Florida Revival
(or Christianity Astray)
Can you believe that this stuff is actually happening in the church today, the 21st century.
This really makes me sad.
posted by Ephemeral Mortal at 12:50 am
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Previous Posts
- The DarknessWhere I am right now. Hope to see you ...
- My head hurtsJust a quick note to mention the book...
- Par for the course...As I mentioned in a previous ...
- ...And Relax"Wherefore seeing we also are compasse...
- Scientology...Scient - WHAT?I don't know whether a...
- Change of IntentI started this blog with the inten...
- "...Professing themselves to be wise, they became ...
- Saddam's Deplorable Treatment!I see that the big n...
- Another One For The WatchTowerOne of the most prom...
- Sorry For the Silence (Part 2)!For the few people ...
19 Comments:
Well. I see someone following thier religious beliefs. What do you see? A nutjob?
Precisely!
The problem is, he's following some twisted religious belief and claiming it's Christianity.
But how do you know that this man isn't in some holy trance? And that dead people are rising all over the place as he said? He even brought up bible passages?
How can your convinctions be so strong, that you would immediately dismiss this guy as nuts, while you commit belief to something that some other people would consider quite bizarre?
This is designed to offend you, it's to show you that when one person is of a certain belief, there is an inherent bias against any other events that arent INTERPRETED to be supernatural. Do you not see a double standard?
i meant to say ISNT designed to offend you :p
Reality Junkie said:"But how do you know that this man isn't in some holy trance? And that dead people are rising all over the place as he said? He even brought up bible passages?"
First of all, I don't know what you mean by holy trance - and if he is in some kind of trance that causes him to let go of rational thought, then that's even more reason to disregard his claims.
I very much doubt that a single dead person actually came back to life - and I mean someone who was obviously dead for a considerable length of time...otherwise it would be all over the news and front pages of the newspapers.
Don't listen to everyone who simply quotes Bible passages. You can make the Bible mean whatever you want to, just like you can with any statement.
Reality Junkie said: "How can your convinctions be so strong, that you would immediately dismiss this guy as nuts, while you commit belief to something that some other people would consider quite bizarre?"
There is only one standard of absolute truth...and that's the Bible. So when we see someone doing things or making claims about anything, especially if they have anything to do with Christianity, we measure those claims by the truth claims contained in the Bible. If they agree with the claims contained in the Bible, then we agree that what is happening is legitimate and in accordance with truth. But if they don't (and this guy's claims are a mile wide of the mark), then we must conclude that his claims are untrue and the product of his own mind.
Whether people consider the truth claims of the Bible bizarre is neither here nor there - they're either true or not, whatever people consider them to be, and I, and others like me consider them to be true.
Reality Junkie said: "This is [not]designed to offend you, it's to show you that when one person is of a certain belief, there is an inherent bias against any other events that arent INTERPRETED to be supernatural. Do you not see a double standard?"
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, but just to clarify, I'm in no way denying the supernatural...what I am doing is distancing genuine Christianity from this sideshow that masquerades as Christianity.
The problem is, it's this same concept of 'absolute truth' that causes mainstream religions to clash in the first place, it is the reason Islamic fundamentalists can be dangerous people.
I have developed my morality based on the things i have experianced. Do you not think that submitting to a religion stops this development, because you instantly adopted the morals that the religious denomination you are in percieves as truth?
The Catholic Church uses divine law to justify it's abhorrence of contraception.
Muslims use divine law to encourage the suppression of women.
Do you not think this kind of thinking is dangerous?
Reality Junkie said:"The problem is, it's this same concept of 'absolute truth' that causes mainstream religions to clash in the first place, it is the reason Islamic fundamentalists can be dangerous people."
I agree in a sense, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to abandon the search for absolute truth or to deny that absolute truth exists (which is what a lot of people today do). You should instead examine which version of 'the truth' rings most true. I mean, you don't seriously think that God sanctions individuals to go around willy nilly, blowing themselves and thousands of other innocent people up? This is obviously the product of evil people's minds.
