The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
I'll repost the crux of my original point here to make it easier to respond:
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Everything would be irrelevant, because "supernatural" is an incoherent concept. Absent any natural boundaries, the supernatual being lacks all definition, all character and any identity at all. It is philosophically indistinguishable from "nothing." Even if you manage to assert that it exists, you can make no further claims about it. You say God is good? Well, that subjects him to a number of boundaries established by our defintions for good - boundaries which rely on natural laws and tautologies for their effect. So the only good God, is a natural God.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Let me first speak to the issue of the canon of scripture.
Jewish tradition is that Ezra was the one who collects and arranges some of the books of the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament around 450 BC. It is clear in Nehemiah 8 (date for Nehemiah is 445-432 BC), Ezra opens a book and begins to read the law to the people.
Now, between 300 and 200 BC the Hebrew Bible (The OT) was translated in from Hebrew to Greek. This is known as the Septuagint. The reason this was done is that many Jews were spread abroad and they were losing the ability to speak and read Hebrew. Also this gave none-Jews insight to the Jewish Scriptures. The reason it is called the Septuagint is that during the reign of Ptolemy Phiadelphius, 70 to 72 scholars were commissioned to translated the Hebrew into Greek. The term Septuagint means 70 in Latin and you might see it abbreviated by the letters LXX (The Roman numeral for 70)
The Apocrypha which is contained in the Catholic Bible contain writings that occurred between the last book of the OT (Malachi) and the first book of the NT. This is known as the Intertestamental Period (Between the Testaments). What is important to know here is that the Jews never considered it part of the Cannon of Scripture. They were included for historical and religious purposes but are not recognized by Protestants or Jews as SCRIPTURE INSPIRED BY GOD. The books contained in the Catholic Bible are called 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' There are no Hebrew texts that can be found - only the Greek translations are known of. The books that we have in our Old Testament are the exact same scriptures found in the Hebrew Bible except they are in a different order. So the Old Testament (OT) was already formed way before 300 AD.
The OT Testament Canon was finalized by two councils in 90 AD and then in 118 AD - keep those dates in your head.
Now the the New Testament (NT) Let's just look at some of the claims concerning the NT that were made by author Dan Brown. These were stated in his book the Davinci Code. All are quotes:
1. "The Bible is a product of man, not of God. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has NEVER had a definitive version of the book."
2. "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them."
3. "The Bible as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman." emperor Constantine the Great."
The NT was given the status of being equal with the OT within the Bible itself.
2 Peter 3:14-16 - 14Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.ALREADY - the writings of Paul are being seen as equal to other scripture. But once again - let’s go outside scripture.
Justin Martyr (The first Christian Apologist) is using the 4 Gospels on a weekly basis - 150 AD
The first writer to speak of a NT was Irenaeus. Irenaeus lived in the early second century and his exact date of death is unknown (Late second or early 3rd century). To get in your mind a time period, Irenaeus was a Priest during the Christian persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor. What is know is that he listened to and learned under the Bishop Polycarp and may have accompanied him to Rome at some time. Polycarp was a student of The Apostle John. Irenaeus quoted from all the NT books except for Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude. What is even more important is that Irenaeus insisted (again early 2nd century) that there were only 4 gospels. Along with that most of Irenaeus’ work (What he is most famous for) was against Gnosticism.
Origen (185-254) - listed 21 approved New Testament books
Clement of Alexandria (died in 215 AD) spoke of a "fresh New Testament"
Turtullian (death unknown but born around 160 AD) states that the Roman church "associates the Law and the prophets with the evangelical and apostolic books" and both Testaments were "divine scripture"
What I want you to see is that even though there is not a "Canon" in the true sense of the word - There are writings that are accepted by the church and writings that are certainly not accepted by the church.
The first fixed list was by a man named Marcion - who by the way was a heretic. He accepted the NT but rejected the OT because he could not reconcile them both together. What is interesting here is that Marcion HAD Gnosistic thinking and yet he did not include the Gnostic Gospels. He rejected Matthew and of course John (You will see why later)
If I were to go on through the entire process of how we got our entire Bible, we would be here forever. I am not trying to skip over issues - I am not afraid of how it happened - it is just LONG. Here is the deal. Marcion’s contribution was that the church realized that they needed a canon of scripture. The church had already ascribed a canon it was just not listed and formally agreed upon. What I want to make clear - The church never accepted and then rejected other Gospels. The books that were in question - and seemed to be on the fringe of the canon were - Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and James) The gospels and Paul’s epistles were not in question within the church. The first time we see all 27 books listed is 367 AD. So you can see from 150 AD to 367 AD - this was a long process. IF there is any specific question during this time period - I would be more than happy to address it.
Now on the Gospel of Peter - A gnostic gospel. That is why it denies the human nature of Christ. The Gospel of John is already battleing pre-gnostisitic thinking in the Bible in Chapter 1.
WHY NOT THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS IN THE CANON?????
Why did it take so long for the canon to be approved?
1. One huge issue - authorship - who wrote it. In the New Testament what was most important was that if a book was not authored by an apostle or could be shown to have an apostle’s authority behind it - it was rejected no matter how popular the writing might be.
2. In order to be accepted into the canon of Scripture the writing must be accepted by the entire church - not just one congregation or area. - One church could not push an agenda.
ISSUE #2 - The Divinity of Christ.
Dan Brown also wrote: (again these are quotes)
Until the council of Nicaea - Jesus was just considered a man and nothing more. It was by a very close vote of the council that divinity was given to Jesus. The Gnostic Gospels spoke of him as a mortal man and only the 4 that spoke of his deity were chosen for the Bible. Those who chose the EARLIER gospels were called heretics. Some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Coptic Scrolls found at Nag Hamadi.
So what is true about the information? Out of everything that I have just told you - other than the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found - 100% of it is false. 100%.
Let me first just make some quick comments concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls
There is neither one New Testament book nor one "Gnostic Gospel" in the Dead Sea Scrolls - There are no gospels - all of the writings are either OT or during the Intertestamental Period. In fact what you have is 19 copies of the Book of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of the Psalms. Fragments of every book in the OT was found, except for Esther. What we have for example is a copy of Isaiah that goes back 1000 years from the oldest copy we had before and you know what we found - except for some spelling errors and punctuation errors - no mistakes. Our Bible is accurate.
Now the Gnostic Gospels - they were NOT earlier. They were written later than the NT. All scholars agree on this and the only debate that they have is on the Gospel of Thomas. Even that just doesn’t matter - because the very claims about these "gospels" are false.
The council of Nicea - The council did not decide on the deity of Christ - That is not why it met. The council met to deal with a heresy called Arianism. You might believe I am splitting hairs, but the real issue here is the word "Begotten" (single of its kind) which you know is in the Gospel of John. Arianism did not believe that Jesus was of the same substance of God. Because scripture states that Jesus was begotten, Arius came to the conclusion that "There was a time when He (Jesus) was not. Arius certainly believed that Jesus was more than mortal, more than man, but not of the same substance or fully divine on the same level as Yahweh. This was causing a huge problem in the church and Constantine got the Bishops together in Nicea in 325. The bishops rejected Arianism and not by just a slim margin. There were 318 in attendance and all but 2 voted that this was heresy. Out of this, came the Nicene Creed of 325. Later, Arianism came up again through a theologian named Eunomius. It is here that my main focus of research for about 15 weeks was focused. Through the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Naziianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa that the Creed was written again in 381.
Actually, all four gospels speak to the divinity of Christ. There are two things to consider when speaking of the divinity of Christ.
