-bergoglios-bad-health-and-resignation-to-avoid-satanic-9th-circle-murder-evidence.html
"What exactly is a believer?”
Unquote.
I have workmates adhering to different beliefs. I had the opportunity to talk with three of my workmates about faith. One is a strict Jehovah's Witness, one is a serene Catholic, and one is a strict Muslim. They all told me that they would believe ("ich bin gläubig" in German language). However, though they claim they would be believing they do not practice unbiased love. I had needed some technical information concerning my job from them, but they were very slow to give it to me. I had to worm out everything of them. They saw no reason why they should inform me of their own accord.
How can one explain this behaviour? Wouldn't it be usual to give necessary information to a workmate?
Those are simply expressions of the old selfish nature of man not being able to love. They lack the rebirth out of Water and Spirit, the sacramental baptism. Muslims are not baptized at all, they reject the gospel of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses rebaptize which is an abomination, and the valid baptism of my Catholic workmate is darkened through Catholicism whereby I must admit that my Catholic workmate is still be best of the three, and he revealed some love. Maybe his infant baptism has still some good influence on him. I could imagine that he will once convert to pure Christianity.
All religions save genuine Christianity do not provide the means to overcome the selfish old nature of man (on the contrary, the provide means for justifying misbehaviour). We are born selfish. We are selfish by birth. A great miracle is necessary to release us from the curse of our selfish nature:
Through sacramental baptism we get connected with the releasing power of Jesus death and resurrection. If we refer to sacramental baptism we die together with Jesus, and resurrect together with him. We die for the sin, and enter Christ. Dead for the sin, and in Christ we are able to overcome our natural selfishness, and to love God and our neighbour. That is the great mystery of the Christian faith. Jesus is the death of death and the hell's destruction.
What is the biblical meaning of the word "believe"?
Real believing is much more than accepting some as true. Real believing means to present our body as a living sacrifice, or to adore Jesus in Spirit and in Truth. This happens, if we daily remember our baptism where we died and resurrected together with Jesus, and Jesus became our new life. It is up to us to grasp this new life every day again, and that means faith. We believe, if we allow Jesus to live through us. If Jesus rules us, we practice real love which can be different from our distorted imagination of love (for example I told my Muslim workmate that I refuse halal-meat because I love animals, and hate animal torture).
People lumping together Christianity and Islam are moronic because this means to equate love and hatred, things which are totally opposed to each other.
I suspect the problem with your workmates is the utter contempt you show for their faiths. It is bound to manifest itself with their being less than helpful. This has nothing to do with their faith, but how they are treated. If you don't treat others respectfully, you should have no expectation of being treated respectfully, either.
If you present at work what you present here, this is more than understandable.
You reap what you sow.
People lumping together Christianity and Islam are moronic because this means to equate love and hatred, things which are totally opposed to each other.
They are both religions. They tend to be lumped together in conversation about religions because they both are religions.
What's moronic is your passive-agressive need to bash others so you can feel better about yourself.
What about ISIS?
They act according to the commands of Muhammad or the Koran. They are model Muslims. They live the genuine Islam.
A model Muslim hates and kills the infidels according to Muhammad's commands.
Therefore Islam is the most criminal idiocy ever been made-up on this planet. Islam legalizes the execution of innocent people, Islam legalizes murder.
Islam has not even deserved to be called a religion because that implies any connection with the true, eternal God who has made heaven and earth.
Islam is just a demonical crap which should be outlawed in the Western World again.
That what is evil should be called evil again.
There are many cases that can be legitimately made for the same or very similar things about Christianity.
It has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities ever commited.
Bollocks!!!
What you mean is Catholicism or wicked papacy.
Don't lump together the good religion of Jesus and the bad religion of the wicked popes.
The popes of the dark age are hardly better than evil Muhammad – that is right.
Dabbler!
I hope you are aware that your post is criminal because it is a complete lie.
No crime can be justified through genuine Christianity.
Christianity seeks the welfare of everybody.
It's all based on the BS that is the bible. Just look at the horrible thing syou say, completely foriegn to Jsesu, but you feel justified because of your baseless belief. YOU are an example of the evil that is christianity.
All beliefs based on your book are just as bad. Because it can be interpretted in near infinite ways, it also is used to justify horrible things. You can make that vile book say anything you want it to.
What ABOUT ISIS?
Eye on the ball, here. We are talking about two different things.
I am talking about how you completely disrespect everyone who doesn't share your particular narrow view of religion, and the way you are treated because of it, and you are, of course, changing the subject with red herrings again.
There are extremists in every religion. Right now, you appear to be acting in a zealous way, yourself; should your work-mates be worried?
Sorry Little Rainey. You don't get to tell people what they mean.
-10 more points
"I hope you are aware that your post is criminal because it is a complete lie."
Where do you come up with these crazy thoughts? No crime has been committed and you're the liar here for even making such an absurd claim.
This brand of Muslim is not really much different than your own cults history or have you forgotten the Crusades; The Inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunt?
Before branding another religion as evil, be sure your own religions past is devoid of atrocities.
Your own imaginary friend admits to being the creator of evil: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. If you read that in proper context, it should be telling you that the god you believe in is not a moral or just creature.
rainman
"People lumping together Christianity and Islam are moronic because this means to equate love and hatred, things which are totally opposed to each other."
They get lumped together because they are both completely baseless, both completely created by men, both claim to represent love and peace, but the reality of them is violence, bigotry ( you are a good example), and hatred.
They ARE the same rainman, at least to those of us not in either cult. Claiming people are moronic for lumping them together is not nearly as moronic as not understanding why it is done.
Rainer's own words:
"All my workmates will characterize me as the bigoted a-ss".
We all have people who like us and others that don't as much, but when ALL don't most people would look inward and suspect something. Not Rainer, his delusions are that deep.
Rainy lacks the self-awareness that would allow him to realize that he is the common element in his social problems.
He may have a delusion that he, like Jesus, is misunderstood by the masses of self centered humans...etc., etc.
He has compared himself to Jesus before. He definitely has the Messiah Complex thing going.
Sad. I don't dislike him as much as I wish he would get psychological help. I really think he is mentally ill.
I agree completely, bostontola.
"All religions save genuine Christianity do not provide the means to overcome the selfish old nature of man (on the contrary, the provide means for justifying misbehaviour). We are born selfish. We are selfish by birth. A great miracle is necessary to release us from the curse of our selfish nature"
Yes, we are selfish by nature. Man is an animal and animals instinctively do that which is least painful.
But it doesn't take a miracle to get past this selfishness – it requires an awareness of one's role as part of a larger whole. It requires a sense of community so that the instinct for self-preservation can extend beyond the self. At a primal level, this happens when one becomes a parent – in most cases, the sense of self-preservation then extends to immediate family.
Religions provide a sense of community through shared stories, fears, hopes and rituals.
As such, they are often sectarian – loyalty to a given community generally means hate, disdain or at least mistrust of other tribes.
You are the epitome of this divisive mentality, Rainer. You are smug in your self-assurance that you and your sect alone possess "the Truth" and know the proper way to apply it. You heap scorn on those who don't share your views and become hostile to those who call them into question.
I work in a multi-cultural environment too. Every day I work with an Afghan Muslim, a Nigerian agnostic (episcopal until recently), an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and a Catholic Quebecois. We've had discussions about our respective beliefs, teased each other in friendly ways etc.
We all get along just fine because our little community is based on getting the job done – not some kind of supernaturalism.
And the only religion of which I know that offers Divine Excuses for selfish behaviour is the Church of The Subgenius, who offer eternal salvation or triple you money back for only $30.
This guy is a deist, he just doesn't know the word for it.
bingo
Young earth hypothesis, the following is all wrong:
Multiple atomic dating methods which agree the earth is about 4.5 billion years old are all wrong.
Samarium-neodymium dating method
This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half-life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.
Potassium-argon dating method
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars.
Rubidium-strontium dating method
This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
Then apply these and other independent methods to meteorites:
1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)
1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.543 ± 0.019 GY
2. Sm-Nd isochron 4.55 ± 0.33 GY
3. Rb-Sr isochron 4.51 ± 0.15 GY
4. Re-Os isochron 4.68 ± 0.15 GY
2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite)
1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.556 ± 0.012 GY
2. Pb-Pb isochron 4.540 ± 0.001 GY
3. Sm-Nd isochron 4.56 ± 0.08 GY
4. Rb-Sr isochron 4.50 ± 0.07 GY
3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite)
1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.553 ± 0.004 GY
2. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.52 ± 0.02 GY
3. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.55 ± 0.03 GY
4. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.56 ± 0.05 GY
Then you have other independent methods which are also wrong. 100's of billions of stars in our galaxy, and 100's of billions of galaxies. If they were condensed into a sphere 10,000 light years in radius, the gravitational forces would be overwhelmingly apparent. Mathematical models of star formation, element formation, planet formation, etc. all align with old earth/universe estimates, but they are wrong also. There are many more independent scientific validated models that point to the same age, but they are also wrong.
There are alternatives to this viewpoint. Maybe God created the universe in an aged state. If that were true, God could have created the universe 5 seconds ago too.
The other alternative is that the universe is actually old.
Oh, I forgot, that same physics and chemistry that is wrong about dating, works perfectly for semiconductors, lasers, medicines, etc.
Great post, but there's more. Ice core dating, dendritic dating (tree rings), and volcanic layer dating.
But the absolute clincher is : the following :
In general they all (with their own inherent +/- established range of uncertainty ... as ALL scientific data have) produce the SAME range of dates, (ie their results agree). IF they all independently are WRONG, and yet still somehow produce the same wrong date, the probability for that is ZERO. Nada. Zilch. No serious scientist in the world buys into the crapola of "young earth" anything. It's simply ignorance of the highest order.
And BTW, it's so "off the wall" ignorant, that it colors anything else the person espousing it has to say about anything.
It calls into question their basic core education, and ability to judge reality from fantasy.
rb,
I regard young earth/universe believers in the same boat as flat earthers and the people that think the earth is the center of the solar system. There is no excuse for it. Forget about evolution, people who think the earth is young have been seriously misled, but should be able to see how absurd it is when they become adults.
The following was a great reply by Colin. Anyone who stumbles across these idiotic sites like AnwersInGenesis.org should take note of Colin's points:
=============
To put the sheer idiocy of Topher's, Awanderingscots' etc. creationist claims in context, here are some very basic pieces of evidence that make the biblical creation story utter garbage.
Of first and most obvious importance is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.
Layered in the fossil record are the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.
Indeed, the fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?
Not only did a Tyrannosaurus Rex eat a lot of food, but that food was meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. This is in addition to the elephants, hippopotamus, giraffes, and other large extant animals (not to mention the millions of insects, bacteria, mites, worms etc. that would have to be boarded). A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.
Coming on top of that, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?
Oh, second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.
Laughingly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatory witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.
In fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.
Next, fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.
Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.
Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.
I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.
In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.
All this is probably why evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.
The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO
In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.
The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO
In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.
The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO
The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.
Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.
I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.
Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.
Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.
Number made in support of creation science: ZERO
According to The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million biological scientists globally who rely on the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day.
There appears to be three possible explanations for all this:
(i) there is a worldwide conspiracy of universities, colleges and academic publications, including all their hundreds of thousands of professors, editors, reviewers, and support staff, to deny creation science;
(ii) the creationists like Topher have a startling new piece of evidence that was right before our eyes that will turn accepted biological science and about 10 other sciences on their heads if ONLY people would listen to them, no doubt earning them a Nobel Prize and a place in history beside the likes of Darwin, Newton and Einstein; or
(iii) they are a complete blowhards who have never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archaeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archaeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because their mommy and daddy taught them some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.
I know which alternative my money is on.
Thanks Doris – to correct some typos pls use the following as the penultimate paragraph
they are a bunch of complete blowhards who have never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archaeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archaeology, but feel perfectly sure that they know more than the best biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because their mommy and daddy taught them some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child
"What exactly is a believer?”
Unquote.
I have workmates adhering to different beliefs. I had the opportunity to talk with three of my workmates about faith. One is a strict Jehovah's Witness, one is a serene Catholic, and one is a strict Muslim. They all told me that they would believe ("ich bin gläubig" in German language). However, though they claim they would be believing they do not practice unbiased love. I had needed some technical information concerning my job from them, but they were very slow to give it to me. I had to worm out everything of them. They saw no reason why they should inform me of their own accord.
How can one explain this behaviour? Wouldn't it be usual to give necessary information to a workmate?
Those are simply expressions of the old selfish nature of man not being able to love. They lack the rebirth out of Water and Spirit, the sacramental baptism. Muslims are not baptized at all, they reject the gospel of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses rebaptize which is an abomination, and the valid baptism of my Catholic workmate is darkened through Catholicism whereby I must admit that my Catholic workmate is still be best of the three, and he revealed some love. Maybe his infant baptism has still some good influence on him. I could imagine that he will once convert to pure Christianity.
All religions save genuine Christianity do not provide the means to overcome the selfish old nature of man (on the contrary, the provide means for justifying misbehaviour). We are born selfish. We are selfish by birth. A great miracle is necessary to release us from the curse of our selfish nature:
Through sacramental baptism we get connected with the releasing power of Jesus death and resurrection. If we refer to sacramental baptism we die together with Jesus, and resurrect together with him. We die for the sin, and enter Christ. Dead for the sin, and in Christ we are able to overcome our natural selfishness, and to love God and our neighbour. That is the great mystery of the Christian faith. Jesus is the death of death and the hell's destruction.
What is the biblical meaning of the word "believe"?
Real believing is much more than accepting some as true. Real believing means to present our body as a living sacrifice, or to adore Jesus in Spirit and in Truth. This happens, if we daily remember our baptism where we died and resurrected together with Jesus, and Jesus became our new life. It is up to us to grasp this new life every day again, and that means faith. We believe, if we allow Jesus to live through us. If Jesus rules us, we practice real love which can be different from our distorted imagination of love (for example I told my Muslim workmate that I refuse halal-meat because I love animals, and hate animal torture).
Reposting delusional idiocy makes it no less ridiculous the 4th time. It just makes it redundant delusional idiocy.
All inmates of nuthouses regard the ordinary people as crazy and the crazy people as normal.
Furthermore you should not comment other comments but the article above.
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that it is high time we push back against the politically active modern evangelical, like yourself. Your insistence that everyone but you is wrong, only you fit th true Christian mold, ad nauseum, is the height of arrogance and repulsive in the extreme. Believe what you wish, live your life as you wish, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
When fascism comes to America, it will wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. You can keep it there, sir, after all, you're already familiar with the concept.
Rainer,
Your simplistic view of mental illness fits your simplistic world view in general. Do you think a schizophrenic thinks a psychopath is normal. There are many mental illnesses, none of which looks normal to the others. Your way of looking at the world is naive and arrogant.
You actually think you have some superior position of knowledge and understanding, but you fail to see that every time you post, you prove your understanding is severely lacking.
Some say that religion is a delusion. Your self image is a dramatic delusion. You are an ignorant, small minded person that thinks he is has special insight. You really are pathetic. My only hope is that you are screwing with us.
Who actually says that you are right? Ain't it possible that you are mentally ill, and I am normal?
I tell you the same like the midwest inmate.
When will you come outside again?
boston – even if Rainer is merely a troll messing with people, the fact remains that his world view is shared by many. Modern evangelical Christianity has allowed the fringe to become the center, and their insistence that the rest of the world conform to their standards while they routinely ignore those standards, is dangerous in the extreme.
I am not an evangelical believer. I am "evangelisch". I guess this word is hard to translate in English language.
I believe that baptism and Lord's Supper are sacramental acts (God acts during that rituals).
The evangelicals regard baptism and Lord's Supper as mere symbolic acts.
mr,
I'm ok with anyone's beliefs. As you said, I draw the line where people try to impress their beliefs on others.
You mean "impose".
Actually any belief can only get imposed by the use of violence. I don't use violence when I spread the gospel of Jesus, but simply talk with my workmates, and try to keep on loving them, even if they don't accept my most splendid message.
Muhammad spread his crap by the use of violence or the sword. If you are consequent, you should condemn the Islamic crap. If Mohammed had not used the sword, even today nobody would believe his bollocks.
Rainer's words:
"All inmates of nuthouses regard the ordinary people as crazy and the crazy people as normal."
And then asks how I know that statement is wrong. Because there is lots of transcripts of mentally ill people recognizing the illness of other mentally ill people, that's why. You said something naive and false. It is indicative of your entire worldview, naive and false.
Rainy, you previously stated: ""Every additional day gives us opportunity to repent".
Have you invited awanderingscot over for a little mutual flagellation? If not, why? I would think a concerted effort to double down on self-deprecation would get you both first class seats to the big "dungeon in the sky".
Rainer demonstrating his delusion of superiority once again, and simultaneously proves his lack of understanding:
"You mean "impose"."
Definition of IMPRESS
transitive verb
1
: to levy or take by force for public service;
2
a : to procure or enlist by forcible persuasion
Don't take it so hard!
Rainer,
Are you now talking to yourself? You need help, please seek it out. It's not too late.
http://www.4shared.com/video/Wr5bqbb-/the_chronicles_of_narnia_-_the.html
http://www.4shared.com/video/Wr5bqbb-
(for example I told my Muslim workmate that I refuse halal-meat because I love animals, and hate animal torture).
So you bash a practice by another religion to the man's face, and then turn around and expect him to be helpful to you.
Do you see the possible reason why he would act this way?
You being Christian doesn't afford you special priviledges, Rainier, to act in any manner you choose under the guise of "love."
When you dismiss another faith's beliefs, they have every right to dismiss yours.
http://youtu.be/iL0q2v5nd3M
Rainer Helmut Braendlein, you wrote "Maybe his infant baptism has still some good influence on him." Do you believe sprinkling some water on an infant offers some magical protection for the infant, that it is an actual supernatural transformation of that infant? I'm curious as to your view on pedobaptism versus credobaptism, aka "believer's baptism", which is baptism once an individual is old enough to understand repentance and profess Christ as the Son of God. Do you feel there is support for pedobaptism in the New Testament?
You also wrote "All inmates of nuthouses regard the ordinary people as crazy and the crazy people as normal." That reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche's comment regarding "faith":
"That faith makes blessed under certain circ_umstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this.