Reality Junkie said:"I have developed my morality based on the things i have experianced. Do you not think that submitting to a religion stops this development, because you instantly adopted the morals that the religious denomination you are in percieves as truth?"
Firstly, I don't agree that you developed your morality yourself. You knew the difference between right and wrong way before you ever knew what morality was. You don't have to teach a young child that something is wrong when they do it, they know it already (i've seen this in action with my own children and grandchildren). You have a conscience that was given to you. You didn't develop it.
Secondly, it's not about what anyone perceives as truth. There is only one truth, and it can be known and found in the Bible. If the Bible is examined and allowed to say what it clearly does say, and not to say what people want it to say, then it stands up to the closest scrutiny. This is not true of any other system of thought or science. They all crumble under scrutiny.
Whether the religion stops the development you are talking about depends on which religion you mean. Islamism probably does and Roman Catholicism probably does too. And you're right, this kind of thinking is dangerous. But neither Roman Catholicism nor Islamism are Christianity. And genuine Christianity doesn't do anything like this. I mean, the morality of Christianity reflects what God himself is like, and is contained in the Ten Commandments.There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about these, surely anyone will admit that...they are instinctively agreeable to the sane human consciousness. No stealing, lying, murdering,wanting what's not yours etc. If the whole world lived by this, there would be no war, no overcrowded prisons...what's wrong with that? The problem is, people can't live by these rules. They want the freedom to be able to hate when they want or need to; steal and lie when they want or need to. They don't like it because it interferes with their sexual freedom. But see how society is breaking down largely because the family is breaking down, and this largely because people can't stop lusting after things they shouldn't be. These commandments are not restrictive, they're protection...we need to be protected from ourselves.
"I agree in a sense, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to abandon the search for absolute truth or to deny that absolute truth exists (which is what a lot of people today do). You should instead examine which version of 'the truth' rings most true. I mean, you don't seriously think that God sanctions individuals to go around willy nilly, blowing themselves and thousands of other innocent people up? This is obviously the product of evil people's minds."
No, and neither do you. But there are people who do, as twisted as we may conceive it to be, they see us as evil.
My point is, as strong as your faith is, there is someone out there who has a faith just as strong, but in a completely different kind of god, a different kind of rulebook, and ultimately, a differing take on moral actions. How can this be explained? Do you think it is adequate (to yourself, not to me, or anyone else) to just say 'well I know that my God is real and my holy book is truth, hence they are all wrong'?. If multiple religions contain people who think like this, how can they ever reconcile?
I am talking mainly about people who take thier scripture literally, and are fixed in thier moral convinction, with the powerful reinforcement of divine support.
"Firstly, I don't agree that you developed your morality yourself. You knew the difference between right and wrong way before you ever knew what morality was. You don't have to teach a young child that something is wrong when they do it, they know it already (i've seen this in action with my own children and grandchildren). You have a conscience that was given to you. You didn't develop it."
But I have. Otherwise, I wouldn't have decided only two years ago that homosexuality was natural and should be tolerated (my anti-homosexual feelings were not religiously derived, i was just repelled and as a result looked down on homosexuals.). This, to me, and surely to you, is quite a moral shift to make.
Sure, I didn't learn yesterday that punching someone in the head is the best way to deal with a disagreement, and I agree that we are all hardwired with deep instictual urges that drive us as a social race forward. When you say my conscience was 'given' to me, I raise an eyebrow. Why should I think that my ability to discern and label things as right or wrong is divinely bestowed?
"Secondly, it's not about what anyone perceives as truth. There is only one truth, and it can be known and found in the Bible. If the Bible is examined and allowed to say what it clearly does say, and not to say what people want it to say, then it stands up to the closest scrutiny. This is not true of any other system of thought or science. They all crumble under scrutiny."
Are you sure about that? May I search for and grab a passage or two that may say otherwise?
And by the way, do you also believe wholly in the Old Testament? I know a lot of Christians that actually ignore the Old Testament altogether. That would make them misguided in your opinion, yes?