1. FUNCTIONAL CHRISTOLOGY In terms of what he did)
a. Functional Christology - What Christ did, could only be done by God. In other words - Christ performs divine functions because He is divine. I am not going to give you all the scripture references - but simply remind you of what Jesus did:
Miracles over Nature
1. Walked on the water
2. Calmed the sea - disciples were amazed that the wind and sea obey him
3. Coin in the fish’s mouth - The story of the Temple Tax
4. Multiply food - feeding the 5000 and feeding the 4000
5. Provided a large catch of fish for Peter
Healing Miracles
1. Paralytic man - we never saw anything like this.
2. Centurion’s servant
3. Man with the withered hand
4. Blind Bartimaeus
5. Woman with hemorrhaging
6. Lame man by pool of Bethesda
7. Blind man since birth (this had never even been heard of before)
8. Ten lepers
9. Deaf Man
Lord over Powers and Spiritual Forces
1. Exorcisms done in many people early in ministry Matthew 8:16
2. Demons cast out Gadarenes men
3. Demon cast out of mute man
4. Demon casts out of Syrophonecians woman’s daughter
5. Demon cast out of demon possessed boy - disciples could not do it
Miracles over death
1. Jairus’ daughter
2. Lazarus
3. Son of the widow of Nain
SPIRITUAL MIRACLES
1. The paralytic man - He states that his sins are forgiven
2. The sinful woman - anoints him with oil, kisses his feet
3. His prayer on the cross - Forgive them, for they know not what they do ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SINS
Jesus also Judges
1. Unrepentant cities
2. Barren fig tree
3. Cleansing of the temple4. Seven woes on the Scribes and Pharisees
My point here is that it is not only one Gospel that demonstrated Jesus Divinity - it is rampant throughout all the gospels.
2. ONTOLOGICAL CHRISTOLOGY In terms of who he was (what did others claim and what did Jesus claim).
He accepts worship that is only for God
He teaches these things about himself
a. Sent by the Father
b. That He is the Savior
c. That He will Judge
d. That He is the coming King
e. He is the Arbiter of Who gets into the Kingdom of God
f. He is the revelation of the FatherJesus asked two very important questions. It is at this moment that there is a turning point in the ministry of Jesus.
Jesus asked the question - Who do the crowds say that I am? The disciples report the conflicting reports of those they have talked to:
A. Some say You are John the Baptist - raised from the dead (one of Jesus’ contemporaries) A prophet from our own time - He is compared to one of the great men of His day.
B. Some say You are Elijah - raised from the dead (A prophet of old) - He is compared to one of the great men of the past.
C. Some say You are just one of the prophets that has risen - Others will not even commit to a name - just one of the prophets.
Then Jesus gets to the heart of the matter - Who do you say that I am? - That one question is not just a question that is asked of the disciples. That is the question that is asked of every person that has or will walk this earth.
It is here that in the book of Matthew Peter says: You are the Christ - the Son of the living God. In Mark, Peter says "You are the Christ" and in Luke Peter says "The Christ of God." Christ is not Jesus’ last name - What Peter is saying is that Jesus - You are the Anointed of God (this signifies his being both appointed by God to be the Messiah and qualified to be the Messiah).
The point here is that What is claimed about Jesus is also not just in the book of John. All the Gospels spoke of Jesus' divinity.
I know this is long but I hope it helps somewhat. I did not copy and paste out of a webpage. This is my own research as I also seek the truth - I do not follow Christ because I am blind.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Good stuff Tiberian. Thanks. However, the way I was describing it was in the analogous terms of the extra-dimensional, as in “bigger” space-time dimensions (vis-à-vis the curled up “smaller” dimensions espoused by String Theory). Extra-dimensional reality (which, by the way, an atheist string theorist friend of mine confirmed is a possibility) does not necessarily negate the laws inherent to the intra-dimensional. Rather, these laws are transcended. This idea is developed a bit in Edwin Abbot’s novel Flatland (which is in open domain now if you want to check it out). The idea of the “super-natural” (i.e., “super-“ or “extra-dimensional”) is no more an “irrelevant” or “incoherent concept” than a 3-dimensional reality is “irrelevant” or “incoherent” to a 2-dimensional one. Because the Supernatural/Extra-dimensional transcends the laws of the natural/intra-dimensional does not mean that it cannot operate in some respects within the terms of the natural (i.e., meaning then, for example, that the phrase “God is good” would not necessarily be intrinsically incoherent or irrational).
For example, if a sphere interacted with a 2-dimensional reality, it would be bound by the 2-d reality to appear as a circle. However, “circle” does not exhaustively define the sphere because a sphere “transcends” the “circle” in its 3rd dimensionality. Also, the sphere would operate with different laws in that it could appear as a small circle by dipping only its tip into the 2nd dimension, or it could appear as a big circle by immersing itself down to its midpoint. Again, if you apply some of the same notions of super-dimensionality to time (which is also, according to the string theorist, a possibility), you would get similar transcendence of natural laws, including a transcendence to chronology and cause and effect. In this way, then, to assert a supernatural entity as the “first cause” would not be intrinsically illogical. No?
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
I actually did try this. All the links on the first search page except one were from religious and creationist Web sites--who of course all just reiterate the standard answersingenesis.com criticism of radiometric dating (which is a pretty weak argument that basically amounts to saying, "but it *could* be wrong"
.
The one entry that was not one of these sites was wikipedia, which says that radiometric dating is accurate (within its limitations).
Not only does this result suggest that the creationists are pretty desperate to question the accuracy of radiometric dating, it also reflects the fact that in legitimate scientific circles it's already been taken into account and is a non-issue.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Hey Adam. I appreciate your honesty. If all believers were honest enough with themselves to admit that they were "agnostic" theists, I wouldn't have much issue with religion. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
I have been an agnostic atheist for nearly 20 years but I was raised Catholic and was a strong believer when I was young. That means that I still had (maybe still have) a number of lingering concepts in my brain from my childhood training. One of those ideas was that God was a simple concept. He was a fundamental concept, like gravity. He either existed or He didn't.
I read The God Delusion last December and Dawkin's claimed that an all-knowing, all-powerful creator God who existed outside of time would have to be highly complex. Despite my many years of agnostic atheism, my initial reaction was to reject this idea. It took several weeks for this reaction to fade and to realize that this must be true. I had to realize that the reason that I thought of God as elemental and simple was that I was taught this from a very early age. I was not taught anything about how God actually functions because we don't know those things. How does a purely spiritual force interact with a physical universe? Of course a creator god could do so, but what are the physics behind it?
If every law and concept came from God, then God is necessarily more complex than the entire universe. This makes a deity with the parameters of God far less likely than a nonsentient, natural multiverse, for instance.
I think this is a very powerful argument but has the Achilles heal of being hard to get your head around. If I, a long time atheist, rejected the idea, then how much harder must it be to get the point across to someone who starts with the idea that God exists or is at least more likely to exist than not?
I think this is a good example of why well-informed, formerly Christian atheists can tend to get very frustrated with many Christians. In many cases, we have had our heads in the exact same mindset as the theist we are debating. If we take the time to think back, we can remember what it was like to find the theistic arguments credible. But most Christians have never been strong atheists so their minds have never dwelt in the atheist worldview? This worldview is like a curved arch. It is self-supporting. Trying to export a single brick of that worldview to a theist is very difficult.
I hope this long ramble makes some sense.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
The common American Protestant sects that interpret the Bible as saying there's no Hell (and the penalty for sin is literal "death" as in ceasing to exist) are the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. There are also some Mennonite sects that believe this, but I don't know if they're allowed to be typing on computers. There may be some other Millerite splinter groups like the SDA who share some of their beliefs including this one.
The argument is actually pretty good, based on decent scholarship-based arguments, and definitely changes the stakes of the afterlife for those particular sects.
With Kinnith's tendency to talk about "true" Christians actually "reading" the Bible, I was going to guess he was a Restorationist (i.e. Church of Christ) and the post-Calvinist Presbyterian stuff is consistent with that. But every Restorationist I ever talked to believed in Hell.
So I'm gonna have to go with...Jehovah's Witness. Did I get it Kinnith?
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Thanks, Tilberian.
Yeah, the "bushiness" metaphor to describe the process is not new, but it's only recently becoming popularized. For example if you go to the Natural History Museum in New York today, you'll see that the old horse evolution sequence first described in the 19th century by Marsh--which was very ladder-like--has been replaced by a more accurate bushy diagram that shows the huge overlap in time between the dozens of different species that descended from the horse ancestor, many of which are not ancestors of modern horses, zebras or donkeys. The molecular evidence is the latest factor that contributes to making the picture clearer.