Or, as it is often paraphrased:
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”
Rainer Helmut Braendlein
Who actually says that you are right? Ain't it possible that you are mentally ill, and I am normal?
-- Trust me. There is no possibility that you are normal. None.
I was thinking about your posts Rainey, and why you do what you do. Is it possible you actually think you know more about the crap you post about than others, and think you need to "impart your great wisdom" ? So why would you do that ? Is it that you are trying to prove something (to yourself) ? We do get that you can concoct all that dot connecting that you do, pretending you actually know what you're talking about. I think the person you are trying to impress is yourself. Are you deeply insecure Rainy ? I think so.
And once again:
And the four of you suffer from a severe case of the Three B Syndrome, i.e. Bred, Born, and Brainwashed in your mythical religions !! Details previously presented.
You seem to be a citizen of a fairyland called "Reality".
Independent from its name it is still a fairyland.
Try to emigrate!
Rainer,
That's rich, Reality is fairyland. Alice in Wonderland was a fantasy, but you actually live there. Big is small, hot is cold, and reality is fantasyland. You are one warped dude.
Watch or read "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C. S. Lewis.
The witch Jadis had spellbound beautiful Narnia. Eternal winter had become usual for the citizens of Narnia.
Eternal materialism has become usual for us. Who tells us that this is not a spell, and the witches and wizards call themselves scientists?
Wow. You reference the Chronicles of Narnia in a serious discussion of what is real and what is fantasy. Rainer, you may seriously be suffering from schizophrenia. Please get help.
The gateway to the real Narnia (the kingdom of God) is the sacramental baptism, the rebirth out of Water and Spirit.
In the name of Jesus I invite you to "go through the wardrobe". It is interesting behind. You would be welcome.
Every religious club has a sightly different idea about water...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Uqp7KjZIA
suspect the problem with your workmates is the utter contempt you show for their faiths. It is bound to manifest itself with their being less than helpful. This has nothing to do with their faith, but how they are treated. If you don't treat others respectfully, you should have no expectation of being treated respectfully, either.
If you present at work what you present here, this is more than understandable.
You reap what you sow.
Practice what you preach!
I do. Which is why you shall never see a post by me complaining about my fellow employees treating me disrespectfully after writing a whole tome explaining how I treat them abominably and wondering why they don't practice the love Jesus preached about.
And blaming their faith for that behavior, when it is clearly YOU who has the problem.
You don't play well with others, and instead of having a moment of self-awareness, you continually blame them; stop portraying yourself as the victim. You're not. You're the perpetrator of your own misery at your place of employment.
Pure hypocrisy!
Snakes and vipers!
Show me how I have lied and have been a hypocrite.
Your behavior is written in your own posts! The measure of respect you receive is a direct result of the measure of respect you give others. I do not get why you cannot see that.
Take that log out of your eye, Rainier.
Father, father help me!
Pray for some retrospection.
Rainer,
Akira is so correct. You are doing this to yourself.
You remind me of the story of the Tar Baby:
Br'er Fox constructs a doll out of a lump of tar and dresses it with some clothes. When Br'er Rabbit comes along he addresses the tar "baby" amiably, but receives no response. Br'er Rabbit becomes offended by what he perceives as the Tar-Baby's lack of manners, punches it, and in doing so becomes stuck. The more Br'er Rabbit punches and kicks the tar "baby" out of rage, the worse he gets stuck.
Quit punching, Rainier - you should never have done so in the first place.
Unfortunately, there are some who don't understand that people are going to resent a coworker trying to proselytize them, a practice that can lead to termination of the proselytizer's employment by some employers because of the anger such activities are likely to create in the proselytizer's coworkers.
An excerpt from "New York Employment Law Letter", written by attorneys at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.:
Proselytizing in the workplace raises a number of issues for employers. Failure to accommodate proselytizing may violate Ti_tle VII"s prohibition against religious discrimination. But granting the accommodation could affect other employees" right to work in an environment free from religious harassment under Ti_tle VII – and may even be contrary to the U.S. Consti_tution"s prohibition against state establishment of religion if you"re a public employer.
A rank-and-file employee, a manager, or a supervisor who proselytizes persistently may offend co-workers or subordinates by insulting their religious beliefs, suggesting that they"ll suffer consequences if they don"t convert, and invading their privacy. If the speech is "severe and pervasive," the targets of the conversion may have a legitimate hostile environment claim against you.
Alonso,
RHB lives in Germany. He would have been fired long ago for such hostile, disruptive behavior here in the US.
Dala,
You said: "Some Christians can actually do more. Like, if you wanted to learn more about a specific field (like obtain an additional degree) in real science there is a good chance you will be taught by a Christian at some point."
Once our children leave for college that chance dwindles down rapidly (assuming they attend a public university). There is a very good reason for that – most educated people in today's world have realized religion – God – is completely unnecessary.
You keep trying to over represent Christianity's role in the sciences today.....yes there are scientists that are Christian, but if they want their science to be taken seriously they must follow the exact process all scientists follow, their spiritual beliefs are left to the social realm. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why this is if you watch more than the cherry picked clip above.
supposed to be a reply in thread below.
The context of the conversation had to do with Christianity being inherently opposed to science. I was saying it is not inherently opposed to science. Most students who go to college don't become anti-religious people who preach against Christianity on religious message boards, also. I think their education has something to do with that, too.
sure- or..OR their education makes it impossible for them to be slaves to supersti tion....
I'm not a slave to supersti tion, though.
the truth is humanity has a better chance of solving the issues facing us all with science. Remember all science is our understanding of the processes at work around us. Religion – if anything – has acted as a stumbling block to the acquisition of knowledge.
sure you can point the great scientists throughout history that happened to be Christian..but what they achieved was independent of their spiritual beliefs- and would have been/can be replicated by others elsewhere.
fffm,
Science can't do it on its own. Science discovers knowledge, people use that to develop technologies. Only accounting for well meaning engineers and technologists, unintended consequences can be quite damaging. Ethicists and futurists are needed to avoid bad outcomes. Religion can have an important role there. As STEM accelerates its advancements, we are more vulnerable than ever before. Genetic engineering, integration of biology and technology, etc. will create moral questions we haven't had to deal with. Society needs both science and good moral judgment. Many religious sects are backwards, but many are not. I think we will do better partnered.
Science, like religion, can be good or bad. Both have been used for evil purposes. And both have been used to benefit humanity.
Science is great. But it doesn't answer all the questions I have about life and my purpose in it. I don't pledge blind allegiance to any religion. There are some questions I have that a scientist or someone using science can help me with. That is my experience.
bostontola,
Your position is that religion provides something- a moral fabric? that Humanity wouldnt otherwise possess?
if so id have to disagree there. I have always been mystified how embracing a superst ition can make a person better or improve a society. I guess it depends on where you view it from....for me i see religion as a needless divide..and unnecessary instigator. If religions were capable of the benevolence they keep saying that they are then it would be a VERY diffent world today....instead i think the religions of the world are being called to account for their history- mainly by science..
Or better said- science gives people the tools and information to call religion to account....science itself is neutral.
Also, there are some questions I have that a scientist or someone using science can NOT help me with. (Which I mean to say, but both statements are true)
fffm,
I'm not sure how you would conclude that I would speculate on where we would be morally without religion. I said we need ethicists to partner with scientific advancements. There are many good religious moral thinkers. Why would that mean that humanity doesn't have non-religious moral thinkers? I don't care if supersti.tion comes with good ethical/moral thinking. I am concerned about humans knowledge getting too far in front of ethical consequences. I'll take good thinking wherever it comes from.
"Only accounting for well meaning engineers and technologists, unintended consequences can be quite damaging. Ethicists and futurists are needed to avoid bad outcomes. Religion can have an important role there."
is what threw me.... Religion has trouble policing and guiding itself – When humanity sticks to the facts – we do pretty good....It all boils down to the Golden Rule ....treat people fairly, with respect and we might just make this work.
Not all non-religious people embrace following "The Golden Rule", though. What do you do about those people? I know atheists that are superst.itious and do not follow "The Golden Rule". I don't wan to give them a free pass just because they are not religious. As if that is the indicator of what makes a person good.
And some religious people, like Christians are good examples of following "The Golden Rule". And what Jesus taught took "The Golden Rule" to a higher level. Instead of not doing to others what we don't want done to us, He asked for intentional kindness "Treat others kindly as you would treat yourself.". I'm sure you have no problem with people practicing that principle in all their affairs.
"Only accounting for well meaning engineers and technologists, unintended consequences can be quite damaging. Ethicists and futurists are needed to avoid bad outcomes. Religion can have an important role there."
Key word is 'role'
"Not all non-religious people embrace following "The Golden Rule", though. What do you do about those people? I know atheists that are superst.itious and do not follow "The Golden Rule". "
Yes and you can count most holy men among their number- lets face it, at some point each of the clergy has to reach the conclusion that prayers are useless and the rituals they repeat end;lessly, uttering the same words, singing the same songs have had the the same impact today as theyve had in the last few millenia – these guys know better and still stand in front of people every week going though the motions.
I do think that some religious rituals can be beneficial for some people. It certainly does no harm to you. I don't belong to a church that does what you describe though. We sing. We pray for a lot of things, but usually within the knowledge of determining God's will for us and the power to carry that out. We definitely subscribe to the belief that faith without works is dead. We are big on action.
Bostontola,
For religion to work – take on that role, they'd all have to change immensely into organizations that such people could buy into.
My religion can fit in that role, in my opinion. And it doesn't require everyone else to buy into it. My religion is based on changing my heart. So I make decisions based on love, not in attempt to follow rules, appear good or appease some vengeful deity, but so I become a mature adult who takes responsibility for my actions.
"Good moral judgement" is not the prerogative or contribution of religion. Ethics is in no way dependent of religion. Religions received their values from culture, then sanctioned the ideas. Not the other way around.
I don't get why any change is required. If a person foresees a moral/ethical issue with a new technology they can make the issue known. If political support grows, it will be effective. This can come from religious groups regardless of all the factors mentioned.
Off topic but relates to a discussion from a couple days ago ... since some of you were having problems with your Google. This just came out today ...
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/diamond-ringwoodite-reveals-water-deep-earths-mantle/?utm_source=aigsocial06132014waterdeep&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin
"What is the profound significance of this discovery? It confirms the capacity of the mantle to have housed the water that was released when the fountains of the great deep were broken up to commence the Flood, and the huge volume of water that was released through these fountains for as much as 150 days, providing more than enough water to help submerge the whole globe, just as described in Genesis 7:11–24 (NKJV)."
"Though the proof has been lacking, geologic models" from young earth creationsists with an agenda "have suggested that water should be present in the mantle."
"The crystalline structure of ringwoodite could theoretically accommodate up to 2% water by weight"
"Was this “wet” bit of “rock” the exception or the rule? It’s too early to tell."
But still the article concludes "Though we were not there at the time of the global Flood, God in His Word, primarily in Genesis chapters 6–9, has provided us with an eyewitness account of the violent events that remodeled the earth’s surface."
Can you get more dishonest? I don't think so, which is why the scientific community considers flood geology to be a myth or pseudoscience because it contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, paleontology, physics, geophysics and stratigraphy. Dr. Snelling is a fraud a huckster and should never be taken seriously.
I would never doubt the impartiality of a site called 'answersingenesis'.
All this proves is you do not need credentials to post heavily biased crap on the internet.
That site is nothing but pseudo science. It proves nothing because it revolves right back to making their info match the bible....how very convenient. Apologists are not reliable and they certainly are not debunking the peer-reviewed evidence that stands against the creation story.
Young earth creationism would be a lot more interesting if there were secular scientists who supported it. The fact there isn't points to it being driven by theology...not reality.
Snelling is a total fraud – or at least an apostate.
On the one hand, he publishes these Young Earth Creationist articles, citing his qualifications as a geologist.
On the other hand, the papers he writes as an actual geologist routinely refer to rock formations that are millions of years old.
When wearing his Creationist hat, Snelling says the Earth is 6000 years old.
When wearing his scientist hat, he says the Earth is billions of years old.
Dr Alex Ritchie, one of Snelling's peers in the scientific world, has repeatedly challenged Snelling to a public debate regarding Noah's flood but Snelling has always declined....
A scientist who can be bought is a disgrace.
Snelling is most certainly a fraud. And a reference for Ken Ham as well–lol. Acctually – not funny when I think of children being subjected to such misinformation.
Actually
@noahsdadtopher,
If I understand your reference, the discussion the other day was on the age of the earth. How does water in the rocks in the mantle point to a young (<10K) earth?
noahsdadtopher, you posted a reference to an Answers in Genesis webpage ti_tled "Diamond with Ringwoodite Reveals Water Deep in Earth’s Mantle" at answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/diamond-ringwoodite-reveals-water-deep-earths-mantle/ , which suggests that a recent report that ringwoodite present within the transition zone between the Earth's upper and lower mantles containing water trapped in the ringwoodite's molecular structure as hydroxide ions makes the Noachian flood myth plausible. I'm glad to see you've posted a reference that can be checked, but the story is still implausible.
Ignoring all the other implausible elements of the story for a moment, Genesis 7:19-20 states the water became so deep that it covered the highest mountains and went on rising until it was 25 feet above the tops of the mountains. Mount Everest is the Earth's highest mountain Its peak is 8,848 meters (29,029 ft) above sea level. So let's do a little math to calculate the volume of water needed to cover the peak of Mount Everest. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi * r**3, where r is the radius of the sphere. The distance from Earth's center to its surface, i.e., the Earth's radius, is about 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi) – see the Wikipedia article ti_tled "Earth radius". Though "radius" normally is a characteristic of perfect spheres, since the Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by only a third of a percent, that is sufficiently close to treat it as a sphere for the purpose of this calculation. If you have a Microsoft Windows systems, you can just switch the view to scientific mode to perform the calculations for yourself.
V1 = 4/3 pi * 6,371**3 = 1,083,206,916,845.754 km**3
What would be the volume of the sphere if we extend the radius to encompass Mount Everest?
V2 = 4/3 pi * (6,371km + 8.848km)**3 = 1,087,726,237,887.447 km**3
So what is the volume of water needed to cover the Earth so that even Mount Everest is submerged?
V2 – V1 = 4,519,321,041.693 km**3
So how much water exists in the Earth's oceans today? The volume of all the world's oceans combined according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration webpage "Volumes of the World's Oceans from ETOPO1" at ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html is 1,335,000,000 km**3. The volume of water needed is 4,519,321,042 km**3, i.e., you need about 3.9 times the amount of water present in all the world's oceans.
From "Oceans of Water Locked 400 Miles Inside Earth", at news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-of-water-found-locked-deep-inside-earth-140612.htm which also covers the ringwoodite discovery:
"If we are seeing this melting, then there has to be this water in the transition zone," said Brandon Schmandt, a seismologist at the University of New Mexico and co-author of the new study published today (June 12) in the journal Science. "The transition zone can hold a lot of water, and could potentially have the same amount of H2O as all the world's oceans." (Melting is a way of getting rid of water, which is unstable under conditions in Earth's lower mantle, the researchers said.)
That's certainly a lot of water, but even if the amount of water trapped within ringwoodite within the Earth's mantle is equal to all of the water within the world's oceans and it was magically transported out of the ringwoodite to the surface a few thousand years ago and then magically transported back into the Earth's mantle a short time later, you still don't have enough water. You need almost 4 times the water present within the world's oceans.
There are many elements that make the flood story implausible. E.g., how did two koala bears from Australia, two moose from North America, two sloths from South America, etc. make the trip to Noah's ark? Creatures such as koalas have fairly specific dietary requirements. How did Noah get food for them and how did he store it? And what about the fish that can only exist in a narrow salinity range? Did Noah build fish tanks for them? And what about all of the insects, worms, etc? What did Noah feed his menagerie while they were on-board the ark? What did the lions and leopards eat on the ark? An adult lioness requires an average of about 5 kg (11 lb) of meat per day, while a male requires about 7 kg (15 lb). What did they eat after they disembarked. The only pigs left on Earth? If there were only two of a prey species, they would be consumed quickly by predators after disembarkation or the predators would starve. With all the vegetation drowned, what would herbivores eat when they disembarked? An elephant can consume as much as 150 kg (330 lb) of food and 40 L (11 US gal) of water in a day.
Of course there are a host of other issues that make the Noachian flood story completely implausible as a historical event. E.g., see "Problems with a Global Flood" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
noahsdadtopher, since I needed to go to bed last night, I had to limit my time responding to your comment in which you posted a reference to an Answers in Genesis webpage suggesting that the fact that ringwoodite in the Earth's mantle can hold water trapped within its molecular structure from 1 to 2% of the weight of a sample of ringwoodite makes the flood story in Genesis more plausible. But that webpage does not make the story plausible. In case that is still not apparent to you, I've included some further information.
A cubic kilometer of water equals 1 x 10**9 cubic meters. The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) estimate for the volume of water in the world's oceans is 1,335,000,000 km**3 (see "Volumes of the World's Oceans from ETOPO1" at ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html), i.e.,
1,335 x 10**15 m**3. The density of sea water is 1.03 X 10**3 kg/m**3 (see the NASA webpage "Fluids Pressure and Depth" at http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/fluid_pressure.html). So an estimate for the weight of water in the world's oceans is:
1,335 x 10**15 m**3 x 1.03 x 10**3 kg/m**3 = 1,375,050,000,000,000,000,000 kg = 1.37505 x 10**21 kg
Here's a quote from the webpage to which you linked:
“Now that might not sound like a lot of water,” Dr. Snelling explains, “but when one takes into account the volume of this zone in the mantle, there could be at least as much water stored there as in all the world’s oceans.” If this sample is truly representative of the lowermost part of the mantle transition zone (between 520 and 660 kilometers) where ringwoodite should be most stable, that portion of earth’s mantle alone could be holding 1.4 x 10**21 kilograms of water, which it equivalent to the mass of all the water in all the world’s oceans combined.
So Snelling is estimating the mass of all the water contained within the transition zone of the Earth's mantle could be equivalent to the mass of all the water in the Earth's oceans combined, perhaps even slightly more than is present within the world's oceans. At this point that's still somewhat speculative, but let's grant that to be true. What Snelling is failing to mention is that even if that amount of water is present within the transition zone between the upper and lower mantle, that is not nearly enough water to represent a plausible explanation of where all the water in the Noachian flood story came from and where it went when the flood waters receded. As I mentioned in my prior comment, about 4 times the amount of water in all of the world's oceans combined would be needed to submerge Mount Everest beneath the flood waters in the Genesis story.