"Whether the religion stops the development you are talking about depends on which religion you mean. Islamism probably does and Roman Catholicism probably does too. And you're right, this kind of thinking is dangerous. But neither Roman Catholicism nor Islamism are Christianity. And genuine Christianity doesn't do anything like this. I mean, the morality of Christianity reflects what God himself is like, and is contained in the Ten Commandments.There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about these, surely anyone will admit that...they are instinctively agreeable to the sane human consciousness. No stealing, lying, murdering,wanting what's not yours etc. If the whole world lived by this, there would be no war, no overcrowded prisons...what's wrong with that? The problem is, people can't live by these rules. They want the freedom to be able to hate when they want or need to; steal and lie when they want or need to. They don't like it because it interferes with their sexual freedom. But see how society is breaking down largely because the family is breaking down, and this largely because people can't stop lusting after things they shouldn't be. These commandments are not restrictive, they're protection...we need to be protected from ourselves."
What about the moral code of Hinduism? It is quite a respectful code, it encourages ethical and honest behavior.
A transcript reads:
"There is one all-pervading Atman. It is the innermost soul of all beings. This is the common, pure consciousness. If you injure your neighbour, you really injure yourself. If you injure any other creature, you really injure yourself, because the whole world is nothing but your own Self."
A bit trippy, I imagine, and Hindus have a history of being very malign and peaceful. However, thier scriptures teach an absolute truth, with an absolute moral code.
Eternal damnation is not included in Hinduism, as reincarnation is an important aspect of the belief system.
"...postulates a series of births, and proclaims that the sorrows and sufferings of each life, like its joys, are the result of our karmas (deeds) in our past lives. Consequently the Hindus do not speak of eternal damnation, as the Christians and Muslims do. The Buddha too believed in karmas and cycle of births because he was the product of the Vedic tradition. "
There is certainly nothing unreasonable about Hindu morality, in fact, I'd be quite happy to adopt it.
While pre-marital sex is frowned on in Hinduism, it is not divinely forbidden, (same deal with homosexuality). Hence, one can commit either it without any fear of divine retribution.
This would heavily conflict with the absolute truth you believe you are subscribed to. Yet, there are those with unshakeable belief in such things.
What thoughts come to mind when such a paradox occurs (numerous claims of absolute morality, which all differ)?
Reality Junkie Said: "My point is, as strong as your faith is, there is someone out there who has a faith just as strong, but in a completely different kind of god, a different kind of rulebook, and ultimately, a differing take on moral actions.How can this be explained?"
Absolutely. But the strength of thier faith makes no difference whatsoever if the object of their faith is a figment of thier imagination. I've have no doubt that they are very sincere...but there is such a thing as being sincerely wrong.
I can sincerely believe that the force of gravity doesn't exist...but no matter how much I believe that, it won't help me if I jump off a 100 story building.
Reality junkie said:"Do you think it is adequate (to yourself, not to me, or anyone else) to just say 'well I know that my God is real and my holy book is truth, hence they are all wrong'?."
No I don't. I encourage everybody to look at the conflicting truths for themselves, and see which ones can be shown to be not true (or not).
Reality Junkie said:
"If multiple religions contain people who think like this, how can they ever reconcile?"
That's exactly the point, they cannot reconcile, and no-one in their right mind would want them to. Christianity stands totally alone when compared to all other world religions, and it cannot be reconciled with any of them...they have absolutely nothing in common.
Realit junkie said: "But I have. Otherwise, I wouldn't have decided only two years ago that homosexuality was natural and should be tolerated (my anti-homosexual feelings were not religiously derived, i was just repelled and as a result looked down on homosexuals.). This, to me, and surely to you, is quite a moral shift to make."