For me the description that made it clearest was the comparison with antelopes today. Right now there are countless different kinds of antelopes living all over the world. But in a couple hundred thousand years (maybe less the way things are going) if there were only Ibexes, you wouldn't see and understand the way they used to be so numerous. All those fossils would look like a straight line you'd see fossil springboks and Thompson's Gazelles and you'd assume that antelopes had started small and gotten bigger. But then when you came across a big Addax fossil that was older than your oldest Springbok, you'd see it as anomalous.
That's basically what happened with the interpretation of horse fossils (getting bigger over time, seeming to be directed when actually they were getting bigger and smaller the whole time). But when more fossils were found and the molecular evidence got added in, it became clear what was actually going on.
IIRC, this example is in The Blind Watchmaker.
Unfortunately the ID people still point to Marsh's progression of the horse and hold that up as a strawman (or hold to that linear model of evolution) when legitimate science gave it up a long time ago.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Scottmax,
Thanks for the candid and sincere response. And no it wasn’t rambling, it was great. I think I know what you’re talking about. I love talking about stuff like this with people like you. But it makes me wish that I was conversing over a pint of Guinness in an Irish pub, listening to the pipes in the background. Alas… I’ll have to settle for a cyberpub and etherbeer. Ha!
Yes, I agree: God must be very complex, perhaps infinitely so. That is what I think the concept of an extra-dimensional God suggests. I’m comfortable with that idea. The idea of such a transcendent God naturally leads me to doxology. But supporting an argument with “odds” is a slippery slope for an argument—in my opinion. This is the same problem I have with the Theist’s argument for a Creator by pointing to the “outrageous odds” against a human life-supporting universe happening by accident. The argument goes, “Look at the anthropic principle. The odds are practically zero that this happened by accident. Therefore, God.”
When speaking of “odds,” it might help to think in terms of “number of attempts.” If there was only one attempt with the odds of a million to one, then it’s likely not to happen. But if you think of a million attempts at a million-to-one odd, then it is much more likely to happen. If you think of million-to-one odds in terms of infinite attempts, it is practically a 100% possibility of it happening. This is the weakness of this theist argument, I think. If there were an infinite number of “attempts” or “big bangs”, then the odds would actually be 100% of it happening. So odds are tricky, especially if you think “big” enough. Many theists don’t think “big enough” when they assert this argument from anthropic principle, in my opinion.
But the same thing, I think, would apply to the “odds” against such a complex being as God existing. Even then, this is trying to think of the outrageousness of God only in finite, natural terms. If we think of odds happening in the scope of infinity, again, the odds would actually be 100%. Those are my initial thoughts in response to your comments. I’d like to read Dawkins’s chapter on that though. It sounds interesting.
Thanks again for the comment!
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
I agree with you on big numbers. I gave an example of another way of looking at odds a few pages back. Shuffle a deck of cards and deal them out. The odds against you dealing out those exact cards in that exact order is 1/52! So if you had done that experiment once each second since the big bang, you odds would still be only 1 in 1.82e50 of having gotten that exact result. The odds are absurd. But that does not prove that you didn't deal those cards.
What is different about what I am saying, though, is that I am not trying to determine the likelihood that a god could have developed. I am just comparing the likelihood of that answer with a simpler, naturalistic answer. The naturalistic answer has far fewer requirements. In fact, on your theory of a god-like being developing, that being would necessarily need a theory for its own creation.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
You must be familiar with these verses. The apologists argument is that "You can't see, touch, feel, smell or hear evil. It is not one of the fundamental forces of physics, nor does it consist of matter, energy, or the spatial dimensions of the universe." http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.php , but "goodness" can in no way supercede conditionality either. If God did create "goodness" ontologically (Gen 1:10), there must also be evil to contrast it. It cannot be defined without evil, it would only be neutral... No varying degrees of goodness in Eden either. You cannot create one and leave a vaccum for the other.
I don't know if this argument I will propose exists, but I call it "The Argument from Experience for the Non-Existence of an Omniscient and/or Omni-benevolent God":
If God has personhood (the Trinity doctrine) and "infinite" knowledge (Psalm 147:5, 1 Chronicles 28:9, Heb. 4:13, John 3:20), then isn't He necessarily experienced and intimate with both good and evil at all times? Isn't experience a type of knowledge included in omniscience? If so, then isn’t it necessary that God has committed (and eternally commits) every sin conceivable (violent perversions beyond anything that the devil could dream up... He did create the corruptible universe, didn’t He?) or His knowledge is not infinite, because He doesn’t know the experience of what it’s like to (eternally) commit those acts? The bible claims that God's knowledge is innate and that it did not come vicariously from another being (sinners/Satan): "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, and informed Him of the way of understanding?" (Is. 40:13-14). Innate knowledge is still incomplete until it has been experienced. There is no substitute knowledge for experience (think of hot, then burn yourself). How is it possible for God to have truly infinite experience and eternal intimacy with all sin and still be considered purely good? Why don't we get the same eternal opportunity to experience everything, instead of a short lifetime's worth, with eternal judgment based upon it?
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Ah, I see what your thought is now.
Frankly, extra dimensions make my head hurt. I am somewhat familiar with what you're talking about from a science fiction novel called The Planiverse that I read some years ago.
I really don't know enough about extra-dimensional theory to say whether an extra-dimensional being might possibly act in the way you describe. It seems to make sense that a four-dimensional being, for instance, could move backward and forward in time, stopping to interact with the third dimension alone at different points along the timeline.
It's a neat thought, but we are still lacking any evidence that such a thing has ever happened.
As for such a being being the First Cause, hypothetically, sure. I've also seen a competing theory posted here to the effect that the singularity which preceded the Big Bang bent space so much that all the arrows of time pointed forward, meaning, in effect, that there was no such thing as a time "before" that event.
Need more data!
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to communicate that I was arguing for a created God. I was only trying to speak of that in terms of odds.
Right, I get it. So you would agree that what I am saying is not contrary to logic then? You are basically applying Ockham’s Razor to the two logical possibilities: (1) God has always existed and (2) the Universe has always existed? I’ve always had a problem with Ockham’s razor, as it is usually applied by atheists. I love what Fox Mulder calls it in X-Files: “Ockham’s Law of Limited Imagination.” It is completely contingent upon our finite knowledge.
Sapient was right to point to the law of thermodynamics. But there is also the natural law of cause and effect, and that something does not come from nothing. Even if you were to apply Ockham’s razor to this reality, it would seem to lean in favor of theism. It seems to make more sense to think of a supernatural first cause than to think of an acausal natural universe. I don’t know…what do you think?
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Seems that if the universe "always was" than you eliminate all the superfluous parameters inherent in teleological purpose, desire, etc., which also must (in theology) take all viable and inviable potential into account on a moral level. I have a friend who is a deist (based mostly on philosophical notions by Heidegger, Pre-Socratics) who believes that "god" is not inherently good, so the problem of evil is not a problem for him. As has been stated here quite a bit, the jump from desim to theism is HUGE and often reckless.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Odds only come into play here if there are multiple chances for a thing to occur. Without a creation event for God, then you lose your muliple chances argument as far as I can see.
Sure, it is possible. But nearly anything is possible. So we have a choice between chasing after every possible idea, no matter how unlikely, or devoting effort to only the most likely concepts. Ockham's razor is often misrepresented as claiming the simpler answer is true. "Simpler" is far too subjective, as I was trying to convey in my first post. What we really need to do is look at the answer with the fewest raw assertions. Asserting a random field that can produce bubbles of energy that we perceive as a universe presupposes much less than a highly complex God with a long list of attributes who creates one or more universes.
Ah, there are 2 problems here. First, we do not propose that our universe came from nothing. The various proposals postulate that the energy always existed, either in a (to us) timeless state in this universe or in some sort of eternal multiverse. Or that the sum total of positive and negative matter-energy is zero.
Secondly, at the quantum level, my understanding is that we lose cause and effect as we know it. If the pre-expansion state of the universe operated only under quantum principles, then our conventional cause and effect modus goes away.
We don't even know for sure that a first-cause is necessary. This is counter intuitive to us since we are trapped traveling forward through the 4th dimension. Replacing a "we don't understand" with "God seems likely" just doesn't follow logically.