The webpage to which you linked is typical of those found on creationist websites. The creators of such pages often omit key facts or they distort what is actually known by scientists in an attempt to make their religious beliefs regarding a young Earth and an actual worldwide flood as related in Genesis appear to have some scientific plausibility when the actual science show those beliefs to be scientifically untenable. Many who wish to believe in a young Earth and an actual Noachian flood will read such pages and think "Oh, wow! We now have scientific evidence supporting the flood story in Genesis." But, in actuality, the story, when viewed from a scientific perspective of an actual worldwide flood a few thousand years ago that drowned not only all but eight humans, but almost every air-breathing creature on Earth, is still completely implausible.
And what of Andrew Snelling, whom the article you posted relies upon for support of the Noachian flood story. Does he have any works published in refereed scientific journals refuting the consensus view among geologists that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old? No. Do any such articles exist in such journals? No, though there are thousands supporting that age. Are there any such articles supporting the worldwide Noachian flood story? No. From other comments you've made, I think you don't understand how scientific consensus is achieved. Scientists publish papers in refereed scientific journals in their fields, i.e., ones in which submitted papers are evaluated by their peers, and which are relied upon by other scientists in their field who also evaluate the papers presented. The determination of whether an idea is scientifically valid is not arrived at by someone posting at a website aimed at the general public nor even publishing books for the general public, though I believe scientists can help better inform the general public regarding scientific matters through such media. For an understanding of the process, see the "Scholarly peer review" section of the Wikipedia article "Peer review".
As I've suggested before, if you have the time and would like to understand the actual science rather than the pseudoscience which is presented at websites such as Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis site, I'd recommend taking online science courses offered through Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) providers such as Coursera at coursera.org, which offers courses taught by preeminent professors at some of the best universities in the world or visiting websites provided by scientific organizations and university science departments as an antidote to the pseudoscience you will find at sites such as Answers in Genesis. You will find courses offered on astronomy, biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, physics, etc. Though I've never taken any courses through Khan Academy at khanacademy.org, another online course provider, I've read many recommendations for its course content and I understand it has many courses on chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. provided as online tutorials via YouTube and that course content ranges from that suitable for middle school students and upwards. I think a better understanding of scientific principles, what scientists know, and how science is actually conducted will help people evaluate the claims of sites such as the Answers in Genesis one, since without a basic understanding of science such sites can seem to be presenting information that is scientifically valid, but is instead pseudoscience. I hope you will broaden your research on scientific matters beyond the pseudoscience you will find at creationist sites such as Answers in Genesis.
Interesting article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140612142309.htm
It will be interesting to see where this leads.
What exactly is a believer?”
Unquote.
I have workmates adhering different beliefs. I had the opportunity to talk with three of my workmates about faith. One is a strict Jehovah's Witness, one is a serene Catholic, and one is a strict Muslim. They all told me that they would believe ("ich bin gläubig" in German language). However, though they claim they would be believing they do not practice unbiased love. I had needed some technical information concerning my job from them, but they were very slow to give it to me. I had to worm out everything of them. They saw no reason why they should inform me of their own accord.
How can one explain this behaviour? Wouldn't it be usual to give necessary information to a workmate?
These are simply expressions of the old selfish nature of man not being able to love. They lack the rebirth out of Water and Spirit, the sacramental baptism. Muslims are not baptized at all, they reject the gospel of Jesus. Jehovah's witnesses rebaptize which is an abomination, and the valid baptism of my Catholic workmate is darkened through Catholicism whereby I must admit that my Catholic workmate is still be best of the three, and he revealed some love. Maybe his infant baptism has still some good influence on him. I could imagine that he will once convert to pure Christianity.
All religions save genuine Christianity do not provide the means to overcome the selfish old nature of man (on the contrary, the provide means for justifying misbehaviour). We are born selfish. We are selfish by birth. A great miracle is necessary to release us from the curse of our selfish nature.
Through sacramental baptism we get connected with the releasing power of Jesus death and resurrection. If we refer to sacramental baptism we die together with Jesus, and resurrect together with him. We die for the sin, and enter Christ. Dead for the sin, and in Christ we are able to overcome our natural selfishness, and to love God and our neighbour. That is the great mystery of the Christian faith. Jesus is the death of death and the hell's destruction.
What is the biblical meaning of the word "believe"?
Real believing is much more than accepting some as true. Real believing means to present our body as a living sacrifice, or to adore Jesus in Spirit and in Truth. This happens, if we daily remember our baptism where we died and resurrected together with Jesus, and Jesus became our new life. It is up to us to grasp this new life every day again, and that means faith. We believe, if we allow Jesus to live through us. If Jesus rules us, we practice real love which can be different from our distorted imagination of love (for example I told my Muslim workmate that I refuse halal-meat because I love animals, and hate animal torture).
Three posts in a row of the same drivel, Rainy? Hopefully, you are consistent about something else in your life besides this constant repeti.tion of posts on the same page.
I suspect the problem with your workmates is the utter contempt you show for their faiths. It is bound to manifest itself with their being less than helpful. This has nothing to do with their faith, but how they are treated. If you don't treat others respectfully, you should have no expectation of being treated respectfully, either.
If you present at work what you present here, this is more than understandable.
You reap what you sow.
This is just a misunderstanding on your part.
Your coworkers do not like you, and do not want to work with you.
That is why they are uncooperative.
No one cares Rainey. You're so full of hot air preacher man. Here's Rainey :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-JjaAh0NeU
What exactly is a believer?”
Unquote.
I have workmates adhering different believes. I had the opportunity to talk with three of my workmates about faith. One is a strict Jehovah's Witness, one is a serene Catholic, and one is a strict Muslim. They all told me that they would believe ("ich bin gläubig" in German language). However, though they claim they would be believing they do not practice unbiased love. I had needed some technical information concerning my job from them, but they were very slow to give it to me. I had to worm out everything of them. They saw no reason why they should inform me of their own accord.
How can one explain this behaviour? Wouldn't it be usual to give necessary information to a workmate?
These are simply expressions of the old selfish nature of man not being able to love. They lack the rebirth out of Water and Spirit, the sacramental baptism. Muslims are not baptized at all, they reject the gospel of Jesus. Jehovah's witnesses rebaptize which is an abomination, and the valid baptism of my Catholic workmate is darkened through Catholicism whereby I must admit that my Catholic workmate is still be best of the three, and he revealed some love. Maybe his infant baptism has still some good influence on him. I could imagine that he will once convert to pure Christianity.
All religions save genuine Christianity do not provide the means to overcome the selfish old nature of man (on the contrary, the provide means for justifying misbehaviour). We are born selfish. We are selfish by birth. A great miracle is necessary to release us from the curse of our selfish nature.
Through sacramental baptism we get connected with the releasing power of Jesus death and resurrection. If we refer to sacramental baptism we die together with Jesus, and resurrect together with him. We die for the sin, and enter Christ. Dead for the sin, and in Christ we are able to overcome our natural selfishness, and to love God and our neighbour. That is the great mystery of the Christian faith. Jesus is the death of death and the hell's destruction.
What is the biblical meaning of the word "believe"?
Real believing is much more than accepting some as true. Real believing means to present our body as a living sacrifice, or to adore Jesus in Spirit and in Truth. This happens, if we daily remember our baptism where we died and resurrected together with Jesus, and Jesus became our new life. It is up to us to grasp this new life every day again, and that means faith. We believe, if we allow Jesus to live through us. If Jesus rules us, we practice real love which can be different from our distorted imagination of love (for example I told my Muslim workmate that I refuse halal-meat because I love animals, and hate animal torture).
And the four of you suffer from a severe case of the Three B Syndrome, i.e. Bred, Born, and Brainwashed in your mythical religions !!
"What exactly is a believer?”
Unquote.
If have workmates adhering different believes. I had the opportunity to talk with three of my workmates about faith. One is a strict Jehovah's Witness, one is a serene Catholic, and one is a strict Muslim. They all told me that they would believe ("ich bin gläubig" in German language). However, though they claim they would be believing they do not practice unbiased love. I had needed some technical information concerning my job from them, but they were very slow to give it to me. I had to worm out everything of them. They saw no reason why they should inform me of their own accord.
How can one explain this behaviour? Wouldn't it be usual to give necessary information to a workmate?
These are simply expressions of the old selfish nature of man not being able to love. They lack the rebirth out of Water and Spirit, the sacramental baptism. Muslims are not baptized at all, they reject the gospel of Jesus. Jehovah's witnesses rebaptize which is an abomination, and the valid baptism of my Catholic workmate is darkened through Catholicism whereby I must admit that my Catholic workmate is still be best of the three, and he revealed some love. Maybe his infant baptism has still some good influence on him. I could imagine that he will once convert to pure Christianity.
All religions save genuine Christianity do not provide the means to overcome the selfish old nature of man (on the contrary, the provide means for justifying misbehaviour). We are born selfish. We are selfish by birth. A great miracle is necessary to release us from the curse of our selfish nature.
Through sacramental baptism we get connected with the releasing power of Jesus death and resurrection. If we refer to sacramental baptism we die together with Jesus, and resurrect together with him. We die for the sin, and enter Christ. Dead for the sin, and in Christ we are able to overcome our natural selfishness, and to love God and our neighbour. That is the great mystery of the Christian faith. Jesus is the death of death and the hell's destruction.
What is the biblical meaning of the word "believe"?
Real believing is much more than accepting some as true. Real believing means to present our body as a living sacrifice, or to adore Jesus in Spirit and in Truth. This happens, if we daily remember our baptism where we died and resurrected together with Jesus, and Jesus became our new life. It is up to us to grasp this new life every day again, and that means faith. We believe, if we allow Jesus to live through us. If Jesus rules us, we practice real love which can be different from our distorted imagination of love (for example I told my Muslim workmate that I refuse halal-meat because I love animals, and hate animal torture).
When you dismiss other faith's belief, they have every right to dismiss yours.
Bla bla bla. Rainey actually thinks he speaks with some authority. He has actually convinced himself all that pompous pious drivel means something.
Dalahäst
I was once convinced that God was real too. So I'm curious what does it for you.
How did evolution from nothing acquire intelligence?
trial and error; lol.
the deer not smart enough to avoid the wolf..............didn't get to have children.
intelligence is a flexible word. you have book-smarts, tech smarts, common sense, street smarts...... each show levels of intelligence in various fields of life.
so pin-pointing "intelligence" is a broad stroke with a short brush.
So how do we explainTopher, scot, Vic, and Rainer's parents all surviving long enough to breed?
Playing Devils Advocate.
Excuse the intense irony, but I just had to.
1914
We did not evolve from nothing. Ask better questions to get better answers.
"This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Well, what a confused piece of writing. I admire Frank for his emergence from his father's severe christianity (when I was an evangelical I read his dad's books and spent time in L'Abri) but I wish Frank had read the book I sent him a few years ago. Then he might know that there are people who believed and now don't believe. We came to a reasonable conclusion over many years that there is no supernatural. It seems that Frank wants to have his feet in two worlds. Sorry, but there is only one world we know of and it's not the imaginary one of children. Or, as Thoreau reportedly said, "one world at a time."
Nice picture on your wordpress page.
Pragmatism.
Having just put my father in law in the ground, I've been reflecting on the simple practicality of the Christian faith. Observing this man over the last 25 years, I found him to be one of the most caring, empathetic, humble human beings I have ever known. What I find especially interesting is that he would have been the first to admit that these traits did not come natural to him, rather they were the result of a life intent on emulating Jesus Christ. His faith served him well and provided countless practical benefits in his day to day living.
But it's the death thing that I find fascinating. I relish the utility that is found in the hope of eternal life. Believing that there is existence after the grave, and that this existence is immeasurable in quality and quanti ty in comparison to the present, this is the ultimate pragmatism. And it is not some Pascallian Wagerism pragmatism, but rather a pragmatism garnered from the evidences of life. We all come to the table with our presuppositions and determine our beliefs accordingly, I am quite grateful that mine are founded upon a faith that gives hope.
My sympathy for your loss. Please extend my condolences to your wife.
Thank you for your kind words Akira.
Devin....were there any proof at all that there was life after death, I would be all over it. Since there is none, I can't subject myself to that type of false hope. I would be quite dishonest with myself then.
I understand.
Devin....by the way, condolences on your loss. I'm not a big fan of my father-in-law so it is hard to relate.
Devin,
My condolences. Your father in law sounds like he was a great man to be around.
I have no argument with your statement that religion is pragmatic. I would go further, I believe religion has been a key to bringing more successful societies into being. I have little doubt that it helps individuals deal with our one true fate, death. In short, religion works. It becomes much more speculative when considering whether it is still key given the body of laws and social science we have now and continue to grow. I personally think it still have net positive value and will for some time.
Thank you boston
On a lighter note: I had to chuckle ( in a good way) at the latter half of your reply. You remind me of that epitome of a rationalist/pragmatist, Mr. Spock. I can say this because while you and I are world's apart in ideology, I can appreciate your thought patterns.
Amen. I couldn't say it any better.
"Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer." – Romans 12:12
"Absent from the body, present with the Lord."
God bless his soul.
Yep, I believe Metaphysics underlies Physics, plain and simple. The existence of God is but pragmatic in the heart of man, that it is very personal and cannot be publicized as proof, hence the test of "Faith."
Thanks Vic, I appreciate you clarifying that is your belief, not a fact.
While much of the history of psychology was non-scientific, modern psychology is very scientific. You may want to explore that.
The problem is you presuppose that no one else has ever been a "caring, empathetic, humble" human if they spent their "life intent on emulating" Buddha or Muhammad or one of the many facets of Vishnu. Or even those humanists who display the same aspects without a deity at all.
So either your personal story has no weight when it comes to picking the right religion or belief since all religions as well as those with none have similar anecdotal evidence, or you don't believe the stories from other religion based upon your own religious prejudice?
How do you know he presupposed that? Aren't you the one actually presupposing?
It's quite obvious that he is equating good behaviors with a specific belief without examining every other belief system and behavioral outcome. If he said, "I've examined religons around the world and it seems to hold true that followers of Christ are more caring, empathetic, humble human beings" then at least he would be using a comparitive model no matter how flawed his analysis was. In his OP he is just using a single test subject to suggest a general rule for all people which is beyond idiotic. It's like saying "Hey, my dad always wakes up and puts his pants on left leg first then right leg then socks then shirt, and he is the happiest and most generous person I know, so i'm sure the way he gets dressed in the morning has something to do with it! We should all get dressed like that!"
Oh. I didn't know you know he hasn't considered any other viewpoints.
Good thing you are here to fix him and let him know your way is the right way.
Again, obvious he has not examined others because if he had he would see that there are millions of examples of caring, empathetic, humble human beings in all walks of life and in every religion as well as those with none. If he had considered any other viewpoints he wouldn't have drawn such a shallow conclusion. So either he has examined others and seen others like his father-in-law and he just doesn't care because he's trying to make a predecided conclusion based on indoctrination, or he hasn't done any real examination outside his narrow world view and is drawing a decidely uneducated and erroneous conclusion.
I don't think he was saying what you are imagining he is saying.
Oh well. Your opinion.
"And it is not some Pascallian Wagerism pragmatism, but rather a pragmatism garnered from the evidences of life."
"I am quite grateful that mine are founded upon a faith that gives hope."
He implies that he has done the work of observing people, as he says "garnered from the evidences of life" and then essentially dismisses all others by claiming "mine are founded upon faith that gives hope." as if the rest don't. If he was being honest he would have said "My faith, along with thousands of others that promote peace and empathy, love and kindness above all else, gives me a sense of hope."
Most religions discredit each other simply by claiming to be the only path to righteousness themselves and the most vocal proponents of this are Christianity and Islam. Both claim innocence by pointing to scripture saying "Hey, it's not me who says it but this divine scripture that says only through MY guy will you get your reward!" All the OP is doing is making another claim of innocence for the Christians side with complete tunnel vision.
Speculation. And you are demonstrating tunnel vision yourself.
Let me just settle this little squabble between the two of you.
" You presuppose that no one else has been a caring, humble..."
Nope, you're simply wrong. I never said that, never implied that, and I don't believe that.
" It is quite obvious that he is equating good behaviors of a specific belief system without examining every other belief system and behavioral outcome."
Once again, you are categorically wrong. I both know and acknowledge that that there are other belief systems that produce good behavior in individuals. My post was about the pragmatism of my particular faith and how I have been reflecting upon that as of late.
In actuality, there is only one thing that is obvious here, and that is you errant presupposing of my presuppositions.
Sorry about your loss, Dev.
I hesitated using this personal reference because the intent wasn't to elicit condolences. Having said that, I appreciate the kindness.
Peace be with you.
I can't agree with your sentiments on religion, but having lost people I love, I can offer sincere condolences.
I suppose there's comfort in unfounded hope, but not much else. Unfounded hope doesn't help the bridges you build stay up, but it sure helps knock buildings down. Unfounded hope doesn't increase crop yields, discover treatments for illnesses, nor correct heart defects in infants. It's only by rigorously testing our beliefs against reality and discarding those that don't that we make material progress. Some may criticize material progress, but without food, water, and shelter for ourselves and a real hope for more of the same for our children, any other kind of progress is hollow.
People with faith in unfounded hope have been pioneers in the material world – building hospitals, contributing to science and contributing to technological progress we all enjoy today. I don't think Devin was suggesting we shun this entire world. I believe he is referring to where we gain our personal strength from – which doesn't come from the material but the spiritual aspect of our humanity.
Dalahäst
Yet, that technological progress is revealing a universe that can be understood without resorting to magic or supernatural powers. Once, every minor detail had to employ some god as an explanation. Is it so far-fetched to envision a future where we stop seeing gods as any kind of explanation?
Technology doesn't answer a lot of questions about my humanity and the spiritual aspects of this life that I'm seeking. Each technological and scientific progress seems to point to God to me. I don't have a God of the gaps.
Dalahäst
As I've said to you before, religion doesn't have the market cornered on offering philosophical explanations to philosophical questions. In my opinion, religion actually has a disadvantage that actual philosophies do not have: Being tied to several unproven presumptions.