But you've gone against you're already existent morality (your conscience) that was telling you that homosexuality was wrong. Did anyone have to teach you that it was wrong before you decided to go against your feeling that it was wrong? I always have and still do feel that homosexualtiy is absolutely wrong, even before I was a Christian(I haven't always been a Christian, only relatively recently actually). No-one taught me that. Having said that, I don't look down on homosexuals, but I do disagree with their sexual behaviour, but no more than I disagree with the sexual behaviour of a married man who has multiple sexual partners.
Reality Junkie said:"Sure, I didn't learn yesterday that punching someone in the head is the best way to deal with a disagreement, and I agree that we are all hardwired with deep instictual urges that drive us as a social race forward. When you say my conscience was 'given' to me, I raise an eyebrow. Why should I think that my ability to discern and label things as right or wrong is divinely bestowed?"
Because there's no other adequate explanation of where it came from.
Reality Junkie said: "Are you sure about that? May I search for and grab a passage or two that may say otherwise?"
Be my guest.
Reality Junkie said: "And by the way, do you also believe wholly in the Old Testament? I know a lot of Christians that actually ignore the Old Testament altogether. That would make them misguided in your opinion, yes?"
Yes and Yes.
Reality Junkie Said: "What about the moral code of Hinduism? It is quite a respectful code, it encourages ethical and honest behavior.
A transcript reads:
"There is one all-pervading Atman. It is the innermost soul of all beings. This is the common, pure consciousness. If you injure your neighbour, you really injure yourself. If you injure any other creature, you really injure yourself, because the whole world is nothing but your own Self."
A bit trippy, I imagine, and Hindus have a history of being very malign and peaceful. However, thier scriptures teach an absolute truth, with an absolute moral code.
Eternal damnation is not included in Hinduism, as reincarnation is an important aspect of the belief system.
"...postulates a series of births, and proclaims that the sorrows and sufferings of each life, like its joys, are the result of our karmas (deeds) in our past lives. Consequently the Hindus do not speak of eternal damnation, as the Christians and Muslims do. The Buddha too believed in karmas and cycle of births because he was the product of the Vedic tradition. "
There is certainly nothing unreasonable about Hindu morality, in fact, I'd be quite happy to adopt it.
While pre-marital sex is frowned on in Hinduism, it is not divinely forbidden, (same deal with homosexuality). Hence, one can commit either it without any fear of divine retribution."
But what is the Hindu moral code - it's the same as all other non Christian moral codes - it's a twisted version of the Biblical moral code. What has invariably happened throughout history is that people have taken the Biblical moral code (either from the Bible or from the inherent knowledge of it they have by nature) and have twisted and modified it to suit thier own ends. What you must understand about the Bible is that it is steeped in historical fact and historical events, not just the moral code...so the Bible is verifiable, and has always proved to be so. Hinduism is steeped in mysticism and can be shown to be false, so its moral code is neither here nor there.
Reality Junkie said:"This would heavily conflict with the absolute truth you believe you are subscribed to. Yet, there are those with unshakeable belief in such things."
As I said, how unshakable thier belief is doesn't matter, it's whether what they believe is true or not.
Reality Junkie said:"What thoughts come to mind when such a paradox occurs (numerous claims of absolute morality, which all differ)?"
Well I'd argue that these other claims of absolute morality are false. For example, take a part of the statement you cited "...because the whole world is nothing but your own Self."
This statement is patently false. This is pure Pantheism. Your own self is clearly not the whole world. You have to leave your brains on the pillow in the morning to believe this nonsense.
Where did Hinduism come from? Well I don't think anyone really knows. On the other hand Christianity is grounded in historical fact that includes real historical living people. Jesus Christ acknowledged to be the greatest teacher and mind to have ever walked the earth - followed a close second by the Apostle Paul. It's not difficult to establish the authority of the Biblical revelation based on various evidences. For this reason I'd have to reject Hinduism and affirm Christianity. Hinduism cannot explain the world we see around us every day, Christianity can. Hinduism just doesn't make sense, Christianity does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVwY7xkOGwk
I posted some of my thoughts in a video.