The best evidence for God would have to be the ability to make predictions that would be true if there is a God and false if not, and then to find those conditions to be true. Just looking at an unexplained event and trying to plug God into the hole is simply Argument from Ignorance.
So try this mental exercise. You are an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god who is not constrained by time. When you create your universe, it appears to you as a 3 dimensional object appears to us mere mortals. You see its entirety, the beginning as well as the end. If you change the starting parameters slightly, you get a butterfly effect and change the end. But you are all-powerful so you can choose any start condition and any end condition you like. If your goal is really "love" and to be "loved", what sort of universe will you create? How well does that universe align with what we see? What is necessary to create and what is completely extraneous?
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
While I find this concept very interesting, I wouldn't necessary say such an entity would be considered "supernatural." Doing so seems to make a specific claim as to what is nature and what is not. For example, our eyes can only detect a vary narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. If a object emitted light in both the both visible and ultraviolet regions, would it be considered "supernatural?" Does the fact that we have created instruments to detect the entire range of frequencies this object emits define it as part of nature?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
HAHA- but was Fox always right? Yeah, imagination is important in the early stages of the scientific method, but it has to end at some point or you'll have to deal with the Pink Unicorns (they are ferocious!). Imagination and inviable potential (not that imagination necessarily corresponds to inviable potential, but the proposition must be shown to have evidence) are still valuable (for example, artistically, which enriches our "two demensional"/ "flat" existence), though limited in explanitory power until emperically verified. Many think imagination evolved with/as curiosity for our survival benefit (to pre-empt another question). There's nothing wrong with inviable (or limited) potential and imagination, they just have their place and limits.
So is our ability to determine reality in the theist's salvation plan!
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
I didn't call anyone an amoral terrorist even if that is how i feel. Don't recall yelling either. I believe in what the RRS is doing. I only wish I'd thought of doing some of these things myself.
What's important is simply numbers. There are too many crazy christians voting and pushing our laws in terrible directions. We need to take away some of those numbers.
You see what I fear is that when the largest voting block in america wants the world to come to an end then don't you think they might try to force events in that direction. I personally don't mind if they want their world to come to an end but unfortunately they want to take the rest of us with them.
We are lucky that George Bush has two major backers. Religious zealots and large corporations. I believe it is the corporations keeping him from starting his end of the world campaign.
We need to be very careful. The other christians in the world are not the same as what we have here in the U.S. They don't believe that the end is going to come in their lifetimes, they don't want it to come in their lifetimes. When you talk to christians outside the U.S. they really don't understand why we feel the way we do about ours because they do not see the difference. There is a huge difference.
The christians in this country sound very much like the Nazi's did before they came to power. The Nazi's gained power by telling everyone that it was the Jews who are to blame for all their problems. The christians do this also with Liberals. The Nazi's also hated gay's. The things christians are trying to do to gays right now are very scary. One presidential candidate even said he's support employers who fire gays for simply being gay.
They use fear just like the Nazi's did. Anyways I could go on but I know no one likes it when you use the Nazi comparison but I really believe we are close to being in the same situation.
The world sees the United States as a superpower that is unstable and dangerous. There aren't many countries out there that would not like to see our downfall.
It scares the crap out of me.
Ok. So I seem to be going in a circle here because I don't think I'm taking my points to their fullest conclusion. Gato and Scott, these are mainly geared toward your posts, but they address some of the others as well.
First, I have yet to see an explanation on how a supposed mutliverse can circumvent the 2nd Law. If it can, then this argument is just disputable as any Theistic claim for the existence of a Deity, since the supposed multiverse can act outside of known natural laws. Instead of having a God, you have a multiverse that displays attributes of God, (except for intelligence) and state that it is responsible for the creation for all that we see.
Second, in regard to natural laws being an indicator of intelligence, I must admit that this point did not come across as clearly as I would have liked so I will attempt to explain it again.
To me, natural laws indicate that the universe is extremely ordered and operates within very limited parameters. In our experience, we see that human intelligence also mirrors this type of complex order formation and development of strict parameters in things like computer programs. That is why I state that it seems that a mind must have conceived of those natural laws and they could not just be the result of purposeless forces.
As for bringing SETI into the equation, I'm surprised that this point was missed on a few of you. Math and science concepts cannot be purely human inventions. If this were the case, then SETI is wrong to think that any intelligence in the universe would understand them since that would be like saying, "if intelligent life exists outside of America, it will understand English." That's ridiculous.
In a way, we can think of science and math as a "message" that can be read by any intelligent being no matter where their origin. Now my point is, why does no one question Who sent the message in the first place?
Also, the reply about meaning existing locally, but not universally is really ultimately false. If meaning does not exist overall, it cannot exist for anything.
Stating that we interact with eachother to avoid pain or create pleasure goes against every thing we ever feel, do or say. We cannot claim that we really "love" or "care" for anyone without radically redefining what those terms mean. In reality, istead of "loving" we only seek to gratify our needs. That is the very opposite of how we define love.
As for my stating that we can see some of God's attributes by looking at what we see, I can still defend that premise without even appealing to the bible. Even though we see things that we call "evil" in the world, we still tend to value good over it. We also value justice, love and truth over injustice, hatred and lies as well. Thus I can conclude that if God created the universe and it's contents, He would have similar values.
The problem of where evil comes from would require more explanation which the bible addresses quite well.
More troubling though is that in a materialistic paradigm, we have to attribute our tendency to value of good over evil to selfish behavior (something we do not even consider to be good) and it is therefore somewhat of a contradiction.
Gato said:
No, OT principles have not been trumped by changing culture. They are still very much apart of most cultures as your statement below illustrates. Also, I don't find the laws of the OT to be inadequate. Jesus summed up the law in the statement "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." These are just as applicable today as they were then.
If you are referring to laws of ceremonial cleaness such as prohibition of fabric blends, refraining from eating certain foods, or animal sacrifice, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross now makes the one who believes in Him clean in God's sight. The OT law was described as a shadow of those things that were to be fulfilled in Christ (The entire 3rd Chapter of Galations speaks on this.)
The problem is this is a biblical principle, not an evolutionary one. In purely evolutionary terms, we would not desire anyone else's wellbeing, just our own. Or if others do well, we would desire it only if it benefits us. Which isn't really moral in the strictest sense of the word.
But here is the difficulty with this position. Who decides what is more or less "harmful"? Anyone can make a case for or against any type of behavior in that context. For example, what if someone were to argue that some genocide is helpful in the long run because it results in more resources for the rest of us? Or that killing mentally retarded people or the sick elderly is really in society's best interest because their life could be considered a burden for others?
I mean really, where does it stop?
ERV's are not very well understood. I assume you are referring to the fact that ERV's in monkeys and humans are in the same area of their genetic sequence and this somehow implies a common ancestor. My only reply is that we do know that ERV's have insertion preferences, so it's possible that if monkeys and humans were "infected" separately by the same ERV, they could have it's DNA in the same area. But it's been a while since I've looked into this and I'm not familiar with the "broken vitamin C gene", so I will do some research.
As for the comment that I do not understand evolution, I think I understand it quite well. When I say that evolution is blind chance working on matter over time, I'm not stating anything untrue. It's evolution in a nutshell.
Basically we have certain factors that influence a change in living organisms over time. This process is natural selection (which Christians readily accept btw.) These factors range from environmental changes to fluctuations in animal populations that due to migration, lack or abundance of resources, and the like.
So which of those factors, according to materialism, do you not view as being "random" or "chance"? And if they are, then how is my description of these events as being chance working on matter (i.e. random factors affecting animal or plant genetics) incorrect?
Furthermore, cannot be claimed that these random factors produce efficiency per se. Only that the animals that are the most well adapted to their specific current environment are able to survive.
This could result in the most inefficient animal surviving due to a minor genetic advantage. And that same advantage, if the environment were to change, could later become a detriment and cause it's extinction. So it's a non sequitur that natural selection produces efficiency.
The real issue though is that the properties for survival appear to be inherent to life in general. Living things have the built-in ability to adapt to sometimes extreme changes. Where did this property come from?