See, I look at the progress of science and see it leading away from the belief that supernatural forces cause everything. People don't believe that some god is hurling his lightening at specific people anymore, they generally accept that lightening has a natural cause and strikes randomly (albeit, those reckless enough to stand under trees or in open fields during storms do manage to get struck more often than the prudent).
Before science, there really weren't any "natural" explanations for anything in nature. Now we are discovering the actual cause and essence of things in nature, and are finding no supernatural causes. I wonder why you still assume that some supernatural force is behind it all? Why would a series of natural causes need a supernatural force to control it?
I love science. And I love belonging to a religion that is not tied to several unproven presumptions. I'm not sure why you imagine we are, but that is your experience. Not mine.
I encouraged within my religion to remain open minded and ask questions. We fully embrace science. We have people within my religion that are leaders in scientific fields.
Religion and science do not have to be rivals. They can compliment each other. As I try to find purpose and meaning in life, they both help me.
I believe a supernatural force authored science. I don't think science authored itself. I don't think natural causes initial cause came from itself. I think it came from outside our realm of understanding. The more I seek God, the less of a lightning bolt-thrower image and the more of a higher intelligence at play in the universe He becomes.
I appreciate you sharing your naturalism or scientism philosophical beliefs. They sound very important for you. My experience and knowledge in this world compels me to seek deeper understandings.
Dalahäst
Come now, the existence of God, the salvation of Christ, the afterlife, ... these are all "unproven presumptions" that your religion hinges upon, correct?
Religion and science can compliment each other, as long as one does not presume to answer for the other, right? Religion should never presume to have a better answer to scientific inquiry just as science should never presume to be the final word in matter such as love and beauty, as you like to point out. I have no problem with that, but you're still stating that God is ultimately underlying nature, which is pushing religion into science's territory in an uncomplimentary fashion.
Once you posit the First Cause argument it immediately fails. There is no logical reason to presume that an uncaused intelligent, non-physical, super-powered, being would have a better case for being eternal than an ultimately simple, unintelligent, natural universe which merely changed with the Big Bang where time itself unfolded with the other dimensions.
God transcends science. There is nothing in my religion that prohibits the study or enhancement of religion. There is nothing a person who doesn't believe in God, like yourself, can do in science that a person, like myself, who believes in God can do in science.
Many of our advancements in science came from people who dared to not follow a strict adherence to your "logical reason".
dala: "Religion and science do not have to be rivals. They can compliment each other."
the sad truth is that science and religion have always been at odds.
science shows a universe that didn't require a god to create it.
religion has done it's best to stiffle scienctific research from the very beginning.
the telescope to stim cell research the church has done it's best to keep people ignorant about the truth of science.
Science does not show a universe that disproves God.
Religion can encourage and contribute to scientific knowledge.
I don't belong to that church you reference. Nor do all religions do what you claim. I think the claim that religion is inherently at odds with science is a myth.
Most religious people fully embrace science.
Dalahäst
I forgot to point out that a natural universe where time expanded along with all the other dimensions not only would really appear to be eternal but, because there could not be an "outside" from which to observe it, any talk of an infinite regress of causes is actually nonsensical.
A creator god, however, would logically need time in order to consciously decide to act. Thus creator gods cannot exist outside of time as believers like to argue, making them vulnerable to the argument of infinite regress themselves. They can say that this doesn't (can't) apply to God, but that's a baseless statement outside which goes against common sense.
Interesting theory. I don't think it is wise to put limits on God or science. Both have proven to me what we think is common sense today, can become folly tomorrow. I think you have personally proven to yourself God is not real. God has proven Himself to me that He does exist. And science still remains a great tool for me in regards to studying our natural and material world. I embrace it.
Dalahäst
No but, so far, science does show a universe that doesn't need a God.
I understand that, long ago, priests and pastors were amongst the most highly educated in the population and often the only people with time to spare to do some science. Nowadays, however, most of our scientists are professionals. Many of them may be religious in their private lives, but I really don't see them writing peer-reviewed papers laced with their religious assumptions that God is tugging the strings.
In other words, they keep their personal biases out of their scientific work, like real professionals, and the other religious people who fully embrace science also compartmentalize. That's fine. I'm sure that some scientists are also into astrology, believe they have "lucky ties" and the like. One might say that's what gives them all a charmingly eccentric other side to balance out their strictly professional one.
What contributions has religion (not religious people) made to scientific discovery? Has theology formed testable theories to anything in the physical world?
My religion deals with the spiritual and human aspects of life – things like love, hypocrisy, charity, greed, compassion, evil and good.
My life is not just a scientific discovery. I'm not just a product of the physical world. I think people have known the difference between our scientific study and our religious understandings since the beginning of time, and the 2 don't have to conflict.
People in my religion have demonstrated they can participate and advance science just like anyone else. In fact I know some that have probably demonstrated a greater understanding of science than you, and they testify their belief encourages the curiosity and understanding needed to advance our scientific knowledge.
"the sad truth is that science and religion have always been at odds."
Science and religion were not always at odds.
"Daniel was one of the group of children that was brought to the king's palace. And he and his brethren had a true understanding of science and of spiritual things. There was no conflict such that spiritual principles and science seemed to be in opposition to each other."
Today, there is opposition and conflict, caused by those who seek to make a religion out of science – thinking it makes them look smart, and logical.
Dalahäst
When science redefines what is "common sense" it actually does so with proof. Where's your proof that God could do anything outside of time?
See, once you posit that God can do things that aren't logically possible (as we actually understand it today), then that God becomes logically impossible and people like me are perfectly justified in just dismissing the possibility that he might even exist.
Now who's making guesses about people? Again, I haven't proven to myself that God doesn't exist, the poor quality of the arguments for his existence have done that for me.
There is a lot of "common sense" that exists that is not defined by science.
I can't prove God to you. It is something you need to decide for yourself. I don't judge you or feel the need to correct you. I don't like being treated that way, so I try not to do that to other people.
What I believe is you are sharing your reasons and opinions why you don't believe in God with me. You state them like they are facts or common sense. But to me they are not. God isn't limited by your understanding or reasons.
You are not the first person to suggest such things to me. Each person gives me different reasons and theories as to why they imagine what I believe and what works for them. I remain open-minded to new ideas. You haven't offered that much that I haven't already considered before, though.
dala: "Religion can encourage and contribute to scientific knowledge."
how exactly has religion contributed to science?
yes i am aware of religious people that have increased understanding in scientific fields; yet once their discoveries had to pass through the church and the church did all they could to block these new discoveries because it stole another power from their god.
even today religious groups block science discoeries by either throwing b.s. science out in to the public to divide them or they bully the government into blocking scienctists from researching certain fields.
i.e. stem cell research, namely fetal stem cells. we can't even know where in the medical field we would be right now if 15 years ago the religious right hadn't totally had stem cells blocked from research.
oh and if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how did your god create it?
why did your god make you 99% genetically kin to chimps?
how could a perfect god, make an imperfect product?
– how exactly has religion contributed to science?
Providing money. Encouraging students to study it. Supporting government programs. Teaching it at church. Scholarships.
Yea, some religious groups do block science. And so do political groups. Some nations do it, too.
I don't know how God created energy. That is a mystery. I don't know why I'm 99% genetically kin to chimps.
A perfect God could be making something better than perfect being. Beings that love. Beings that are free. Beings that can overcome imperfection. Perhaps God has sacrificed his perfection for our sake?
new-man: look at human history, not make-believe religious history.
the church at almost every turn tried to block the advancement of science, to the point it would mean death if caught studing certain fields of science.
the reason science and religion are at odds isn't people wanting to make it a "religion"; it's religious people attempting to block life saving medicines or......and this is the big one, preparing for the discovery of life off world; when they stamped their foot that "only humans" were made in gods image.
lol, so why is the church accepting life off world, if they have the truth in your bible?
Dalahäst
What kinds of other "common sense" do you have in mind? When I'm talking about scientific common sense I'm talking about things like "something can't be in two places at once" that only got amended after evidence demonstrated it. Other things have been called "common sense" based only on deeply held belief. Things like "Blacks are inferior to whites", "Women can't do the same job as men", and "Only a fool believes that there is no God". This kind of "common sense" dies like all baseless prejudice.
If you can't prove God to me, should I assume that you're expecting me to convince myself that he exists, like you apparently did? I know, I'm guessing again, but you really don't leave anyone much choice when you're so cryptic about what you believe and why.
You state things like "God isn't limited by (my) understanding or reasons", but you don't offer any reason for me to accept that as factual. Nor, apparently, can you explain how it is you actually know this to be true.
Contrast this to saying that who you are isn't limited to my understanding of you and it's a completely different story. I'm reasonably sure that you exist, where I assume you don't have texts from God stored away for others to see, as I have of your posts, correct? Try telling people that you text somebody regularly, but they can't see any of these posts because they're invisible to everyone but you, and see how many people believe you, eh?
Don't assume I expect you to believe in God. I don't even know what you mean by that. I'm just sharing my experience and understanding with you on this blog – which is dedicated to religions, faith and belief.
I don't have faith in what you preach. Sorry. I don't know what else to tell you. I'm glad your beliefs work for you. They don't for me. My beliefs don't harm you. Most people in my community from other faiths and beliefs welcome me based on my actions and results of my evidence.
I share about God with a lot of people. Some people understand. Others have different views.
I'm fine with that. I am just true to myself.
Dalahäst
I was asking about theology and you gave me what religious people have done for science. Sure, religious people have done good things for science, and they've done bad things for science, and politics, education, health care, natives, women, and pretty much every other thing in our society. My question remains: Has theology, the religious explanation for the universe, ever contributed to the scientific understanding of the universe?
According to our present common sense expressed in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created. Claiming that God must have been able to do it goes against our common sense then, right? If God supposedly created man separate from the animals then common sense should tell you that there should be a much bigger difference between us and chimps than 1%, right?
I'm not sure what you were pointing to with that last sentence, sorry!
You said nothing about theology until right now, I believe. I have a theology that encourages me to embrace science. I didn't have that in atheism. Maybe scientism or naturalism also encourages that in other people like you.
If God is eternal and energy is eternal, maybe energy is part of God. Part of the mystery of life is the power behind it all. I don't generate the power. I don't live off your power.
I'm not sure what you mean by God creating man separately form animals. It appears we share many similarities.
Claims of religious support for science in the overall view are I think fundamentally incorrect, and dishonest or at least a case of willed ignorance, given how much is known about severe and sometimes even murderous religious opposition to science, such as been the case for the Christian religion and especially for the hierarchy of certain of its various divisions. Supporting science only when it is taking a course that suits you, is not support at all, and in fact represents an attempt to corrupt the scientific method. This is just one part of why I think religion needs to be shelved.
Steve Weinberg made a very apt statement that is worth repeating here. I agree with it:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
There are examples of religion, specifically Christianity opposing science. But there are also examples of it encouraging and supporting science. Most Christian nations.
The Big Bang Theory was fathered by a Catholic priest. And his teachings were opposed by religious and scientific people.
“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”
Martin Luther King, JR
Dalahäst
"Christian Nations"? Are you talking about countries where the majority of people happen to be Christians, or some nations where Christianity was framework for their consti.tution and laws?
Remember, that when Georges Lemaître first proposed that the universe was expanding, it was contrary to the predominant view at the time of a static universe, which was even more problematic for the Church. More recent work on the theory strongly suggests that all the requirements were there for a naturally caused Big Bang. Only religious people seem to be opposing it nowadays, not based on any contrary evidence, but simply because they claim to "know" that it can't be true.
Dr. King's quote could have worked just as easily if "ethics" were substi.tuted for religion, right? The only ethic in science is honest discovery. Too often, science is commissioned by politicians, military people, businessmen and even religious folks with other ethics.
I was referring to nations that are made up predominately of Christian individuals.
Yea. Some religious people do that. Some atheist people claim they believe in God, like this article suggests. I have no control what either of those groups do.
Sure. I think that might be what he meant by religion. Ethics are not studied in a scientific setting. It is something that derives from religious or philosophical studies.
King also talked about how science and religion was abused and twisted to justify unethical treatment of people.
My religion, like science, when kept honest produces great things. And the 2 are not rivals.
That is patently the problem -this incomplete support for science that you describe, plus the bullying opposition to disliked subject matter that has so often been done by the religious. Support for science when it suits what you believe is not valid support, and seems fraudulent to me. It is also perversion of the scientific method, or at least represents an attempt at that.
It is not only the religious that are guilty of bullying opposition. Non-religious are guilty of this, too. Also, political groups and secular corporations are guilty of it. Even scientists are guilty of it. Even atheists who preach scientism: guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
Most religious people in America fully embrace science.
Dalahäst
"Has theology formed testable theories to anything in the physical world?"
That was my last sentence 11 posts from the top of this tread, and I'm not talking about a theology that teaches you to embrace science. I was asking if religious theology has ever led to any actual scientific discovery.
A lot of Christians would argue that God created the universe out of nothing. The implications of your suggestion is that God was the singularity that expanded which, again, is superfluous as a non-intelligent singularity appears to be able to expand all by itself naturally.
I was referring to man supposedly being created in "God's image" which, I presume, was meant to separate us from that animals morally. Otherwise, the animals also share the image of God, and I don't see the intended meaning of that.
TTFN
Have a great weekend, if I don't get back to you before Monday.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm sure the founder of The Big Bang theory could say his understanding of this universe having a beginning as described in scripture lead him to theorize about the Big Bang.
There is nothing inherent in theology that prevents a person from studying and contributing to science. Some theologies actually encourage such endeavors.
I think man is not an "accident" through mindless evolution, but that God created him in His image for a living relationship with Him. Did he do this through evolution? I think so. There is a purpose to our capacity to understand, and our ability to choose between harming and loving others.
We also fail to live up to God's image for us. That is why scripture says we live in a world that fails to live up to its own ideals. I see evidence of that in individuals, groups and nations everyday.
But, also according to scripture, God says that is ok. Even though we are imperfect, illogical and unreasonable creatures He still loves us.
I've experienced that to be true in my life.
Enjoy your weekend! Thanks for chatting.
You are putting forward an informal fallacy, and my point about the badly flawed support of science by religion stands. Furthermore, the Christian religion is guilty of systematic bullying of science, and of doing so to a degree, with real as well as threatened consequence, that exceeds that of the other culprits within your claim.
Dude, we are talking about opinions on a religion blog. You are demonstrating "informal fallacies" yourself.
I'm not guilty, nor is all of Christianity guilty, of the actions of some people that not only violated what Jesus preached but opposed our appreciation for science today.
There is nothing you can do within science that a Christian can't do.
"Most religious people in America fully embrace science.
----------------------
This is mostly a true statement, though using both "most" and "fully" at the same time may border on mild exaggeration.
The exceptions are often Evangelical Protestants.
Most religious people do embrace most science.
Evangelical Protestants fully embrace science the least.
"I'm not guilty, nor is all of Christianity guilty, of the actions of some people that not only violated what Jesus preached but opposed our appreciation for science today. "
Umm, no, it is the preaching by your religion according to Jesus of the supremacy of god-belief over reason that is a big part of the problem. Do try again, though. Your grasping is quite amusing, but your belligerent false claiming of religious support for science is not.
"There is nothing you can do within science that a Christian can't do. "
False claim you make. Insofar as such a Christian follows the incorrect or simply discordant "science" of the bible over the critically pursued real science, the Christian clearly cannot do the same science. Just to cite one example, that being sufficient.
+ your belligerent false claiming of religious support for science is not.
We support science. Have you been to my church? Do you know what our official statement in regards to science is? In my experience, most Christians are open to scientific knowledge. I know there are some that oppose it. There are some atheists that oppose science, too. I don't have control over either group.
+ False claim...
Nope. A Christian can do anything you do in science.
Some Christians can actually do more. Like, if you wanted to learn more about a specific field (like obtain an additional degree) in real science there is a good chance you will be taught by a Christian at some point.
Dala,
you said: "There is nothing you can do within science that a Christian can't do."
Very true – but Christians (theists) do have to do one extra step....morph their theology to fit the science.
There is no inherent conflict between any scientific finding and my understanding of God as creator, redeemer and sanctifier. I don't have to morph my understanding of this world any different than a non-believer needs to.
You are all over the map as usual:)
Great – so theres no difference between your brand of god and being a non-believer?
Modern Christianity has been scrambling to stay relevant in today's world – your take seems to change with the wind.
I only know the difference within myself in regards to believing and not believing. That is what I share about.
False again. Religious dogma and science are antithetical. In science, everything is open to question, or should be. When you give the tenets of your religious dogma precedence over science, you taint your (ever-so often repeated) claimed support for science. That will be the case no matter how many Christian scientists you trot out. Until you pull off the mask and blinders of belief, your science will remain perverted to some degree.
I will remain open-minded on the subject. It is interesting to consider truths that science is not capable of unveiling.
Ed,
I don't think you do more than I do to support science. Science does not lead everyone to atheism. I think you probably have your own mask and blinders on. Rejecting religion does not free you from that burden.
"I don't think you do more than I do to support science." Please retract that conjecture or provide specific support for it. I highly doubt that claim given what you have said about your tainted take on science so far.
Your claim of being open-minded is demonstrably false, and quite disingenuous, given that you have stated just how closed your mind is against a properly open approach to science.
You don't have the only way to properly approach science. What you are preaching is not science, but philosophy.
Instead of approaching me with an open mind like Bostontola demonstrates, for example, you approach me with a closed mind. You try to dictate what you imagine I believe based on your limited understanding of Christianity, science and how the universe operates.
There are scientists with prestigious degrees that disagree with what you preach. Even scientists that happen to be atheist or agnostic don't buy into the scientism you are preaching to me.
"Please retract that conjecture or provide specific support for it."
I don't think you do more than I to support science. You haven't talked about actual science with me. Just talked about your personal philosophy toward science. I don't think you have the tools, education or experience to be a spokesperson for science. I see no evidence or credential from you. I see no peer support from the science community toward you.
Retract it? Or what? What? You going to post more of your lazy-minded stereotypes about me? That kind of thinking and language harms you, not me.
Can you use science to prevent yourself from being a bigot and a hypocrite? I can't. I have to use other means to prevent those defects that effect all human beings from growing within myself.
This is a religion blog. It is dedicated to the idea that there are other ways of knowing things that are outside of our knowledge of science.