"Absolutely. But the strength of thier faith makes no difference whatsoever if the object of their faith is a figment of thier imagination. I've have no doubt that they are very sincere...but there is such a thing as being sincerely wrong."
That statement is patently ridiculous to a person such as myself, who does not submit to any faith. As much as you state the validity of the truth you claim to know, there is always another person from a rival religion with the same mindset.
Would you really say that those people of different religions, or different personalities, are all wrong? You have the truth? Do not see why I think that is amusing?
"I can sincerely believe that the force of gravity doesn't exist...but no matter how much I believe that, it won't help me if I jump off a 100 story building."
The problem with this statement is, that gravity is a conclusively, objectively proven theory. Christianity is hardly that, if it were, then I would be one.
The other problem with that statement is that we all know what happens when a person jumps off a 100-feet high building. They die from the fall.
The two facts that Christianity has no objective, conclusive proof in it's favor, AND that nobody knows for sure what happens if you live a bad life, discredit your claim.
"No I don't. I encourage everybody to look at the conflicting truths for themselves, and see which ones can be shown to be not true (or not)."
I repeat, there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. Christianity remains as special as any other religion/faith, where unproven, untestable premises are adopted. This presents a serious problem for conversion based on a reasonable, logical framework. I don't resist conversion because I'm in denial, or because I am ignorant. I resist it because I apply to it the same rules I apply to a remarkable claim. The same applies to scientists and rational thinkers as a whole. Because of this, we are essentially immune to faith-based conversion.
Does this mean we are doomed to hellfire?
"That's exactly the point, they cannot reconcile, and no-one in their right mind would want them to. Christianity stands totally alone when compared to all other world religions, and it cannot be reconciled with any of them...they have absolutely nothing in common."
Well, this is dangerous, and it's this thinking that will perpetuate human war and conflict. It is definetely not the sole reason for it, but its an important one.
"But you've gone against you're already existent morality (your conscience) that was telling you that homosexuality was wrong. Did anyone have to teach you that it was wrong before you decided to go against your feeling that it was wrong? I always have and still do feel that homosexualtiy is absolutely wrong, even before I was a Christian(I haven't always been a Christian, only relatively recently actually). No-one taught me that. Having said that, I don't look down on homosexuals, but I do disagree with their sexual behaviour, but no more than I disagree with the sexual behaviour of a married man who has multiple sexual partners."
I touch on this in my video. You will notice that from culture to culture, the conscience that you are 'given' initially can vary quite heavily.
My father, despite being quite secular, was very anti-gay, and grilled my brother for coming out, and he still has not totally accepted it.
My brother has felt this way since he was as young as 10, whilst myself and my other brother have been as straight as a ruler.
In fact, my family was pretty anti-homosexual. The fact that my brother felt so strongly about this for so long, and came out despite the battering he would take, shows courage, not perversion.
He genuinely prefers to find romance with another man, because he simply prefers it. And to tell him that it is wrong, and to place him on the same platform as a polygamist, I think is very unfair.
Religions like Christainity have carried on the prejudice and hatred against social minorities such as homosexuals not because it was genuinely evil, but because they did not understand it, and were frightened of it. Not frightened in a explicit way, but simply fearful of touching it.
"Because there's no other adequate explanation of where it came from."
This one for me, I can hope to really return as an eye-opener. It's this point of view that should of been left behind centuries ago.
Would you apply this principle to everything else today that we do not fully understand? There is no adequate explanation that explains crop circles. Divinely inspired?
What about the fact that we sleep? Is that something God gave to us because we don't understand how it works, how it came to be? Where on earth is the reasoning behind that? Why would you think that assuming a magical being created it is the natural course of thought to take when presented with such a problem?
"Be my guest."
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Nothing flies and has four feet.
An apologist said that it has been noted that some six legged insects use thier back legs to push themselves off into the air when they take flight, and that these passages thus show that the Hebrews understood that one of the 'legs' had a special purpose.
While I do laugh at this explanation, you may not.
I'll throw in a contradiction:
* James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
* Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
But I guess theres an interpretation to had on that one too.