Gato Said:
Ok, the word "faith" is a biblical term. Just because certain people apply it to other "religions" does not mean anything.
And there most certainly is a mystery element, but not in the way you imply. The word faith itself means to "trust". When you come to know God and understand Who He is, you put your trust in Him. This does not mean that you know everything He's going to do at all times, just that you know enough about His character to trust He will do what's best.
Also, I think there is plenty of evidence in the natural world as well as in the biblical record for a person to make a reasonable decision to have faith in God. You just don't accept that testimony and therefore feel you are justified in rejecting faith.
Gato said:
God's work in regard to man is complex, but this is unrelated to what I was talking about in regard to natural laws and the universe.
According to Thomas Aquinas, and I tend to agree, God is the ultimate Simplicity because in Him there is no variation or division.
But this really doesn't even matter since I do believe Dawkin's point is that in the PHYSICAL realm, whatever produces something must be as complex or more complex than what it produces. And that inevitably leads to the question of "who made God"... I guess it has not occurred to Dawkins that God is not physical, so his complexity argument really doesn't even apply.
Anyway, interesting points from all the posters. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin
I'm sure all of you have by now gone over to the WAY OF THE BUTTSTAB site that Cameron and Comfort have and checked out the lunacy. If not...take a deep breath, click on over to it, and try to endure past the first 30 seconds of their flash intro....
Ok...I'm betting you noticed what I did. FEAR... Within 10 seconds... FEAR OF DEATH.... FEAR OF DYING.... FEAR OF BURNING IN HELLFIRE. FEAR... FEAR. FEAR!
Someone needs to confront these 2 morons in a more "Hitchenesque" way, if I may. Sapient...I nominate you. U have the cajones bro.
The next time you own these guys, somehow ask them WHY they would even want their garbage to be true? If I may link you guys to the first Mr. Deity episode -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI -- and this recent Hitchens diatribe in which he compares the idea of God to North Korea to better describe what I am getting at. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhXCiUeBuE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7sRVdozGM. Why... Why.
How is it that they don't find the idea of a supposedly benevolant, omniscient, selfish, eternal dictator completely repulsive and abhorrent? How can they want or need such supervision, handholding, and/or control of their lives?
All they have is fear of death and fear of punishment, and fear of oblivion. Why do they, although all evidence points to the contrary, want/need this fairy tale to be true? Why? Tell us why Kirk. Why do you want such a horrifying idea as a God described in Num. 31:17,18,35 to be true?
Anyway....you guys kicked ass and you rule. And Sapient, you lucked out with Kelly brother..... Foxy & Beautiful... Lucky bastard anyway!! LOL!
-jimmylosanto
Sorry, didn't really mean to imply that your reaction was that extreme. But statements like "911 is the best thing that ever happened to the churches and they know it" sort of suggests the idea.
I am completely with you. I overheard some friends of mine talking about a speech they just attended. I didn't hear the whole thing but it was something about "falling asleep when Tim LaHaye was talking but the General was really interesting". Sent a chill up my spine and I really didn't want to ask. These are really good guys.
And then when I here crap like "hate the sin but love the sinner" in reference to gays, it makes me really sad. No one can truly love a stranger who is a criminal, which is what a "sinner" really means in this case since the homosexual is breaking one of "God's laws". These good people think they are being loving but I don't think it is really possible with that outlook on gays.
Very true. My wife is Korean and Christian. But I had to explain to her what "The Rapture" is. She had never heard of it.
Me too. I sometimes think about moving to Europe or Australia if it gets too bad but I fear that won't be enough. We need to win hearts and minds in this country. Atheism is finally on the upswing but I'm worried that move is happening too slowly.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Separation of church and state isn't what's going to stop religious nonsense. 44% of England is secular and they don't have near the amount of emphasis on separation of church and state in their government. The reason why religion hurts us is because it is innately irrational. There is no law against being irrational which is why it is the peoples' responsibility to be rational. Religion is the only area where people like you will make apologies for being irrational.
Why would I need to prove myself if I said the bible is obviously full of lies, but not when I merely say "I don't believe it". Does the degree of stridency shift the onus? That makes no sense.
I say gravity is a fact and I'm not specially skilled in any science. I say it is a fact that Zeus doesn't exist and he is just a figment of the human imagination and I have never studied Greek mythology after the 9th grade. I know more about the Bible than I know about Greek Mythology.
People do change their beliefs when exposed to enough reason. Of course there are dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads like Cameron and Comfort, but who cares if they change their beliefs? It's important that Kirk and Ray don't bring any more people into their belief. When Comfort makes the banana argument, people really are convinced by it and people really do become Christians because of it. The RRS are just some people who are telling these kids that Comfort is wrong and that there is no hell. This is nothing short of heroism.
With fundamentalists, we're mostly fighting ignorance. When you ask a fundamentalist why they believe in Christianity they may say something like "the prophecies in the bible have come true". Moderates are the ones with the worst case of cognitive dissonance. They are most likely to say "I believe because it gives me meaning in my life" which is non-sequiter.
It is no coincidence that religion is the most widespread delusion and the least criticized while something like believing in the powers of psychics is not. When believing in Jesus becomes tantamount to believing in UFOs, Christianity will no longer function. Being "nice" to these irrational beliefs is one of the biggest impediments to this process.
Atheists have yet to really organize. Plus there are many atheists who stick to the arguement that to debate theism gives theists too much credit and we should all just keep quiet. Sounds nice but doesn't work. I think that atheism is being intentionally denied airtime. The Nightline story for instance. They don't seem to want to give airtime to atheist because they don't want us organized.
If more people find out about the RRS and other atheist groups we could really start to change some numbers. I've been thinking for years about how we could organize. I thought maybe we needed to start churches for example where atheists can atleast get together and share their ideas. I know how that sounds to suggest a church because atheism is not nor does not wish to become a religion but we do need to do something to bring atheists in our neighborhoods together. Maybe someone at the RRS will come up with a really good idea.
Anyways atleast now there is some hope.
Theists give God more attributes than just creating the universe. They assume that the universe was created perfectly using an all knowing and all seeing knowledge and that this universe embodies a perfect plan that will unfold at some point in the future. The attributes of "goodness" are implied. The attributes of a personal relationship are implied.
Something lacking all of these attribute could create a universe.
I think you're definition of purpose is what's in question here. If you asked me how does water relate to the existence of aquatic live, I would say water provides an environment in which aquatic life lives. But does this mean water's purpose is to support aquatic life? Not necessarily. Fish need water to survive. Had there been no water, life may have never formed on this planet. Or perhaps some other form of life would exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation. In the same way, natural laws play a role in the shape and behavior of the universe. This does not mean this role was planed or pre-defined by some intelligence.
What you describe as a purpose, I would call a role. There is a subtle difference here, but I think it is important.
It's my opinion that math was discovered, not invented. There will always be n of something, regardless of what that something is. Life forms that are capable of observing n of anything and have enough intelligence to see the value of describing n number of anything would be potential candidates for contact. In addition, life forms that have come to similar conclusions to the nature of the universe, as we have though science, would also qualify as worthy prospects.
Meaning is local to those who experience it. If one associates a particular set of outcomes with a particular event, they will use these associations to define it's meaning. For example, theists may associate apocalyptic event with the second coming of Christ. As such it may have positive meaning in their eyes. I, on the other hand, would associate an apocalyptic event with the eternal extinction of the human race. It would have a negative meaning in my eyes. Clearly, the same exact event caries different meanings to different people.
Is sex less pleasurable or less real now that we've defined it's source? If someone were to find a scientific and physical source for love, would it make the emotion of love less real? Also, I think that the development of consciousness has had a significant effect on how we interact with people. It seems that you're suggesting that we shouldn't look at the "wires behind the board" in an attempt to prevent radically redefining the source of our behaviors.
In my opinion, these explanations are insufficient.
On one hand, theists claim that god is all knowing, all seeing, and created the universe from nothing. On the other hand, theist claim that evil is not God's creation or that it's used to teach us something important here on earth.