""I don't think you do more than I do to support science." Again, either provide support for that statement, or retract it. As the person who made it, the onus is on you to do so.
I'm waiting, and I will tell you that I am rather well known among my scientific peers for my patience.
Dude, you've made some outrageous claims yourself about me in regards to what you imagine I must believe and do as a Christian. And you didn't back that up.
I said I don't *think* you do more than I to support science. I didn't say I *know* that. I don't. It just appears you don't really know what you are talking about, because you are preaching scientism and most people, scientists included, don't preach that brand of philosophy you've adopted for yourself.
I believe I support and embrace science. I appreciate it. But it is not the only means of knowing something like you suggest. Nor does it disprove God.
Stop avoiding. Provide support for your statement if you can, or retract it. Again, the onus is on you to do so, and the record of you having made it is broadly visible.
The onus is on YOU. Quit acting so arrogant. Because you are the one preaching to me about scientism. I'm just stating my opinion that I don't think you should be preaching to me about it. You aren't a spokesperson of science. You aren't in charge of what is and what isn't science.
You actually appear to be doing a disservice to science. And you still have failed to actually discuss actual science. But PHILOSOPHY about science.
That is why you find yourself on the opinion section of the website. On a blog dedicated to religion. It is quite logical and reasonable to find people who believe in God here. And people, like me, who fully embrace science.
Calm down. Stop shouting. Stop avoiding. Provide support for your statement if you can, or retract it. Again, the onus is on you to do so, and the record of you having made it is broadly visible.
I'm calm. I'm not shouting. I'm not avoiding.
The onus is on you, actually. You are the one that is preaching at me about your philosophy. I don't have to accept what you preach. You don't even practice what you preach, so why should I listen to you?
Again, the publicly visible record shows you shouting at me. Make a retraction, please. At this point, an apology from you to me would also be appropriate.
I didn't shout. You just imagine I am. I'm really quite calm. It is annoying because you appear incredibly arrogant and seem to not like the taste of your own medicine.
I'm not going to apologize for my personal belief that you don't do anymore to support science than I do.
Quit acting like a lil' internet bully. I'm sharing my beliefs.
You are sharing what you IMAGINE my beliefs are.
And you aren't being very logical or rational about it, so your claim to be on the side of science is highly questionable.
Again, the publicly visible record shows you shouting at me, multiple times. Calm down.
Make a retraction, please. At this point, an apology from you to me would also be appropriate.
You sound crazy. I'm not yelling.
Well Dalla looks like it is headed for the classrooms. .Cosmos that is.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/13_ways_neil_degrasse_tysons_cosmos_sent_the_religious_right_off_the_deep_end_partner/
Awesome! I hope my kids get to watch it in class.
No, the dogma that you subscribe to is that of Christianity, as you have already acknowledged. It is abhorrent that you are now disclaiming having done so, by making a contradictory and incompatible claim.
Nah. You act just as bad any of the Christians you profess to be better than.
Dalahäst
Just have a few minutes, so I'll try to answer all.
Many creation myths tell the tale of the universe's beginning. There's nothing particularly close with the Bible version to what we now know. A few creation myths, including the Hindu and Ja.panese, have the universe coming from a "cosmic egg", which could be likened to the singularity that was the universe before expansion, for instance. Lemaître actually called his idea the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom or the "Cosmic Egg"', and not the Big Bang. So, maybe the priest was more inspired by those stories than his own scripture, eh?
Some Christian's theology directly states that scripture trumps science no matter what. If that isn't a hindrance, what is?
Evolution may be "mindless" but that doesn't mean that it wasn't directed by natural forces in a logical way. We're not really an accident then, just a natural result.
What does it mean to be made in God's image? If it just comes down to intelligence then the dolphins and whales may be made just as much in his image, right? If it's intelligence, our capacity for evil is also part of that. So, does God also have this capacity for evil?
God has no problem with destroying other nations, peoples and killing individuals to suit his purposes. Has there ever been a dictatorship that did anything more evil?
So, scripture says whatever God does is OK, right? Pretty much every ancient code of ethics, some predating the Bible, all condemn murder, right? That would suggest that we didn't need God to tell us not to murder people, but that we simply realized that it was a good idea for a functioning society. Seems then that the Bible writers were just giving God credit for inventing this, which suggests that the real purpose of it was to strengthen God's reputation, as does the Genesis story.
Giving God credit for things that we either did ourselves or enjoy from nature serves to make worshipers feel indebted to him, but I guess it could have the benefit of getting s to feel grati.tude for what we have, even if it doesn't actually come from some deity.
Good discussion!
Catch you later.
No. You are missing the point.
Dalahäst
Did you catch the last episode of Cosmos? Near the end, Tyson listed the great lessons for scientists featured in the season.
Question authority.
No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.
Think for yourself.
Question yourself.
Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing in something doesn't make it so.
Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favourite idea fails an well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it!
Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.
And, perhaps the most important rule of all, remember, you could be wrong.
Even the best scientists have been wrong about somethings. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history. They all made mistakes.
Of course they did. They were human. Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.
Too bad everyone doesn't take these lessons to heart, eh?
Awesome. I love belonging to a religion that encourages that kind of thinking. I'll share that with my pastor. He'll love it. Thanks!
"I don't think you do more than I do to support science." Please retract that arrogant, insulting conjecture or provide specific support for it. The onus is on you to do so.
As for your shouting, which you have done repeatedly and which the public record now visibly shows, your dishonesty on that point is also noted. You owe me an apology.
I really don’t think you do more than I do to support science. I say this because I fully embrace and support science myself. I just don't agree with your philosophy about science.
I used all caps to emphasize something. Not yell at you. I'm not mad.
You seem to suggest that as a Christian I oppose science. Which I don't.
I believe there are Christians that do more for science than you probably do. You may not be capable of doing some of the things for science that some Christians do. Some Christians and other people are born with gifts and talents for studying a discipline like science that you were not born with. If fact, if you wanted to learn more about science, there is a very high chance at some point you will be taught by a Christian.
I know non-Christians that understand this. Some Christians embrace science. Some do not. Just like some atheists embrace science. While others don't.
Dalahäst
I'm not so sure that your religion, as a whole, encourages much of that thinking. A great many, if not most Christians do not question the authority of their Church, pastors, or Bible. As such, they really don't think for themselves. They tend to accept what their leaders say as true without much question. Many also don't question themselves either. They will defend their interpretation of things to the bitter end, without once admitting that they could be the ones getting it wrong.
Finally, the part about "Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing in something doesn't make it so" seems completely lost to a lot of Christians. Maybe you wouldn't be surprised, but many Christians actually do believe that God exists just because they believe he does. "Personal experience" doesn't count as a well-defined experiment used to root out self-delusion. Sorry!
People from my religion have contributed a lot to higher learning. We also embrace such things as democracy, science and medicine.
Dalahäst
Aren't you actually encouraging people to start with a conclusion (God exists) and interpret the evidence to support that conclusion, contrary to the way science is supposed to work?
No.
Dalahäst
Historically, Christians and the Church have also worked against all of those things too. Seems like the Christians start out against stuff until society drags it kicking and screaming into the modern age. Then the Church suddenly discovers that it's for social change and advancement. Always has been, in fact. It's almost comical.
30 years ago you would have been hard pressed to find a Christian leader willing to support gay rights. In another 30 years you'll be hard pressed to find any leaders who will admit to the h0m0ph0bic prejudice still evident today. The spin will be that Christians were always for gay rights, just like they were always for abolition, civil rights, women's lib, interracial marriage, unions, and even democracy. Remember who was the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France?
I know, not your church.
Historically not all Christians have done that. For the most part it was just the ones that tried to use Christianity as a means to rule over other people. Which failed miserably.
I've never been to a church that does what you describe. Nor have I heard of anyone that supports such means. Yes, some people have done some horrible things in the name of religion. Most will admit that happens. But it doesn't mean we are or will follow their lead. There have always also been good examples to follow. Like the ones that started universities, hospitals and encouraged scientific research.
Nah. You were shouting. Calm down.
Make a retraction, please. The onus is on you to do so, since you made a conjecture that you can not support, however you shroud it. At this point, an apology from you to me would also be appropriate.
Nah. I'm calm. You might imagine I'm yelling and upset. But I don't live in your imagination.
The notion that I may actually support science more than you isn't an insult, nor is the onus on me to make a retraction.
You are the one that made claims that I can't support science since I'm a Christian. Which is empirically false.
OH NO! That is not it at all. We are all flawed. I'm usually arguing against you with the ridiculous notion that all Christians are delusional idiots that are only capable of doing harm.
No group is perfect. But when someone like you only talks about the flaws from a group of people, I will point out some of the assets. The fact that Bostontola and GOPer can and have done this is encouraging to me. They are pretty reasonable. The actually set a good example for me to follow. So I have hope you can be like that, too, someday.
Again, the publicly visible record shows you shouting at me, repeatedly.
Make a retraction, please.
At this point, an apology from you to me would also be appropriate, and is now long overdue.
I believe you do not embrace science more than me. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. But that is your problem, not mine. You are the one who made fallacious statements about science and religion that suggest I oppose science.
Have you ever read about how the secular scientists opposed Galileo in his time?
He was a Christian. When the Pope imprisoned him it had to do with political reasons. Not a desire to oppose science or torture scientists.
http://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/conflict-myths-galileo-galilei
No. You were shouting, and the publicly visible record shows that clearly. Calm down.
Once you have calmed, it is high time for your retraction of your unsupported, arrogant conjecture. It does not suffice that you shroud that by presenting it as a thought. That is the height of deceitful guile, what you are attempting in such a shroud.
At this point, an apology from you would also be appropriate, and is now long overdue.
Nah. You just misunderstood. I am calm.
You sure are bossy.
No. You were shouting, and the publicly visible record shows that. Calm down.
Once you have calmed, it is high time for your retraction of your unsupported, arrogant conjecture. It does not suffice that you shroud that by presenting it as a thought. That is the height of deceitful guile, what you are attempting in such a shroud.
At this point, an apology from you would also be appropriate, and is now long overdue.
Later dude.
Dalahäst
There are still people who are trying to use Christianity as a means to rule over other people. Let's hope they also fail because the rule of "Christianity" will intimately mean the rule of one particular definition of Christianity over everyone, including other Christians, and I don't think that any of us should expect a gentle rule, right?
Long before Christians there was education and health care. Maybe the churches started getting into these fields because society had developed a need before? If the example of art is similar, the motivation to do all these great works was more closely linked to patrons trying to impress God into letting them into Heaven sooner. Remember, that these things stared around the same time that rich folks were buying indulgences from the Church.
Even nowadays, a lot of people get something out of having a hospital wing named after themselves, and the same goes for church organizations putting their name on hospitals and such. Many missionaries wouldn't bother to bring charity to other nations if they didn't have the chance to convert other people, even other Christians into their variety. Competi.tion then is the primary motivation for charity. Today, we also have Christian schools and universities set up specifically to indoctrinate young people into the fundamentalist mindset, so all great things such as you've mentioned are done just for goodness sake.
Maybe the Romans or their successors would have developed these things even if Christianity had never rose in popularity? We won't ever know, will we?
I guess the point here is that there are always good examples to follow in every religion, creed, society and culture. Humans have an instinctual need to do good for our fellows just as we have to do evil. I'm just not sure that you can credit something like religion with all the good, when it's also responsible for a lot of the bad. With religion, people still find reasons to do evil, and without religion people will still find reasons to do good. Religion doesn't really change anything.
I don't credit religion with all the good. Just like I don't blame it for all the bad. It is way more complex than that. Even Jesus spoke out against religion. The religious leaders hated him because he pointed out their hypocrisy and self-interests. They thought they were impressing God and earning their way into heaven. Which is not how it works.
Human nature is the cause of most of the good and the bad that occurs. I have experienced what the religion I belong to expresses that to look like. And how to deal with it. It works for me.
I am certainly not sure about some of your speculation. Especially about the artists who allegedly try to earn their way into heaven by impressing God. No. Again, that is not how it works.
Dalahäst
If Jesus were as anti-religious as you say, why do you call your following his example a "religion"? Because his followers created a religion around him, and you worship him as a god? Is that what Jesus intended his apostles to do after his death? My impression is that's what Paul ended up doing, after the conflicts he had with apostles who actually learned at Jesus' knee.
Judaism remains a religion where members strive to keep the Law as faithfully as they can. Jesus did the same, didn't he? He also expressly stated that the Law was to remain until he returned. Would you fault Jews for still keeping the Law?
The artists worked for money, most times. It was the rich sponsors who thought their commissions would earn them heavenly rewards.
I don't think he was anti-religion. I think he knew there were dangers to religious thinking. It can be like poison if not approached the right way.
I'm actually encouraged to not think of it as a religion. But rather a relationship.
The laws were created for man. Man wasn't created for the laws. In that I mean the laws are in place to show us a need for help. They point to the things that people do that harm their neighbors. The purpose of the 10 Commandments, in my opinion, is to teach what love does not do. Love does not steal. Love does not covet. Love does not murder. The 10 Commandments are meant to help our neighbor. Because God loves our neighbor. And he wants us to love them, too.
I think scripture makes clear that God wants us to be people who act out of love, compassion and kindness. There are no laws against acting that way.
Judaism is focused more on relationship than following laws, too. The laws are guidelines that keep them on the path that God wants them to be on. And these laws and guidelines change and evolve as the people change and evolve.
Dalahäst
"Poison" if you become fanatical, or fundamentalist?
I would agree!
To me, "love" would include equal rights for all, but not all Christians feel the same way. Some scripture seems to support this inequality. What does the gender of the person you wish to marry matter, and why didn't the Law simply outlaw slavery out of love? Remember that Jesus only said "Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?" in the story of the Good Samaritan. He never said that foreigners actually were the neighbours of Jews.
Don't you need "guidelines" in order to keep on the right path as well? You've said before that you don't actually follow the Bible literally, so I was curious what you use as an authority. Surely you're not just making it up yourself, doing just want "feels" right? That would be a road open to self-delusion, wouldn't it?
What is interesting in the good Samaritan story – the Jews would have been carrying wine, oil and cloth for religious purposes. They probably were afraid to touch or come near the man, because by the religious rules that would make them impure. They would fall to the bottom of the religious ladder and lose status among their peers.
The Samaritan used the wine, oil and cloths he had to aid the man. And he sacrificed his time and money.
I do need guidelines and principles to help me stay on the right path. They are helpful. And they also help me stay honest with myself. Especially when I attempt to practice the principles in all I do. I also participate in a community with people embracing the same types of principles. Self-delusion is important to look out for. I have people I can bounce ideas off of to avoid falling down that pit.
My authority rests in a loving God.
Dalahäst
Yes, the Samaritan story is against selfishness. Any of the Jews could have helped the man, but didn't want to get involved and have to sacrifice their time and money. I don't think that they would have lost esteem, however. They always could get ritually clean again, but that would have also been inconvenient.
"My authority rests in a loving God."
Can you clarify? Is this just a feeling, or do you get your idea of God being loving from somewhere else?
It is a feeling. And a knowing.
Dalahäst
As we both agreed in the tread at the bottom of the page: "Believing in something doesn't make it so."
It could all just be a product of your own mind.
God's existence isn't contingent on my belief. He exists outside my mind.
Leprechauns existence is not contingent on my belief. Leprechauns exist outside my mind.
Do you really fail to see the fallacy in making such a statement?
No. That is just an argument technique you probably learned from a zealous anti-theist website.
Dalahäst
And we keep going in circles with this. Can you demonstrate that it isn't just in your mind, or not?
And what's with the ad hominem evasion of the leprechaun question? People believe in them just like you believe in God. Explain the difference in beliefs, if you can.
Show me people that believe in leprechauns like I believe in God.
Name 1 president that believes in leprechauns.
Name 1 Nobel Prize winning chemist that believes in leprechauns.
Name 1 astronaut that has flown to the moon that believes in leprechauns,
Name 1 founding father or mother of a discipline of science that believes in leprechauns.
Dala....zzzzzzzzzzzz. The order of the day was belief in a deity. We have grown up now.
Ok, you just criticized me for making an appeal to authority. And then you make an appeal to prominent atheists? My mind is open to atheism. I was one.
Dalahäst
Like I said, apparently most Irish people still claim to believe in leprechauns, and historically that number was probably higher. There's even a law in Ireland protecting leprechauns as an endangered species. A great many Irish immigrated to the USA and brought this belief with them, so maybe some of your ancestors believed in them too. After that, what makes you believe that Americans are more dependable or smarter than the Irish? Astronauts, presidents, and your founding fathers were just people like you and I, weren't they? Why should I trust their mere opinion on this more than your's or my own?
I've met some Irish people. None of them have ever mentioned believing in leprechauns.
Google shows some a couple weird websites that support your claim backed by "Cooley Distillery". It sounds like a gimmick.
But, you should be able to show a scientist or doctor of Irish descent that believes in leprechauns like you do? Right?
Dalahäst
I think you wouldn't be so offended by the idea that some people still believe in them if you didn't see the similarity between beliefs.
Guess what? Some people still believe in elves too. Maybe you've seen this news story before?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/opponents-say-new-icelandic-road-would-disturb-elves/
devin,
My condolences to you and your wife. Losing a parent is never easy. I hope your both find joy in your memories of him.
Thank you Cheeese.
Devin, my condolences.
To address your general topic, what do you think of the fact that some people use religion and the belief in an afterlife as motivation to be good people, while others are driven to be good without those beliefs? Is one better than the other? It is wonderful that your father in law was apparently a great man. Do you think he would have been a great man without belief? I suspect he would have.
Sea
As in all things I can only answer for myself, but I would wager that for the majority of individuals thoughts and or fears of the afterlife are the driving motivational forces for living a good life. For me, it 's just not the case. When a fundamental doctrine of your faith is the insufficiency of human righteousness, you quickly realize that attempts at appeasing some god or gods with your own merits will just leave you screwed.To answer your question, Christianity is far from being the only path which drives an individual to be "good". I know many individuals who from my angle are far gooder (my word) people than some of the christians I know. The issue for me here is what is meant by good and who sets the standard for good. That is a whole other can of worms, but one which is vital to my belief system and the reason I can't answer your question as to "which one is better"? As for the last question, without doubt my father in law would have been a far lesser individual without his faith in Jesus Christ. His words, not mine.
Thank you for your condolences.