If we are purposely created by an all knowing, all seeing God, then we can be nothing more than what God created us to be. Nor does it take an omniscient being to figure out that, when given a choice, some of his creation will reject him. If God uses uses my lack of belief to save others, then we really do not have free will. God created me knowing I would suffer internal punishment.
If a loving God is willing to make his own creation - even those he knows will be saved - experience evil and suffering on earth, then the lesson that earthly evil teaches us must be critically important to our existence in the afterlife. Otherwise, what reason does it serve to exist?
However, children who die before they are born (or before they are old enough to understand the word of God) die before understanding evil. They will have missed whatever mysterious, yet critical lesson that evil teaches us. This would imply that these children are somehow lacking some important truth that those who have lived long enough to experience evil has acquired.
Yet, these children get a free ticket into heaven in spite of their lack of experiencing earthly evil. How does this make any sense? Are these children segregated from the general population in heaven? Do they receive special tutoring or have evil experiences implanted in their memory in so they can join the rest of us who have actually experienced evil on earth? If so, why can't we all just go though this process after we die?
As I stated earlier, we, as conscious beings, are no longer completely at the mercy of our genetic instructions. We can question our actions and beliefs. Our behavior could be explained by a mixture of both evolutionary instincts and consciousness. Our unique ablity to put ourselves in someone else's "shoes" gives us the ablity to feel true empathy toward others.
Again, I think that our perceived notions of morality are an illusion. Even God finds a reason to justify genocide in the Old Testament. Utility simply isn't a good enough reason to accept the existence of God.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you think changes in environment are the source of random changes in forms of life. As far as I know, this is not the case. The random part of evolution is when the set of instructions for building an organism changes via some kind of mutation. The environment is part of the selection process that the organism must survive in, not the source of the change.
As such, the same mutation may be beneficial in one environment but not another. Geographic boundaries may prevent one evolutionary trait from making another group of the same species extinct since they may be separated from each other physically and can not reproduce.
Correct. Human beings are not the most efficient runners or the strongest creatures on the planet. If our environment changed in such a way that unassisted running or lifting of heavy objects became a critical necessity for our survival, it's likely that human beings would become extinct. We've seen this sort of scenario in the past with other species and it is accurately predicted by the theory of evolution.
If God is not physical, than how can he manifest his will in the physical realm?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
[
Jesus Christ had plainly taught that you ought to remove parts of your body which will make you commit sins (MT 5:29-30, 18:8-9, MK 9:43-47), which means that free will ought to go.
Also, why do physical evils exist? Why don't we have a very nicely warm climate without natural disasters? And why are we the victim of disease organisms, bloodsucking insects, etc.?
At least apes look almost human and act almost human in a lot of ways.
And since you seem so willing to pass judgment on it, why don't you explain to us how it works?
And read your Bible. Deut. 7:1-5 tells us:When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.
In effect, the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question, which the Book of Joshua describes him and his armies as having performed.
Veils of Maya said:
Correct. Human beings are not the most efficient runners or the strongest creatures on the planet. If our environment changed in such a way that unassisted running or lifting of heavy objects became a critical necessity for our survival, it's likely that human beings would become extinct. We've seen this sort of scenario in the past with other species and it is accurately predicted by the theory of evolution.
I must have missed class that afternoon, could you refresh my memory to the scenario's that have caused extinction in the past due to unassisted running/lifting?
Thank you
I think it is more likely that Nightline knows that if they appear atheist-friendly they are likely to lose viewers. And they are probably right. Most Christians cannot handle hearing any criticism of their beliefs. Kudos to the theists who come to these forums for real discussion. My wife will not allow me to discuss the Bible with her. She doesn't want to hear it.
I have actually been thinking along the same lines. To some degree we have that in the Universalist Unitarian churches but there still seems to be some lingering mysticism even there. I have been to 2 services at my local church. The minister is a former 7th Day Adventist minister turned atheistic UU pastor. It was pretty cool. The entire service was focused on humanity rather than divinity. We had a guest speaker from Sudan describing how bad the situation was in his country. There was singing and a choir. People shared "joys" and "concerns". I really liked it.
Maybe we should start attending the UU churches. Imagine the difference we could make if UU was as big as the Catholic Church. I sort of like NOT going to church on Sunday but I'll do it if I can help build a welcoming alternative community for good people who need such things and fall into religion as the only apparent option.
Actually, there is a lot to be said for atheist gatherings. I am part of a new group in San Diego in which the charter is to get together socially and not focus on bagging on religion. It is too easy when we get together with likeminded atheists to swap war stories and share our frustrations with "crazy Christians". But if instead of doing that we focus on doing positive things for our community, maybe we can begin to dispel the "angry atheist" image.
I don't know the answer. I'm just glad I'm not the only one looking for ways out of this dangerous place we've wandered into.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Is there somewhere I can get more info on the UU?
That is exactly what I had in mind. Not so much to talk about anti religion but just a place we can all get together and network. Oh and it's not easy finding a good atheist woman in this world LOL! Especially not in Texas.
Seriously though the community in a church is the big attraction for many people. I'd like a church I could go to just not one that wants to indoctrinate me.
I have finally had a chance to read over the responses to my post, here are my replies to a few things I have read.
To the gentlemen that said I was just rehashing things that had been said here before:
I had only seen the debate and was responding to what I had seen there, it obviously looked from the debate that the people taking part in the debate were not familiar with these ideas of christianity, so If these topics have been discussed here before I do apologize for bringing them up again, and wasting anyone time, sincerely. I had not had time to go through all these threads and the link to this forum is a headline from your home page so this is where I posted. Mr Sapient says in one of the videos on your home page that Christians are welcome here, I thought he was sincere, now I see it was just bait for Christian bashing.
To the gentleman that said "why didn't GOD save the virgin girls": I would refer him to my last paragraph where I talked about evolutionists being very forgiving to themselves in thier evidence for evolution, but expecting theists to explain everything down to the smallest detail.
To the gentleman that said he found that most of the google search returns for evolution discrepansies were a majority Christian web sites therefore "christians don't want to believe in evolution", I could easily respond they are there because alot of people in general have doubts about evolution.
I guess what has bothered me the most about this website are the many claims about wanting to "wipe out christianity". As intellegent as the people that here are, and I am being sincere not snide I have seen some intelligent things here, you must realize that to wipe out christianity you you would have to wipe out all christians? I doubt we are all going to change our minds based on a theory that is still widely debated almost continuously. I thought this website was for general discussion and debate on topics of evolution and creation, atheism and theism. But instead I find that people want me dead (wiped out) simply because I disagree with what they believe and my beliefs are different from thier own????
Are you sure you guys aren't muslim?
It doesn't seem to me that this "wiping out of christianity" that you are trying to accomplish is any more horrendous than the tragedies you have accused GOD perfroming in the bible.
You want to kill me, my family all my friends and the people I care about because we don't agree with you?
Had I known what this site really was I would have left you to you endless logic loops and not tried to enter a discussion on any of these forums.
Good Luck with your attempted Genecide, i guess.
Hi Sara,
I'll try to address some of these, though I don't have much time tonight...
This may be directed more towards Scottmax, as I am not as concerned with these vague deistic possibilities that may also infer Pink Unicorns, aliens, or whatever. I am more curious about the claims of theism.
First off, math and science are properties intrinsic to this universe, they were only invented, to my knowledge, in the sense that for example the shape of the "#2" is not floating around out there (i.e. the system symbology). Okay, rather than me explaining this, I'm going to give you a good link that, based on the "the odds of monkeys typing jibberish producing Shakespeare"/ "it's all random" arguments, will hopefully elucidate how order is necessarily multiplied exponentially in random events. If this order can be shown to arise without a designer, there is no need to posit one.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html
Well this sounds like some kind of Jungian archetypal truth, which is demonstrably false: two people stand next to a dog. One was mauled by a dog as a youth and the other was saved by a dog (the one with the flask of booze around its neck). You're telling me that they will ascribe the same value to dogs? We must ascribe value to the animal relative to the situation. What exactly do you mean by existing "overall"?
Compassion and sacrifice are not radical redefinitions of personal desire. They are projections of the kind of world we want to live in.
Based upon a system that He created. That's what I want you to admit, that He created evil to teach us what to avoid. Is that true or not? Did you see my "Argument from Experience for the Non-Existence of an Omniscient and/or Omni-benevolent God" above? What do you think of that?
I really can't see how Christianity is more altruistic than humanism. There is clearly a reward/punishment motivation demonstrated throughout the bible. If I choose to take a loss for humanity because I want the world to be a certain way, and that is my only reward, selfish or not, it can stand up integrally to any reward/punishment motivation.
There are enough poor moral laws that I don't have to refer to the 500 or so "ritual laws" supposedly nulified by Col 2:16, Gal. 2:19 (so you're taking Paul's side over Jesus in Matt. 5:17-19?). God demanded that stubborn and rebellious children be executed by stoning (Deut. 21:18-21). God demanded that a woman who marries who is not a virgin on her wedding night be executed by stoning (Deut. 22:13-21). Are these just as applicable today Sara?
Some apologists try to break up Old Testament laws into separate categories in order to give themselves more flexibility in their interpretation, treatment, and durability (not to be confused with Aquinas’ distinction of laws as eternal, natural, human, and divine). According to some apologists, there are: a. Universal moral laws (most of which, most people agree upon, excluding their origins) b. Cultural universals (e.g. applying only to Israel) c. Ceremonial laws (instructions for cleanliness, building the Ark, etc.). Each should be treated with different levels of regard and disregard today. Does God ever, anywhere, describe how or even if His will should be distinguished, dissected, or reinterpreted (temporally contingent) into these three (or more) malleable mediums in time? Isn’t most every single law in category “a” conveniently interchangeable with category “b” and vice versa? Consider the first few Commandments in the so called "Ethical Decalogue" that overlap with the "Ritual Decalogue." Are/were some or all of the rituals performed in order to please God or man or both? If some rituals are/were for man (e.g. Jesus/Sabbath) and not God, why was non-observance of these rituals often considered a sin punishable by death (e.g. breaking the Sabbath) or the object to be avoided considered an “abomination to God” (Pork and shellfish "abominations"
? If we look at both versions of the Ten Commandments, the Ritual Decalogue (Ex. 34:14-26- isn't this supposed to be the same as the one that was smashed? Isn't it the only one actually labeled the Ten Commandments?) has some crucial overlapping Commandments with the Ethical Decalogue (Ex. 20:2-17). Has the law against breaking the Sabbath and making and worshipping other gods been abolished with the Ritual Decalogue or does the overlapping of Commandments between the two lists actually show us that ritual actions are very often also moral actions in themselves (because they are actions towards God Himself and are impossible to distinguish from other moral actions?) Psalms 119:151-152 reads, “Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.” If this is an example of such a distinction (between “commandments” and “testimonies”- assuming he is individualizing them), is there any differentiation of quality or treatment mentioned? In Ezekiel 20:25, God admits that He also gave the Israelites “statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live.” Which ones were those exactly? 2 Tim. 3:16 reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Can one use outdated moral laws as instruction in righteousness or doctrine? Doesn’t Paul say all scripture without distinction and shouldn’t he have clearly made such a distinction if there was/is one? Does it make sense that God would make a moral guide with an indistinguishable mix of temporary/absolute, relevant/irrelevant moral laws, which in themselves, require a handful of experts (in the speculative fields of ancient history, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, etc.) who are qualified to interpret them? When considering Mat. 5:17-19, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot and one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, ‘til all be fulfilled. Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, ye shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven,” wouldn’t it have been crucial for clarity that Jesus emphasize such categorical distinctions when He said, “...one of these least commandments…” in a moral guide intended for many cultures throughout the ages (no matter how supposedly obvious it was to them at the time it occurred or was written) instead of "summing up" as you put it?
I think I was not clear enough, "Don't all people want to offer their neighbor a principle for aversion to harm for their own wellbeing" (I meant the person offering the aversion, but yes, it is for both)? The bible offers moral principles but, in fact, isn't everything it offers ultimately for "His good pleasure"?
I like this argument against egoism, though as described above, sacrifices made for the greater good (advancement or well being of the species), are at least on par with reward/punishment motivation. We haven't even got into the effects of consciousness and how that effects our morality (as opposed to merely genetic influence). Okay, let me ask you a hypothetical ethical question: Would you burn in Hell forever so that someone may live in heaven forever (for example, if you knew your child would grow up a heretic, would you kill your sinless infant to deter its life of sin? [of course, you may think your child is full of sin])?
That's what our democratically based laws attempt to decide. They are emperically based on the mistakes of history and objective emperical evidence of what we decide makes us happy as a society. That's the best we can do. You want absolute laws, but they cannot be applied to every circumstance. The parameters for every circumstance change with each moment in the flux of nature, so an absolute moral law is empty. You surely see it in the conflicting qualifications over "thou shall not kill" alone (there are some Christian pacifists, yet others will allow killing in times of war, defense, for God, etc.). More in depth on this is the podcast link I posted earlier with Alonzo Fyfe on The Debate Hour. Subscribe to the site (you get the infidel guy show/the debate hour/faith and freethought all in one subscription) for free and check it out. One thing is for certain, biblical laws do not make society any more happy, healthy, or functional.
So why would chimps and humans have the same insertion points and other animals do not? Is God trying to confuse us? This reminds me of the "earth was made to look old" argument. Implausible.
Humans cannot synthesize vitamin C and we can see where the gene was broken, yet other animals can synthesize vitamin C (e.g. dogs, cats, etc.). Chimps (and gerbils?) also have this same broken vitamin C gene. Another coincidence, considering endogenous retroviruses, genetic similarities, fossil record, etc.?
Then I'm sorry to say that you are belying the truth by downplaying the key component of natural selection and its function to multiply order exponentially (or you don't fully understand it). Natural selection is not random, it is affected conditionally.
There is an element of chance, yes, and it can favor less adaptable beings over more adaptable ones (a bomb in a war that kills the smartest/strongest), but I think this is just the exception and not the dominant tendency. As I said, natural selection is not random. Just because chance may effect the outcome doesn't make it so any more than a bomb dropped on a guy doing a math problem negates addition.
That's true, but I don't understand the question. Are you asking why do things want to survival? They don't always want to survive.
That is exactly my point which I expanded in another post. Why not give humans the absolute knowledge of God's existence (but not enough to "overwhelm our free will"
like He did with OT characters, Satan, etc., and make the whole salvation plan a strictly moral decision? I mean a clear cut "I exist, now do my will or else you'll suffer"- and I'm not talking about relying on inherited, corruptable, ancient manuscripts from some tribal cults from the Bronze Age, transcribed and retranslated, etc.
That's not a good answer. It is related. It's all the parameters of potentiality that God would have to consider before physical creation.
Sorry. This whole universe is still a manifestation of His will/plan and is quite convoluted. All the variation and division we see is intrinsic to His plan and supposedly conceived before creation.
I don't think that was Dawkins intention- even if it was, he is not speaking for me now.
Thanks for the thoughtful posts Sara.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Exactly. Thank you Veils of Maya
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Whoa dude! You don't seriously think that?!? Are you playing? "Wipe out Christianity" is not to be conflated with "wipe out Christians"... my family are all devout Christians and I love them to death! I think you see what you want to see.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Speaking for myself, since it's fundamentalist Christians who've commandeered my secular Constitutional Republic and are a threat to our First Amendment freedoms, it is they who bear the most scrutiny and the burden of proving why Americans should continue to give Christianity a "pass," or any more influence in matters of public policy than they would Scientology. This is the 21st century, and although I respect the right of individuals to cling to their myths as they see fit, I refuse to extend such respect to superstitious ideas and magical thinking when they so clearly hinder human progress.
When we've got a Muslim president who's wiping his ass with the Constitution and talking to Allah the way GW talks to Jesus, free thinkers will be on their irrational ideas and unconstitutional meddling in our freedoms like the proverbial stink on shit, too... don't you worry 'bout that!
Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.
This forum is like a car wreck... and I can't look away... though I should probably go eat something...