My sympathy for your loss as well.
I lost my father-in-law over 10 years ago, and it still hurts.
Thank you.
" I relish the utility that is found in the hope of eternal life."
I'm sure you do. Yet honestly is perhaps a higher value. Utilitarianism is a slippery slope.
D'inesh Dzouza argues this "utilitarian" usefulness of religion all the time, (or he used to before he was exposed as a fraud). If you really think it's "useful" to buy into Santy and Easter Bunny, go right ahead. You're right about what has become called "Christianity". Paul of Tarsus, (it's founder) thought only the saved were immortal, and Jews never thought anyone was immortal in the way it's thought of today. Later Christians cooked up "heaven and hell", and some people are dumb enough to buy it.
Olam haBa = information about Jewish after life. It is not that different from what I consider to be possible as a Christian. Christians generally are taught the wages of sin are death. And God will resurrect life from that death someday. That is similar to what the Jews teach. Santy and Easter Bunny are what I consider American and secular customs. Not religious understandings of God, FYI.
Maybe some day you'll actually take a class in Comparative religion. You are totally wrong. The Jews of Jebus' day thought ALL souls, good and bad, went to Sheol. Yahweh did not live in Sheol.
Psalm 39 :
"Turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again,
before I depart, and am no more"
Psalm 115 :
The dead do not praise the Lord,
nor do any that go down into silence".
Immortality for the ancient Hebrews was provided by children, and more precisely, male children.
• Judaism believes in an afterlife but has little dogma about it
• The Jewish afterlife is called Olam Ha-Ba (The World to Come)
• Resurrection and reincarnation are within the range of traditional Jewish belief
• Temporary (but not eternal) punishment after death is within traditional belief
No references. Without scholarly references your assertions are dismissed. Jewish immortality did not mean what it does today. The notion of "immortal" is more akin to "Babe Ruth is an immortal baseball player", (as DR. Bernard Brandon Scott of the Tulsa Seminary wrote in his book on the subject. It developed slowly, during the apocalyptic period, (Hanah and her 7 son's speeches show a change). Perhaps some day you will actually take a class on the origins of your cult.
Calm down. I might be wrong about what I've been taught, but that doesn't mean you need to insist your way is the only way and make snarky comments about taking a class. I'll ask some of my Jewish friends about it.
http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Resurrection.htm
Tell them top take your special class.
I'll tell "top" take it, then.
"to"
Thanks for posting a piece that PRECISELY agrees with what I said.
"By the first century B.C.E. the belief in postmortem resurrection was an important part of Rabbinic Judaism."
So you are saying the idea that God will raise the dead to life at the end of time is central to both Jewish and Christian traditions? Oh, I agree.
Nope. The Babble as written LONG before the time line in YOUR posted reference. You can't really be THAT dumb. Personal immortality and resurrection were absolutely NOT central to Judaism. Christianity eventually cooked up what came to mean personal immortality AFTER Judaism came in contact with Greek ideas. It certainly did not come from the Babble, obviously.
Some people who have done more than just take a comparative religion course disagree with you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/15beliefs.html?_r=0
Yet another article that totally agrees with what I said, Do keep it up.
BTW, nice try at the lying attempt to discredit what I said by some one who never even took one class on the subject.
The idea that God will raise the dead to life at the end of time is central to both Jewish and Christian traditions is the premise of the article I posted.
Which is basically what my religion teaches. We don't teach what you claim is cooked up personal immortality.
Those are the 2 points I'm trying to make.
The beliefs of the people changed over time as God revealed more of His plan to us. I think the Bible makes that pretty clear.
I'm not lying. Like I said I might be wrong. There is no need to be arrogant about this. I'm just sharing what I believe.
Nope. It changed over time as the underlying culture changed, and HUMANS cooked it up. You have provided not a shred of evidence for your claim AND we know the historical events in Hebrew culture, (well some do, who have actually bothered to study it instead of just memorizing made-up drivel). All you have to do is read the proceedings of the councils and WATCH as old men cooked up Christianity. Scholars of the OT know when and why the culture changed which produced the CHANGED concepts of immortality.
I'm a Christian. I have also taken many classes. I know some Christians believe what you state about personal immortality.
But the problem is that my church doesn't teach personal immortality. You are off base with your assumptions and hasty judgements.
Bucky,
I'm curious, did your course delve into the old and new covenant? The old being promises of natural physical blessing and consequences. Under the old the people were blessed here and now with peace from potential enemys, great crops, large herds, many children and etc. The consequences for breaking the covenant were the loss of all the above and ultimately the grave, or Sheol. The new is spiritual and eternal. Spiritual and at times physical blessings here and now with the bonus of eternal blessings. The consequences are both the grave and eternal hell.
My "course" ? Hahaha.
Look dude, I'm a grad student in the field. I've taken many courses form the top scholars in the field.
What you think (or was) taught to you was the "old covenant" and the "new covenant" bears almost no relationship to actual historical reality. You tell me what you think was the "old covenant", and we'll go from there. Then show me where a "new covenant" was an essential central part of the preaching of the wandering apocalyptic, Yeshua ben Josef.
real,
My church teaches the actual historical reality.
Robert,
There's a new one.
You just made that up, didn't you. You are hilarious.
'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. (Hebrews 11:13-16) Saul of Tarsus, the apostle Paul was a Pharisaic Jew from the tribe of Benjamin and had this to say about the Hebrews who held faith in a resurrection. It would appear that the belief in a resurrection was also shared by OT patriarchs. This faith was however not shared by the Sadducees sect.
My church has leaders that have the same, if not higher, level of education that realbuckyball has. They've probably taken very similar comparative religion courses I have. There are a lot of denominations that do not teach personal immortality like realbuckyball insists they do. I'm not sure why he doesn't know that.
With 42,000 to choose from, i'm sure there is a Christian flavor for everbody. What bucky is saying is that ice cream is sweet and you are pointing out that there are a couple savory type ice creams as well like bacon ice cream. You are not refuting his point, you are simply saying there are exceptions. But then again, everyone thinks their faith, their religion, their beliefs are the exception.
No. We actually agree.
He is trying to say Christianity cooked up beliefs about personal immortality based on Greek beliefs. Which is partially right. But not all Christians teach personal immortality based on Greek beliefs. My church teaches that the personal immortality that some churches teach based on Greek beliefs is not Biblically based.
Nice try!
There are more than 42,000 different theories as to why I believe in God to choose from, too. And each anti-theist with his/her beliefs thinks theirs is the right one.
"There are more than 42,000 different theories as to why I believe in God to choose from, too. And each anti-theist with his/her beliefs thinks theirs is the right one."
I made no such assumption as to why you choose to believe, i just stated that you believe you chose the right or true belief out of the 42,000 choices, correct?
Nope. There are actually more choices available. I do what works best for me. I can't make that decision for other people. But I think my choice benefits other people. At least that is what the evidence suggests.
Dalahäst
You're right. Every single believer probably comes up with their own reasons to believe in God. You might even be able to say that they custom-make precisely what they need to believe. That would explain how "Seek out God and he will find you" would still actually work if no God actually exists. The more someone wants to find God the more likely they would delude themselves into thinking that they actually did.
1 God. Billions and billions and billions of creatures.
No, the many, varied gods of man are entirely man-made, and they are not consistent with each other in regard to the characteristics and actions of the supposed gods. What evidence can you present that shows your particular god story to be real and true, and why has your god been silent in modern times, as far as anyone can show?
Dalahäst
If you compare the beliefs about God you'll find billions of them. Maybe one of you is more correct than the others, but you could all be wrong too.
Right. And you offer just another opinion. Which differs from what other atheists, agnostics, Secular Humanists, Buddhists, nones and others that profess to me when expressing why they don't believe in God and why they imagine I do. I try to compare the beliefs that you and people like you offer and none of them are the same. So some could be more correct. All could be dead wrong.
– What evidence can you present that shows your particular god story to be real and true, and why has your god been silent in modern times, as far as anyone can show?
Life is my evidence of God. God has not been silent in modern times. If fact we have greater access to God then the ancients had.
Dalahäst
Yup, every human who has ever lived could be wrong about all gods, and some alien in a galaxy 10,000,000 light years from here could be the closest to knowing the truth.
That wouldn't bother me in the least, but I think you'd be a tad more disappointed.
I'm searching for the truth. So I wouldn't be disappointed. That is why I strive to stay open-minded.
I have hope you can be like most of the reasonable atheists out there. Keep coming back.
Dalahäst
I'm searching for the truth too. I'm open-minded enough to know that you're God may throw me into hell just for not being convinced that he's real, which would be a real disappointment. So would being judged by any of the other gods of the underworld, or being reincarnated unfavourably. It would disappoint me greatly if I come back as one of Tom Cruise's grandkids. Oy!
It would even disappoint me if I ended up in heaven and had to witness anyone being in hell. I wouldn't want to watch even the worse murderers of history be tortured, unlike some people of your faith. To hear some of them, this is one of the greatest "pleasures" to look forward to. Anything that God commands has to be a good thing, they say, but for me to enjoy something like that I would have to lose all my compassion, which would mean that I wasn't the same person anyway. So, why would I even want to go to such a place anyway if it isn't really "me" who would end up there?
I don't believe my God will throw you in hell. Hell is the consequence from your choices. We reap what we sow.
I believe scripture describes hell as the place where God destroys evil. So there is no eternal torment. No torture from God. I guess if one is so consumed by evil, they will be destroyed with that evil in that "fire".
God loves you. And desires that NOBODY will perish with evil. Part of Jesus as savior paints a picture where hell is empty, because Jesus saves them. Even after death. Jesus conquered death.
Now, God lets us choose our own path. If he forced us to follow His way we would be acting out of fear or obedience. Not love.
Dalahäst
All in all, none of what you just said actually makes any sense.
In the comics, Superman would save even the people who placed themselves in dangerous situations. I guess that makes him more of a saviour than God.
What exactly would I have "sown" in order to end up in hell? As far as I can tell, it isn't my fault that God hasn't demonstrated that he's real to me.
My being "evil" notwithstanding, if God just "destroys" my soul, and I just wink out of existence when I die, that's pretty much all I'm expecting anyway. So, where does "hell" come into play? To me, hell would be having to worship some being for eternity. I get bored mid-way through even the best football game.
I don't know about you, but I simply can't "choose" to believe something that I'm not convinced of.
Sorry, but your whole argument here just fails.
Kudlak...,one of the more stupid things that most Christians say to me is "all those that truly seek god will find him". What makes that remark so insane is that in order to find god, you must already believe he exists. Anybody with any semblance of intelligence will be unable to meet the first criteria of that request, as there is no proof of any god in existence today.
I never said you are going to hell. I don't know what happens after we die.
Most of what I share and learn about is about life today. The focus is on now. I can experience both heaven and hell on earth. So, I reap what I sow in this life. Access to God, that being that knows all and loves us, is available in this world. This world, for some reason, is very dangerous and uncertain. So having access to such a resource is helpful.
I can't “choose” to believe something that I’m not convinced of either.
"I can't “choose” to believe something that I’m not convinced of either"
You choose to convince yourself to believe in something of which there is no evidence.
No, I haven't. There is evidence of God. And there is overwhelming evidence that as a human being, an imperfect and vulnerable creature that is irrational and unreasonable at times, access to a being that defines what is rational and reasonable is beneficial. This being that authored the mathematics and science that our most brilliant minds marvel at is the source of the truth and meaning of our lives.
Dala....No....it is the source of truth and meaning in your life. My life requires no such being in order to maintain my existence.
There appears to be more to life than just maintaining existence.
Dala....maybe there is more meaning, but again, with no proof, I'm going to go with random existence.
With proof I go with God. And He has a plan.
is that the plan where he kills thousands of children every day in fear and agony from starvation and abuse and disease?
Sounds like a lousy plan to me!
No. His plan involves restoring His creation from those things. There are steps you can take today to help those suffering from those things.
Dalahäst
You're the one who said that "Hell is the consequence from your choices. We reap what we sow." Sure sounds like you think somebody ought to be going there, and I'm assuming that you believe yourself "saved" from all that, so who else should I have assumed you meant?
And now you speak as though there is no actual heaven and hell, as we commonly understand them as supernatural realms. That all we experience happens here on earth, in this lifetime. Agreed, as far as I know too. Usually, we atheists get criticized for concentrating on this one life. Mostly, people call us nihilistic, but I'm glad that you seem to disagree, and that this one life is all that counts. Best to live that way, and be pleasantly surprised with a possible afterlife, than waste the one life you know that you do have, eh?
Yeah, that's why I really don't have any patience for people who repeatedly use Pascal's Wager, like a few possible trolls here. They've been shown how this is a truly stupid argument, but they persist anyway, only to upset people with the veiled threat that it poses, I suppose. I can't say that I have much respect for their ideas.
You're convinced that God is real and I'm not. Fair enough, but you still seem to be talking as though there is evidence that everyone should be aware of. All that we know about God was handed down to us by other " imperfect and vulnerable creature that (are) irrational and unreasonable at times". The Bible was written by humans, and the balance of wealth of knowledge about God also comes from humans, and our perceptions. How you can have faith that all of this is somehow shielded from human faulty thinking is really beyond me.
Humans author mathematics and science. What we study is nature and it's qualities. As far as we have discovered, there is no reason to believe that anything was ever created supernaturally, or that any supernatural forces were ever at work. What evidence do you have to prove otherwise?
If God allows us to follow our own path, he would not levy any consequence against any action we take that displeases us. A farmer who posts "No Trespassing" signs isn't allowing people to follow their own path, and a God who sets rules and consequences for breaking those rules isn't either.
I rarely talk about heaven, hell and the afterlife. I don't know much about it. I haven't been taught much. And I rarely talk about it.
You asked me about it. And when I mention 'we reap what we sow' it refers to consequences that effect us in this life. I speculate such principles will follow us after death. I don't criticize atheists for focusing on this world. I do.
Devin
Thank you for your wonderful testimony of a life lived in Christ.
If only you could understand that a life lived by any other religion's principles would produce the same things ....
This article is right up the alley of Human Psychology. Although it is an adjunct rail, I always wondered how Naturalists explain Psychology, since it is Metaphysical.
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/10/meet-an-atheist-who-believes-in-god/comment-page-6/#comment-3026554
Al Gore: I am here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. I'm talking, of course, about Manbearpig. It is a creature which roams the Earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well , I'm here to tell you now, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists—I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you. I'm super serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you. And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say, "Thank you Al Gore—you're super awesome!" The end.
Al Gore: I'm super serial.
Al Gore: Why does nobody believe that I'm serial?
Vic,
It almost sounded like you asserted that psychology is metaphysical as a fact, did you mean that?
vic
Psychology is quite real. Metaphysical is things that are THOUGHT to exist, but is only philisophic.
The only time I have seen the two terms combined was from believers, who think that metaphysical means something it does not.
Why do you think the study of the human mind and psyche isn't real?
Vic
If psychology were metaphysical then why would physical, psychoactive drugs work? Why do any drugs addle the mind if we have souls that aren't tied to our bodies, for that matter. If you get high Vic does your soul get high to?
Name ONE per reviewed article in a Psychology journal that agrees with that mumbo-jumbo.
Take your time, Tricky Vic.
per = peer
Quran says (Islamic Scripture)
“Does the human being not see that we created him from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent enemy?” [36:77]
“He raises a question to us – while forgetting his initial creation – "Who can resurrect the bones after they had rotted?" [36:78]
“Say, "The One who initiated them in the first place will resurrect them. He is fully aware of every creation." [36:79]
“Is not the One who created the heavens and the earth able to recreate the same? Yes indeed; He is the Creator, the Omniscient.” [36:81]
“All He needs to do to carry out any command is to say to it, "Be," and it is.” [36:82]
“O people, here is a parable that you must ponder carefully: the idols you set up beside God can never create a fly, even if they banded together to do so. Furthermore, if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it; weak is the pursuer and the pursued.” [22:73]
“They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.”[22:74]
“If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.” [Quran 6:116]
“The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]
“It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” [19:35]
Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.
I'm Mr. Meseeks. Look at me!
“Watch out he's winding the watch of his wit, by and by it will strike.”
Interesting how the press still views atheists. My girlfriend and I had about $30,000 worth of jewelry returned to us recently by a waitress at a Raleigh restaurant. To kind of reward her, we told the paper, who ran the story. They couldn't help but point out that we were both atheists (as was the waitress who returned the lost jewelry). The idea being "can you imagine a godless atheist doing THAT." lol
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/08/3920829/saunders-a-conscientious-server.html?sp=/99/102/110/
The article states you have a bumper sticker that says "PROUD ATHEIST". Was that necessary for them to write about?
The reporter pounce on that when we told him. I actually thought he had decided to drop the story once we told him. He hung up almost immediately thereafter.
North Carolina....buckle of the Bible Belt.
The bumper sticker was how she knew the jewelry might be ours. She complimented me on it and told me how her boyfriend's family disowned him and made him pay for his own college because he is learning about evolution. The bag was found next to where we were parked so she honed in on us.
That's so sad about the boyfriend. How can religion be more important than your own family?
Tallulah....it can't be more important. Those people are nuts.
Wow! You are lucky to get that back. Keep an eye on your valuables for now on!
tallulah131
The first thing many of them are taught is to love Jesus more than anyone else, even their family. Even their own children.
Once you love something that much, is it any wonder that you refuse to even hear of it's faults?
Barry writes like a douchebag... "Are you still a proud atheist?" Why? Because he attributes kindness and integrity only to christians... and us evil heathen atheists aren't capable of either? Like I said... what a douche.
I think it's okay contextually. Because it allows Colin to explain without being overtly preachy.
I thought he asked that because of the "PROUD ATHEIST" bumper sticker.
Great story.
Yeah, she was great. When we back in Raleigh (currently in Monterey, Cal for my birthday) we will buy her something.
Sounds like you not only got the jewelry back, but made a friend.
Cool story. Glad it worked out, and that your server was such a good sleuth.
My sister accidentally left an envelope of photos at a hotel. She got them back because one of the pictures was of her cat, an her phone number was on the tag on his collar. Not as dramatic, but good sleuthing again.
How cool is that? Very cool.
I like stories like this. I think most people are inherently honest.