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
Hi Sara. Veils of Maya addressed many of the issues I would have so I will address just these few:
Meaning does exist locally. We humans perceive the world primarily through our eyes, then our ears, then to a lesser degree with our noses. If I were to assign percentages off the top of my head I guess I'd call it 65% visual, 25% auditory, 10% olfactory. Our eyes interpret waves of lights and paint an image in our minds of "colors". But color is just an analog representation of a certain wave length of energy. If the lights are off, we can't build a mental image of our surroundings with sound or smell.
Contrast this with an insectivorous bat. They have poor eyesight but instead use echolocation. This echolocation is so precise that not only can the bat navigate a cave in complete darkness, but can actually identify and locate the exact position of their insect prey in flight. If a bat's ears get injured or clogged they are unable to receive the reflected echoes, and thus lose their ability to echolocate.
So I wonder what sort of picture a bat's brain paints? Does the bat perceive echolocation the same way we perceive sight? Do hard objects have a different "color" than soft objects?
Likewise sharks have an ability to sense electrical vibrations. We have no way of envisioning what this sense must be like. It has no real meaning to us.
The point is that even in the purely physical realm, meaning is completely dependent on our most precise senses.
Sorry but if you kill someone for being a homosexual or for working on the sabbath, we will put you in jail. These OT laws have most certainly been trumped by our more enlightened society. The idea that we should look to a book from the dawn of civilization, from our barbarous past, to find relevent morality for today, it just absurd to me.
No, this principle was stated by Confucius and Buddha completely independently of the Bible. This is the base of human morality across cultures.
That would be true if we were tigers. But we are social animals. We have attained our special location in the animal kingdom because we are cooperative, not solitary creatures. It would be hard for speech to evolve among loners.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
So, let me get this strsight, atheists are now going to church to prove they don't worship a God that they don't think exists? Makes sense...
Jabwoky,
My example was hypothetical. I'm unaware of a specific scenario where a species becomes extinct because of unassisted running or lifting. I used these characteristics because humans are not the most efficient at either task. While we are more intelligent, other species can run faster and lift heavier objects than we can. If the survival of human beings hinged on performing these tasks unassisted under extreme conditions, we might become extinct, while others species would not.
To clarify... We've seen rapid changes in environment have similar effects on well established species in the past. This sort of results is accurately predicted by the theory of evolution.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Then by the same excuse used by others on this site, in accordance with their comparison to stories in the Bible, are not all the posts you have written now moot? just wondering here... they do require everything here to be perfectly explained the same way by all people at all times, or all of the writings are declared moot.
I apologize if I missed something while browsing through the 24+ pages of this thread but I didn't see much on these topics. First off I always enjoy seeing these kinds of debates because it's always a slaughter.
Cameron and Comfort really failed to prove their point since most of their points were that you need to truly accept and believe in god to accept that god exists and then brought forth nothing that resembled scientific evidence. Their lines were nothing new and RRS blew them out of the water for the most part.
However there were two points I really wished RRS had touched upon a bit more (I know they were pressed for time but I think they warranted some priority). First off was evolution which they (C&C) weren't very open to understanding. More specifically I believe that mechanisms of speciation would have been a great way to respond to Cameron's microevolution.
Second was transitional forms, Cameron demanded the fossils for a Crocduck. Sapiant made the point of variation in everyone but a much much better point is the recently discovered Tiktaalik roseae. For a lack of a better description it's a Crocfish that would completely blast apart in a very obvious way the denial of transitional forms.
So yeah, I realize that the point was if C&C could prove god's existance and that the RSS only had to provide a rebuttle to those but the two pieces would have been great points to have been brought up.
Aside from those the only thing I would have liked to have seen was a bit more in the way of behavior. I don't want to beat the dead horse but saying that Cameron was a numbnut right into the mic was rather poor form. Even though God knows we were all thinking it. [sic]
Edit: i before e except after c or when sounding like a as in neighbor or weigh...unless it's just weird.
Jesus saves....he passes to Moses...Moses shoots..he scores!!!!
All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
Bio Anthro whooo (´･ω･｀)
Here is their website.
Looks like there are several in Houston:
UU in Houston
I hear you. Another good option is meetup.com. That's how I found my local atheist social group.
Yeah, you might want to check those UU churches and see if the ministers have blogs. That's how I learned of the atheism of our local UU church's minister. The UU churches seem to have a pretty large atheist contingent, but I'm not sure it is a majority. Still, it is probably the best existing institution for us to build on.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Cop out. You have no answer so you are deflecting.
Yes there is a lot of doubt among religious folks whose faith is challenged by evolution.
No, we just have to make the idea of believing in the Bible laughable. It make take a few centuries but every journey begins with the first step.
No one here has advocated violence. Most of us who want to "wipe out" religion view you as one of the victims. Would you like to "wipe out" cults that prey on college kids?
I apologize if that is the message you have gotten. We are not very literal minded here.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
No. Many people cannot leave Christianity because it is their community. The greatest thing a church provides is a place for people with little else in common to come together and sing, socialize and discuss. The Unitarians have been doing that without doctrine for hundreds of years. John Adams was a Unitarian. Thomas Jefferson said "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."
Guess what my daughter did at the UU Sunday school? She learned about ecology and then they planted a tree. After that, they learned how to make a solar still. Cool stuff.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Hmm, I see a strong desire for rational dialogue may be missing here. Science is always tweaking and adjusting to fit the facts on the ground. Religion is fixed and unchanging. We have no need to be correct in every statement or analogy. And if you did not grasp Veils' point, that just might be because you are used to thinking a bit too literally.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Wow, that's pretty cool looking:
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
Dude I can't even read your posts with that big tongue sticking out at me like that. Get the behind me Satan!
Checked it out, not really what I was looking for. It seems they are trying to be a church where people from all faiths can get together. Atheism isn't really a faith so I don't think that's something I'd be interested in. I don't really need exposure to other faiths and such I grew up Pentacostal and I've studied the bible and about the books of the bible extensively. In fact it was my study of the bible that opened my eyes to atheism.
People believe in religions because they are afraid that this life is all they have. I understand that fear and I share it but I would rather live life in reality than find out at the moment of my death that I'd wasted my entire life believing in fiction. Trust me it's so much easier to believe in god. It's not easy being honest.
Yeah religion tries to say it's absolute, that is until the get caught in a lie. The world is flat = lie. The universe revolves around the earth = lie. There is no life on other planets = lie. The shroud of turin was jesus's burial clothe = lie. The world began 6000 years ago = lie.
Why is it that when the church gets caught lying to their own followers that the followers don't get upset. They get mad at science because science can't as of yet prove the theory of evolution but they don't get mad when their own church gets caught lying to them.
I got an example.
There's a pretty interesting theory floating around right now that one possible explanation for why Homo Neanderthalis went extinct is because they were unable to adapt to a new hunting style. Their heavy spear hunting technology stayed pretty much the same for the thousands of years they were around, and some researchers have done tests that suggest these big heavy spears are really hard to throw, so you can really only hunt effectively with them by sneaking up close to an animal and stabbing it at short range. This style of hunting would also be appropriate for the heavy neantherthal physique and consistent with patterns of severe injuries on the bones that suggest they were often crunched at close range by big animals.
This hunting style was fine when the climate of Northern Europe produced heavy forests that were good for sneaking and pouncing. But when the climate changed (at about the time they went extinct) and the forests thinned out, the theory says they weren't able to adapt to a new hunting style and so they starved to death.
Evidence is still coming in, and this is just one plain example off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many many more.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
First off, I'm not a writer. This is an online message board, not a published scientific paper. Nor do I claim to be inspired by a all knowing, all seeing God. If I was all seeing, I would have known in advanced that my writing would have been misinterpreted and would have made it more clear.
Second, I described a "what if" situation where a well established species (humans) became extinct because of a relatively sudden change in environment (requirement for specific physical abilities: running / lifting). This is known as a scenario.
The sentence "We've seen this sort of scenario in the past with other species and it is accurately predicted by the theory of evolution." refers to the fact that other well established species have become extinct due to environment changes which they could not quickly adapt to. Had I specifically wanted denote running and lifting, I would have said "this exact scenario" instead of "this sort of scenario."
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.