I don't know if it is an urban (or, perhaps, rural) myth but there was a story in Australia when I grew up about a woman in the nearby farming town of Gatton. Her husband and her were potato farmers and one day she lost her wedding ring in a field. About 25 years later, she was eating dinner and cut into a potato, only to find that the tuber had grown around , and now contained, the missing ring.
I like a good urban myth as well.
Strange things happen in our world...my father lost his wedding ring tilling the garden at our first house; the current owners found it and researched the ownership of the house, found my mother, and returned it to her. My father died in 1992.
My parents built that house and lived in it less than 10 years.
Sleuths rock!
That's really cool! Human curiosity is a wonderful thing.
Dalahäst
You keep saying, however, how your faith has improved your life. So, it only seemed logical that this was somehow tied to all that personal "experience" you cite as proof to you that God exists. If not, then what kind of different experience are you talking about?
Oops, wrong spot for that post.
Good gravy, that man writes poorly. But glad you got your belongings back.
I had to read it 3 times, plus have one of the subjects in the article explain it to me. And I'm still not sure what the point was.
It's almost as if he expected them all to magically become god believers because the waitress acted in an ethical manner.
He obviously operates under the notion that all of his readers are god believers. "You see. That’s why you could say, but they won’t, that the couple was touched by an angel to have so much valuable jewelry returned." He actually writes that drivel twice.
I just don't understand people like that. For every person that was 'touched by an angel' there are thousands more that were not. Why so selective?
People want to feel special. They'll grasp at anything.
Actually, I just think those type of people are ignorant and prefer it that way.
It's certainly an easier path.
"He obviously operates under the notion that all of his readers are god believers."
---------------------
Most of them certainly are.
The whole 'touched by an angel' / 'aka miracle' thing is probably his 'go to' for 'good news' stories.
I guess he pulled the "let's do a cute human interest story" short straw that day.
Dalahäst
If you keep placing more and more faith, trust and confidence in God how is it possible to remain open-minded to the possibility that he may not be real? It could be that you're just losing whatever skepticism you may have had.
"The money exchangers were dishonest. Jesus stated poor widows were being taken advantage of"
That's one interpretation – but the Jews certainly couldn't use money in the temple that had the image of a man claiming to be a god, and they certainly couldn't bring their own animals from wherever in the world they were coming from to worship at the temple. Jesus was certainly upset, but neglected to provide an alternative (other than an "embargo" of sorts, which would never have worked).
Another interesting thing about this incident – When did it happen? At the beginning of his ministry or at the end? Did he do it once or x2? The gospels don't appear to agree...
Dalahäst
If it's faithful to the original, they're keeping the science current and correct.
Creationist shows are only worth their comedic value, as far as I can tell.
I'm glad you got your stuff back Colin. The bias in the story was amusing.
What I find incredibly interesting is Colin's writings are incredibly biased, too. Is that a double standard or just plain old human hypocrisy in action? It looks like he doesn't like it when others do it to him, perhaps this is an opportunity for him to learn to not do that to other people.
Dala....facts are impossible to be biased. All he did was cite factual information. Where is the bias in that?
He gets facts about me wrong. I call those opinions, though. And he is enti.tled to them.
Dala....opinions are invariably biased, but I don't ever see Colin taking a persons opinion to task. I think what bothers him is the same thing that bothers me. When religious observers state their opinion as fact.
What specific opinion did this author of the article state as a fact that bothers you?
Colin does take personal opinions to task – like when he declares I believe in a 'sky fairy'. It is not what I believe in, but he will insist it is. It sounds like hypocrisy to ignore that, but only take 'religious observers' to task. And Humanism is a type of religion, so..... there is also that.
Dala....you're being too defensive. Sky fairy is just a derogatory name for the god of the bible, which I have seen you admit to believing in. I like sky wizard myself, but the meaning is the same.
I don't believe in the Sky fairy you talk about, though. Sorry.
Dala....my apologies. I thought you had posted before that you know that the god of the bible is real. You must have been talking about some other god.
God is real.
The Sky fairy you describe is not my god.
What specific opinion did this author of the article state as a fact that bothers you?
Dalahast,
All humans are biased. It's not even a bad thing most of the time. Some people are more biased than others, some to the point that it does harm too often. The articles bias does no harm, it merely panders to the readership.
Yep. We all have biases.
Dalahäst
Are you stating that God is real as though it's an irrefutable fact, or are you just expressing your opinion?
I know God is real. I live my life in response to that.
I also know that viewpoint isn't very popular with anti-theists on religion blogs. Oh well. I do what works for me, and will support you on doing what works for you. Live and let live!
Dalahäst
No chance that you could be mistaken then? Tell me, how did you ever eliminate that possibility from your mind?
No. I can be mistaken. It seems unlikely though due to the evidence in my life. And I test it out everyday. I'm very skeptical by nature so I haven't accepted anything on blind faith. That is not my nature.
Dalahäst
You mean, it seems unlikely (that you are mistaken) due to your perception, or interpretation of evidence in your life, correct?
I think that the consensus counter-argument here would be that religions typically train their adherents how to perceive and interpret their lives so that they view things as evidence for their beliefs. For example, the people who believe in reincarnation are often told that the sensation of deja vu is evidence of past lives resurfacing, but for you and I deja vu doesn't mean that at all, right?
Is it possible then that you were similarly taught to interpret the events in your life as evidence for God?
No. I wasn't trained by a religion to be an adherent like you describe.
I'm just saying it is possible that everything I know is wrong. That is why I remain skeptical and don't simply interpret the events in my life as evidence for God.
Great guesses on your part! But, no, you are misunderstanding.
Dalahäst
I was once convinced that God was real too. So I'm curious what does it for you..
I didn't believe in God for a long time. My quest to find deeper meaning and purpose in life has led me to God. A lot of what the Bible speaks to about God's love for us and his desire for us to change our hearts I have experienced as true in my life. Jesus' teachings have grabbed my attention. I'm attempting to follow Him. Even though it is very challenging and not easy, I am learning more about God's will for me. It opens my mind and forces me to be completely honest with myself. It is a better world-view for me than what I had before. I'm glad the naturalism/scientism/atheism or whatever you are preaching outlook works for you. It doesn't for me.
It is encouraging to watch the Christian god get smaller and smaller, as we learn more through science.
He actually is growing larger and larger in my community, which embraces and supports science. We don't have a God of the gaps, though.
Thus far, while the size trend of your god may be debatable, it appears that your particular version of god is precisely a god of the gaps – a substi-tute for understanding where you so far do not have understanding. And again, I think that your claimed support for science is incomplete, and thus tainted, at best.
No, I don't have a God of the gaps. He is not simply a substi-tute for understanding where I so far do not have understanding.
I'm not going to get compet.itive with you over who "supports science" more between the two of us. I promise you I fully embrace science. And I belong to a religious community that does so, too.
Most scientists don't have a problem with us. It seems to be anti-theist non-scientists with the issues. And all they do is offer opinions.
Your statements indeed present your deity as being precisely a god of the gaps. This is so, more so actually, as you yourself go on to elaborate what those gaps are.
Oh no. That is not my God, but you are free to insist it is.
I've responded above re the problems with your religion in regard to your claimed support for science. My points there stand, and I will note again here the systematic, and often bullying, opposition to disliked science that the Christian religion has maintained.
Some Christians are guilty of such things. But not all. And there has never been a point when all Christians were anti-science.
And there are examples of atheists, non-religious, agnostics and other groups being hostile to science.
There are too many examples of members from the Christian religion and other religions contributing to and supporting science to take your broad and biased opinion seriously. There are some Christians that have done more than you probably have. Even today. Right now.
While you are philosophizing and not doing science: some Christian is probably working with an atheist on a new scientific discovery.
You in turn are free to make whatever denials you wish. Your god that you present is very plainly a god of the gaps, and I have already explained that case.
And I've explained my case. I don't have a God of the gaps. Your case pretty much is just backed by your opinion. You really haven't explained much at all. Just that is what you believe.
It is the Christian leadership and establishment, not some small, unrepresentative splinter group, that has led the (often violent) opposition to science, and has done so in a coordinated and systematic way, albeit often with support from the broad membership. Interesting picture that you try to paint, regarding your religion and science, but not an accurate one.
I'm not a member of a small, unrepresentative splinter group. Scientists have no problem with my group, we support science.
We oppose the Christians and other groups that lead opposition to science. Especially if it involves violence.
There is nothing in our religion that asks us to oppose science or to support those, even Christians, who oppose science.
You have precisely a god of the gaps. Thank you for acknowledging what some of the gaps are.
Most of my understanding of God is based on what I do know about God. Not what I don't.
What I don't know about God, I'm agnostic about. The mysteries in our physical world that we don't know the answer to- I certainly don't attribute to God and think that answers the question.
That is why I don't have a God of the gaps.
In general Christianity has been a great patron of the sciences, and many if not most leading scientists (particularly of course in the west) were Christian.
Fundamentalism is the problem. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's presentation on the decline of Islamic science that correlates with the rise in fundamentalism is a great illustration of this.
It is only fundamentalist Christians that oppose science. We see this today in the behavior of many American Evangelical Protestants.
GOP
And as you know, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. And as you can probably imagine, that fundamentalist group doesn't like my group very much because we do support science and fight for equal rights for everyone, regardless of se.xual orientation or ident.ity.
"I'm not a member of a small, unrepresentative splinter group" -exactly. The leadership of that group has quite a sorry history, as does the membership at large, in regard to the subject at hand.
I don't belong to such a group.
"And as you know, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian"
-------------------
Yes, I do know.
It is simply wrong to conflate "all" people of faith as enemies of science.
There is a noisy minority of very influential fundamentalist religious adherents that certainly are opposed to science. The flames of the culture war they fan engenders this very tribal 'us versus them' behavior that I see here on this forum by several people self-identifying as atheists.
Anyone who self identifies as atheist and claims that their opinions are observable fact/reality based, simply cannot maintain the generalized argument that all religious adherents or even Christianity in general is opposed to science. There are examples of this happening of course, but it cannot be extrapolated to a broad generality.
Yes, nicely put.
As a Christian, you belong to exactly that group. Your half-pregnant support for science and the scientific method is entertaining, while badly flawed.
I do have people in my group I belong to that do that. Yes. But that doesn't mean all approve of that. Or that all actually do that themselves.
As a Christian I also belong to a group that is committed to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, visiting the imprisoned, providing a voice to the voiceless and caring for the widowed & orphaned.
What group do you belong to that appreciates science more than me? You can't say atheist (some atheists don't care about science). You can't say scientists (some scientists are Christians).
I belong to a group that declares science and technology should be used only as a means to respect and promote communities, life and human dignity. Because science and technology can be used to torture, murder and destroy people. And we want to use science and technology to help, empower and bring good to people.
You are a claimed Christian, despite your frequent hedging and no matter the protestations re your particular sub-group. Within your god of the gaps approach in that religion, you must support the bible content and its perverse and repeatedly wrong, and oft self-inconsistent, views of key points in science. You also have missed out on several of the beneficial reasons for pursuing science, with your tainted and limited approach to it.
Calm down. I follow Jesus Christ. Not you. Not the God of the gaps.
Science is a great tool. But it isn't the only tool available.
You said science is neutral. It is. But good and evil exist. They are not neutral. Human beings are not neutral.
Science doesn't answer the question of why good and evil exist. It also doesn't address my personal struggles with them.
A more accurate statement is that "science doesn't yet answer" that question, although it now has some pretty good postulates in that regard, from neuroethics and other fields. Given that your religion has failed to answer so many other questions, I do not think that there is reason to hope that its answer is the correct one here, especially when its dogma as presented by so many of its prelate,s as well as in its primary text, gets so much else wrong.
Oh, you have a god of the gaps. You Assume science will fill all those gaps of knowledge. Where as I say I don't know and remain open minded.
I don't follow dogmas. Sorry. Not all religions embrace those. Quit stereotyping me. It is lazy thinking.
Calm down. I am not stereotyping you. I am actually putting a mirror in front of you, and carefully considering the beliefs that you have said that you subscribe to, as well as their consequences. It seems that you have a lot of trouble dealing with that.
You are free to close your eyes to this mirror, but it is a rather patient reflector.
I'm putting a mirror to your face.
You appear to have double-standards and a closed minded att.itude to beliefs that differ from your own personal philosophies that only work for you.
It seems like you have a lot of trouble dealing with that, too. Do you like being talked to that way? I'm just following your lead. It is so easy to do what you do. Any one can do this. It is not rocket science.
Nowhere have I said that science will provide all the answers. And you have said that you do subscribe to a dogma, that being the Christian one – or perhaps you have silently retracted that too.
Ok, what specific dogma do you imagine I subscribe to? You are preaching a scientism dogma to me, so don't be so hypocritical.
I follow Jesus Christ. Not dogma.
Indeed, you follow the dogma known as Christianity. Thank you for acknowledging that.
Oh, the dogma that we are all created equal and everyone deserves equal amounts of respect? Yes, I do follow that dogma.
Your Christian dogma is certainly not one of equality; it is the polar opposite of that, what with its chosen tribe, and the Christian history of suppressing science and torturing scientists, just to touch on a couple of the many trouble spots in Christianity. It is specious to claim respect and equality in that. As for respect, your shouting at me hardly exemplifies that.
Sorry. You can preach about your personal philosophy. But if you are not preaching love, that is not my dogma. Some people do preach hate. Not me. I reject that dogma.
Not all Christians are guilty of suppressing science or torturing scientists. Some have risked their lives for their love of science. You are talking about a Christian theocracy that perverted science and religion – my family moved to the US to escape that theocracy to practice their peaceful religion in the US.
The Const.itution grants me that right.
Dalahäst
If I'm preaching then so are you. I thought we were just having a discussion.
I have more meaning and purpose in my life now than when I was a believer, but that could just be because I fell in love, married, had my kid, and got fulfillment through my career since I realized that God most likely wasn't real. Those things may have all happened anyway, but I doubt that I would have got together with my wife if I hadn't lost my faith beforehand. She wouldn't have put up with me the way I was before.
You are very preachy some times.
EdSed
There really are numerous Christian theologies. Dalahäst may very well be a member of a church that does all he says. There are so many different denominations and sects out there that this really isn't something to argue. There are Christians who believe in UFO Jesus, others who believe they're immune to snakebite, some who actually crucify themselves just like Jesus... It's pretty much the biggest tent of belonging out there. Save your rap for the actual declared fundamentalists on this board. There are PLENTY!!!
There are just as many different types of atheists, too. Some atheists belong to religions. Some atheists hate religion. Some atheists appreciate science. Some atheists don't care for science. Some atheists are open minded. Some atheists are closed minded.
Dalahäst
Like I said: If I'm preachy, so are you. I thought we were just discussing stuff!?!
Yup, we atheists are a pretty big tent too. Difference is, you'd expect something that came from the teaching of a single man, like Christianity, to have a whole lot more unity, even in the basic tenants. I know that a lot of that comes from a Bible that is chalk-full of contradictions, but it's almost to the point now that all any group has to do is mention Jesus in some way to call itself Christian. This pretty much makes the name utterly useless, where the only thing one is supposed to expect from atheists is a disbelief in god(s), contrary to the insistence of the ridiculous author of this article.
I feel like you compare the worst of Christianity to the best of your atheism or naturalism philosophy you are preaching from. You are just as capable and vulnerable to the same flaws you point out. I'm also just as capable of not making the same mistakes that some others have made.
Dalahäst
Everyone does deserve equal amounts of respect, but not their opinions, or beliefs.
Sure. I sometimes see some people disrespect me due to their bigotry against people who believe in God. They try to teach others that I'm delusional and mentally retarded. I can respect them as people, but I can't respect their opinions and beliefs that are based in ignorance and hate.
Dalahäst
And I feel like you're unwilling to acknowledge that your religion even has a dark side at times. If you're one of the "good" Christians out there, I couldn't be happier for you, but I still disagree with your beliefs about the supernatural actually being real. All the great things that your church does based on those beliefs don't really matter in this discussion any more than all the horrible things that other Christians do in the name of their faith. What Christians do because of their belief works just as well if God's actually real or not. It's just belief, after all. Lots of Scientologists are doing great things, lots of Taoists, Wiccans, Jains, and Muslims are doing great things too. Good people tend to do good things. That doesn't prove a thing about their supernatural beliefs being true, or not, right?
Also, is it really "hate" just to disagree with your beliefs?
Oh, I know there is a dark side to everything. Even to myself.
I'm not always a good person. I don't want to just be a good person that tends to do good things. I'm trying to be intentional in my love – and I think Jesus Christ provides the model for I to do that.
I'm not saying my good works or my church's good works simply prove supernatural beliefs.
Dalahäst
You keep saying, however, how your faith has improved your life. So, it only seemed logical that this was somehow tied to all that personal "experience" you cite as proof to you that God exists.. If not, then what kind of different experience are you talking about?
The more I place my faith, or my trust and confidence, in God the better I believe my life is. I believe God was always with me, even at my worst times. He knows and loves me. He is a loving God. He is rich in mercy and forgiveness. And I live in response to that love, mercy and forgiveness. I fail often to carry out to others what God has done for me. But it is my ideal.
kudlak
Dalahäst
If you keep placing more and more faith, trust and confidence in God how is it possible to remain open-minded to the possibility that he may not be real? It could be that you're just losing whatever skepticism you may have had..
It is difficult for me to deny that God exists, true. I try to and it doesn't seem logical or reasonable that He doesn't.
Dalahäst
Still, remember what Neil deGrasse Tyson said in that last episode of Cosmos: "Believing in something doesn't make it so."
Also, does the reason and logic you credit your belief stand up outside of your mind, or does it just satisfy you alone?
Right. It doesn't make it so.
God does exist outside my mind.
Dala....you purposely did not answer kudlaks question. He asked "does the logic and reason you credit your belief stand up outside of your mind or does it satisfy you alone". That is a great question, and you completely blew it off with a BS statement.
The logic and reason for God's existence stands up outside my mind. It doesn't just satisfy me alone. Just because Kudlak doesn't accept or believe the evidence for God, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just means in Kudlak's mind God doesn't exist. But we don't live in Kudlak's mind.
Dala...we don't live in your mind either. Or the minds of any other delusional individual that explains proof coming from personal experience. If there was verifiable proof, we would all believe. There is none.
It sounds like you want an idol, not God.
Dala....nope, I do not want either. I just want people to stop claiming there is a god as a fact when there is no proof. Simple.
There is a God. And proof of God exists.
People are not going to stop admitting that God is real just so they don't upset sensitive anti-theists who spend all day on religion blogs whining about God.
Dala..,,whining? Really? That's the best you got because you are upset that there is no proof at all that your god exists? Typical.
You just believe I have no proof of God.
Dala....actually, I know you have no proof if god. You may have some evidence there might be a higher power at work that is yet undefined. But I know for a fact that you do not have proof (by definition of the word), that your particular god exists.
Dalahäst
So you just believe ... unless you happen to have any proof ... outside your mind ... ?
No. God exists outside my mind.
Dala....leprechauns exist outside my mind. See...anybody can make a statement.
You don't really believe in leprechauns. You just think it proves a point.
Dala....no, I know it proves a point. I can't prove the existence of leprechauns outside my imagination any more than you can prove your particular god exists outside of yours.
I'm glad you know that.
I think if you were honest, you would admit you don't believe in leprechauns. Nor do you know they exist.
You are basically lying about leprechauns. It is a common argument technique. And it is a logical fallacy.
I'm not lying. God exists.
I don't believe in leprechauns and I can't prove they exist either. And you only believe god exists outside your mind. You do not know it and you can not prove it.
I honestly believe in God. And I can verify his existence with proof that exists outside my mind.
Dala....I know you believe in god. I have no problem with that. You absolutely, in no way, shape, or form, by definition of the word 'prove' can prove without a shadow of a doubt, that not only a god exists, but your particular god exists. You are lying.
God can prove to you He exists. I'm just living in response to that proof. I know you don't believe me. I have no problem with that. You are seeking God, hence the interest in religion, but just are looking the wrong way.
Dala....I'm not seeking god at all. Stupidity and illogical att-itudes do make me crazy. And people that deal with absolutes either way (I know there is a god or I know there is not a god) border on the insane, as there is no proof either way. Of course, you know that, but to admit it would be a breach of your faith.
No, there are no breaches to my faith.
Dala.....I didn't ask that.
You implied it.
Dala.....no, I did not. You created the inference on your own
You made a statement that I *know* what *you* believe, but to admit it would be a breach of my faith. No, that wouldn't breach my faith.
And that is a completely different answer than what you said before, even though I made a statement, not asked a question.
It was a false statement.
dala
You BELIEVE god exists outaside your head. To say it does, is dishonest.
God DOES exist outside my head. We don't operate by your standards and beliefs.
"Hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world."
-Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
You are either lying knowingly, or you are delusional. You do not know if there are any gods. You claim to have an open mind, your statements prove you have closed your mind completely. you cannot show any gods to exist, cannot know if what you think exists actually does,
So which is it, are you lying purposely or are you delusional...you have already proven it is one or the other.
No, I'm not lying. Nor am I delusional. I do know God exists. You have to have an open mind to know God.
There are other options available. Like you could be wrong. Or you could be delusional and are projecting your delusions on me. Perhaps you need to open your mind. The fact that most anti-theists all parrot the same theories from The God Delusion and zealous anti-theist websites is telling.
Dala....I freely admit that I could be wrong, as there is no proof either way of the existence of god. Only a completely arrogant azzhole would claim, either way, that god exists or does not exist.
You could be wrong about only a completely arrogant azzhole would claim, either way, that god exists or does not exist.
Dala....I'm not wrong about that and I have proof. You.
Dalahäst
I thought you said that you were "open-minded"? Well, apparently not.
You do realize that people have believed in leprechauns, and there are lots of people who still do believe in them. You seem perfectly willing to dismiss their belief on the exact same grounds that we dismiss your claim to know that God exists. You can't prove that leprechauns don't, or have never existed any more than we atheists can prove the same about God. Still, you may find it ridiculous to even be discussing it, which just puts you in our exact shoes as we try to discuss your beliefs with you, right?
Leprechaun believers also have evidence that they say the rest of the world is just unwilling to accept. Have you even bothered to review it before passing judgment?
I can names some credible people that believe in God. Like Martin Luther King, Jr.
Can you give me the name of a well-known and credible figure from history that believes in leprechauns?
Can you point me to sophisticated writings, essays, questions and discerning from believers in leprechauns?
Can you show me a website that proves leprechaun believers state they have evidence that the says the rest of the world is just unwilling to accept leprechauns? That kind of evidence will be helpful in proving your point.
I've got to stay open minded. I'm not going to just believe there are people who believe in leprechauns like you state just because you say so. I'm not delusional nor can I accept things without convincing evidence.
Thanks.
Dala....you are indeed delusional. Millions more believe that Muhammad is the true profit. Millions believe that Joseph Smith read golden tablets out of his hat. They all want to believe. That does not make it true.
It doesn't make it true. Just like what you believe is probably not true, either.
Dala....I'm not claiming anything that I believe is absolute if I can't prove it. That would be stupid of me. If I can't prove it, I can't claim it as true.
I don't believe in things without proof, either. It is not wise.
Dala....I think we are going in circles here and frankly, it's tiresome. You have no definitive proof. You have no evidential proof there is a god. Your saying so does not mean it is true. You only have proof that accommodates you, not definitive proof. This is a point you just can't argue, yet you continue to for some odd reason.
I have definitive proof that God exists.
You don't.
That's fine. Live and let live.
Dala.....this will be my last post to you ever. You have definitive proof to you only, not definitive proof as defined by the bounds of what is accepted as proof. Why you stubbornly refuse to admit that is beyond me, unless you are purposely trying to be a d-ick, which I highly suspect is the case.
God gives proof. It is better than gulliblenomore's proof. I'm confident in that. When you die, your proof dies with you.
But God is eternal. We are the proof that God exists.
Dalahäst
"And I can verify his existence with proof that exists outside my mind."
What's stopping you?
Go ahead, dazzle us.
Why are you seeking God?
Are you looking for something that will just make you feel logical and rational because you can use it to prove yourself superior to other people?
dala
you have reached a conclusion, so you have closed your mind. I have not reached any conclusion as there is insufficient information with which to make any conclusion. So, by all means, show how you reached your conclusion, and show how you excluded all other possibilities. I will show you where your error lies.
You have reached a conclusion that I have closed my mind, so you have in fact closed your own mind.
I'm not lying. Nor am I mentally ill. I love children. If you knew the work I do at the pediatric hospital in my city you would retract that last statement. Just because I can't prove God to you doesn't give you a license to say hate-filled comments. My belief in God does no harm to you. You are the one choosing to come to a religion blog. I'm not coming to you door.
Using normal logic, it is quite reasonable to expect to find people who believe in God and know He exists on a blog like this. Just because we can't prove it to you – a man who loves to call others mentally ill and infer they are child abusers – is no reason for you to fail to demonstrate ti us logic or reason.
MLK Jr has more published works on science than you do. Plus he is credited as being the leader of a peaceful revolution that freed Americans from they oppression of racists and bigots. What have you done?
Dalahäst
And Mahatma Gandhi believed in reincarnation, but what does that prove, right?
Apparently, a third of the people of Ireland believe leprechauns still exist, and over half believe that they at least once did. Are you saying that all Irish people are lying about this, or that there couldn't be any famous Irish people who believed in them?
No, I'm not saying that.
Can you give me some names of prominent leprechaun believers that have done something like:
Lead a nation?
Fly to the moon?
Pioneer a scientific discipline or win a Nobel Prize in a scientific field?
And can you refer me to their writings or speeches about their trust and confidence in leprechauns.
That would be a good way for you to prove you analogy has sufficient reason to trust it.
It is about you. And you have credibility issues, too. That is why you are not an authority on what is and isn't.
All men in my Holy Book of life were flawed. King David committed adultery. Moses murdered someone. All men are flawed. Not one is completely logical, reasonable or rational. All are imperfect. It doesn't mean they can't do good things.
I know MLK had flaws. I don't dispute that.
Dalahäst
There's every reason to think that many of the leaders of Ireland did believe in them, if so many of the common folk still do. Surely, the Irish people have made some contributions to civilization? Maybe they don't talk about it so publicly because they don't feel the constant need to reassure each other about the existence of leprechauns?
You might also want to do the math and try to estimate how many of those people also believe in God. Ireland is a pretty Christian nation, after all.
kudlak
Surely 1 note worthy person has written something I can read about leprechauns to see if the hypothesis that my belief in God is just like their belief?
Is there a systematic and rational study of concepts of leprechauns and of the nature of leprechaun truths?
And you can't give me 1 name of a Nobel Prize winning leprechaun believer?
Dala....why are you thinking that a Nobel prize winner carries any more weight in this issue than anybody else? The most brilliant inventor we've ever seen flunked out of high school. Belief in god is not a criteria for winning a Nobel prize.
I don't think what you preach carries any more weight on this issue than you imagine it does.
You have to be pretty intelligent to win a Nobel Prize in science. And know a lot about evidence.
I just want some examples of leprechaun believers who demonstrate these things. I'm just asking for a few examples that back up your leprechaun claim.
Dala....I have no leprechaun claim, just as I have no god claim. Neither can be proven. They are both beliefs. Pretty simple really. I have no idea why you struggle so much on this concept.
Oh, why did you say leprechauns exist outside your mind? You don't really believe that?
Dalahäst
"All men in my Holy Book of life were flawed."
I'm curious what flaws you're willing to admit Jesus had.
Not self-delusion, I'm willing to bet.
I'm not sure what Jesus' flaw was. I'm sure he made mistakes and learned from them like all humans do.
dala, And none of that is evidence of a god. You always say you know but can never provide objective evidence.
Life is proof of God. It is His creation. Not the creation of grumpy anti-theists who surf religious blogs all day looking for theists to challenge.
I see no objective evidence that you are capable of determining what is and isn't evidence for everyone else. You can do that for yourself. But not for me and others.
Dalahäst
Off the top of my head, going into Jerusalem at the head of a procession, during Passover, and causing a disturbance in the Temple appears to demonstrate really poor judgment. Losing his cool in the Temple also seems to be a character flaw, but like you said, he was a man, and we all do dumb things. More often than not, according to my wife. (smily)
He didn't loose his cool. He was appalled by what he saw and fiercely demonstrated that. He took the time to create a whip and calculated his execution. What the money exchangers were doing in the Temple was wrong. And he let them know that.
"What the money exchangers were doing in the Temple was wrong."
And what were they doing that was wrong? In my understanding of Judaism at that time, the money changers were not only appropriate, they were necessary.
The money exchangers were dishonest. Jesus stated poor widows were being taken advantage of. It was supposed to be a sacred space. Not a market place.
"I have definitive proof that God exists."
Should have read " I have convinced myself that I have definitive proof that God exists."
Tell me, how have you excluded all the other infinite possibilities?
I've seen so I believe. It is possible I've been deceived. But the evidence suggests God does exist and this is a good thing. I place my trust and confidence in God. Not in what a few anti-theists preach on religion blogs. That has failed me.
so you have already gone from "definitive proof" to "I may have been decieved."
You are clearly confused. Oh wait...before I say that...what is YOUR definition of definitive ( i know you change definitions of words to suit you)?
Serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation.
Life is the definitive proof of God.
kudlak
Dalahäst
For a man known for his eloquence of wit, and clever verbal barbs you'd think that Jesus could have shamed them as easily as he did the Pharisees without resort to such violence.
If it was a calculated move, than he was hoping to attract the Roman's attention, which pretty much makes him suicidal.
This wasn't a passive, peace loving hippie. It was Jesus. Fierce as a lion.
Dalahäst
The money exchangers were selling at a high profit, but that does not make them dishonest. It happened in the Court of the Gentiles, and was a necessity because gentile coins had graven images on it. Sacrificial animals were bought at the site because it was too difficult to carry animals any great distance and still guarantee purity. There was no reason for Jesus to disrupt this commerce except to make a spectacle of himself.
No, he had a bigger purpose than just making a spectacle of himself. The Temple had been turned into a national bank. It was a great public treasury with vaults containing immense stores of private wealth. These deposits were loaned at high rates of interest. Like pay-day lender loan shark high rates. Criminal rates.
"Life is the definitive proof of God."
Well that is a clearly false statement. Life is evidence of life, not how it came to be. Life could well exist without any gods. There is no correlation there, let alone a causation.
Try again.
Life didn't start life.
Dalahäst
This would be the same guy who cured the guy who get his ear cut off in the garden? Yeah, that was Jesus, all right! Ruthlessly leading a band of zealots through the country, wantonly killing Romans like the Jewish people expected in the coming messiah. Maybe some Christians fantasize of Jesus returning with a sword in hand to slaughter billions of people, but the guy in the Gospels doesn't seem too murdery to me.
The scriptures say Jesus returns with a sword for a tongue (his words are his weapon) and covered in blood (his own blood).
Dalahäst
"I've seen so I believe"
Do you believe everything that others claim to have seen?
Again, (and again, and again, ...) what evidence?
– Do you believe everything that others claim to have seen?
No. I'm not delusional. Nor gullible. I'm too skeptical for that mindset.
God gives evidence. Can you offer me better evidence than God gives?
"Life didn't start life. "
You do not know that.
We do not know the origins of life.
For all yoiu know, the universe itself is alive, but not sentient, or alive and sentient.
You see, we simply do not know, and you have leapt from we do not know to "god"...there is no logic chain that can get you there.
Still, life does not indicate any gods. There is no correlation there.
Life does indicate it has a beginning.
And an end.
And the power behind life comes from God.
Dalahäst
Swords for tongues? It's a wonder that the Left Behind series sold so well when the symbolism is so obvious.
So, he'll return and do what? Talk some more? Get himself killed once again? How do you imagine it all playing out?
He doesn't literally have a sword for a tongue. It symbolizes him defeating evil with the truth.
Dalahäst
Well, skeptical about other people's favourite beliefs, but not your own, it seems. Which brings us back to what the difference is between believing in God and leprechauns. How have you figured out that one is real and the other is not? You didn't have to prove that one doesn't exist in order to simply dismiss those who claim to know that they do, right? Why should you complain then when others treat your beliefs the exact same way?
Other than being really impressed that MLK was a believer, I still don't know what you consider "evidence" for God, so how can I present a counter-argument? I have no doubt that you convinced yourself that he exists, but you have not demonstrated how you can be sure that you're not fooling yourself. Can you test your idea in a well-designed experiment to know that you're not fooling yourself?
God is real.
Leprechauns are not.
I know you said Leprechauns exist outside your head. I'm going to assume you either learned that argument technique from a Richard Dawkins philosophy book or from an anti-theist website. I hear it quite often on this blog from those who can't stand that I know God exists.
Kudlak...you may as well give it up. This guy is a real tool, never answering questions he feel are too hard. He then blames atheists for presenting the questions.
What you asked was very valid. How can you refute somebody that vehemently refuses to state categorically why he knows what he knows. I suppose, if I was truly ignorant, I might just accept his word that he knows, but I am just not that stupid.
Kudlak said leprechauns exist outside his mind. That is a valid argument?
Dalahäst
"Life does indicate it has a beginning."
Wouldn't your God count as being "alive"? Where's his beginning?
"And an end."
One of those Cosmos episodes outlined the hypothesis that microbes could have been exploded up into space after every huge asteroid impact, seeding other planets and the earth again as it revolved around the galaxy, remember? Life didn't even have to originate on this planet, and may not end if the planet gets destroyed.
"And the power behind life comes from God."
How do you know? Science may discover the actual process of abiogenesis within your lifetime. What "gap" would you say your God is hiding in then?
God is eternal. He has no beginning or end. Science studies His creation.
Dalahäst
How do you know that leprechauns are not real? Why don't you just believe the people who do? That's what you're asking us to do in your case. Besides, have you looked everywhere? They can turn invisible too, you know.
Hey, I don't actually believe in them either, but I'm not the one who is hypocritically making a special pleading case for my pet belief, am I?
Maybe this argument occurs so frequently merely because it is effective? Witness your present inability to come up with an answer.
I've never met anyone that says leprechauns are real.
You are the first to say they exist. And I don't think you are being honest.
I do know people that believe in God. And some have demonstrated they are just as intelligent, open-minded, logical, rational and reasonable as you. Some even more so.
It is not an effective argument. I only hear it from anti-theists on religion blogs.
Dalahäst
And how do you know that God is eternal? Were you there to see it?
I wasn't there to see it – not that I know of, but I hope to be there to see it.
Dalahäst
How would you get to see it? Even if you managed to end up in heaven and live another 10, 000 years, that wouldn't prove that God never had a beginning, and you could still just stop existing as any moment.
Even God couldn't know that he was eternal. All he could ever do is just assume that nothing happened before he could remember, which is all any of us could do without older people and other references to the past to tell us otherwise.
I don't know.
It is a mystery to me.
Yet God has been revealed as being real. It made the atheist theories I used to embrace and share like you do seem inadequate and limited.
Dalahäst
It is a mystery to you, but you're still willing to just accept it at face value?
Seems that you just like your theist beliefs better than what you use to believe. You do remember what that Cosmos episode said about the danger of that kind of sloppy thinking, right?
Cosmos is an entertainment program. It is produced and distributed by the same company that produces and distributes Fox News. It brings up interesting points and imaginatively theorizes about new ways of looking at our world. Sometimes it gets a little silly – but, hey, it is Fox and it comes on after The Simpsons. I can't take tv shows too seriously.
I don't just accept that mystery at face value. I still try to discern the truth and try to grasp what it means.
Dalahäst
Funny, I took you for a Neil Degrasse Tyson fan, considering how many times you link to his YouTube videos. I also though you were a Cosmos fan. You liked that long quote I gave from the last episode; even said you'd share it with your pastor. I guess you forgot?
I like him and the show. I was just letting you know I don't take it too seriously. It is an entertainment program.
dala "I still try to discern the truth and try to grasp what it means."
Except that for you the bible trumps anything else.
No exception. The Bible doesn't trump anything else. I'm not a Bibliolatrist.
Yet the only evidence for your god is presented there. I know you're not like all the other christians but given that you like the last word so much – why not produce the evidence? That would be the ultimate last word.
Nope. The Bible points to God. It is not the only evidence for God.
Then present it, instead of these dishonest, slippery answers.
Then present it, instead of dishonest evasive responses.
Dalahäst
If it's faithful to the original, they're keeping the science current and correct.
Creationist shows are only worth their comedic value, as far as I can tell..