You see, you can interpret the Bible to justify good OR evil; truth OR falsehood. That is why it is from an objective point of view has no more intrinsic value than other holy texts.
This is also why I dislike rummaging in the Bible to play devil's advocate, and simply look at the verses from a flipside interpretation, and why I dislike the Bible itself used as a justification for anything.
"Yes and Yes."
i was going to let loose the Old Testament onto you, but I think there is no point. You are aware that a huge number of Christians consider the Old Testament so barbaric and inane that they actually CHOOSE to omit it's words in regard to thier belief. Talk about cherry picking. By the same token, the contents of the Old Testament portray acts and events that really push the envelope.
"But what is the Hindu moral code - it's the same as all other non Christian moral codes - it's a twisted version of the Biblical moral code. What has invariably happened throughout history is that people have taken the Biblical moral code (either from the Bible or from the inherent knowledge of it they have by nature) and have twisted and modified it to suit thier own ends. What you must understand about the Bible is that it is steeped in historical fact and historical events, not just the moral code...so the Bible is verifiable, and has always proved to be so. Hinduism is steeped in mysticism and can be shown to be false, so its moral code is neither here nor there."
I saw that one coming, and I seriously question the validity of your claim that Hinduism copied and bastardised Christianitie's moral code.
But anyway, why are you acting like Christianity and the Bible is a proven fact? If it was such, it wouldn't be a faith! Your faith-based claims hold little water to me. Only to yourself do they seem like things that should be accepted on thier own merit. It's this dangerous leap into the abyss of religious belief that I view as a plague on people.
"As I said, how unshakable thier belief is doesn't matter, it's whether what they believe is true or not."
Are you implying that Muslims, Hindus etc, do not believe that the things thier religion claim are true? It's all about the strength of thier belief, because you yourself as a testament to what strong convinction can cause a person to say. To say that the Bible is a proven factual historical account is absolute nonsense, and no conclusive proof has even been put forward. In the word of claim-making, there will ALWAYS be a critical eye looking at the claim in question. And the Bible has been made a laughing stock to the point where even practicising Christians will actually OMIT the first half of it so they can feel comfortable with believing in it.
"Well I'd argue that these other claims of absolute morality are false. For example, take a part of the statement you cited "...because the whole world is nothing but your own Self."
This statement is patently false. This is pure Pantheism. Your own self is clearly not the whole world. You have to leave your brains on the pillow in the morning to believe this nonsense.
Where did Hinduism come from? Well I don't think anyone really knows. On the other hand Christianity is grounded in historical fact that includes real historical living people. Jesus Christ acknowledged to be the greatest teacher and mind to have ever walked the earth - followed a close second by the Apostle Paul. It's not difficult to establish the authority of the Biblical revelation based on various evidences. For this reason I'd have to reject Hinduism and affirm Christianity. Hinduism cannot explain the world we see around us every day, Christianity can. Hinduism just doesn't make sense, Christianity does."
The authority of the Bible has left nothing but an aftertaste in the academic community, not because people are frightened, not because people are ignorant or have some sort of agenda, but because it has little credibility when put to the test.
First of all, sorry for the delayed response (been very busy lately).
Reality Junkie said:" That statement is patently ridiculous to a person such as myself, who does not submit to any faith."
So you have no faith in anything? I find that hard to believe. For that to be true you would have to know everything...and I'm sure you'd admit you don't. The fact is, just because you don't align yourself with any organised religion, doesn't mean you don't exercise faith.
Reality Junkie said: "As much as you state the validity of the truth you claim to know, there is always another person from a rival religion with the same mindset."
As I said before, the mindset of the person makes no difference, it's how true is the truth they subscribe to.
Reality Junkie Said: "Would you really say that those people of different religions, or different personalities, are all wrong? You have the truth? Do not see why I think that is amusing? "
es, if they disagree with the Word of God, they are wrong. I don't have the truth and never claimed to, the Bible does, and it's available to anyone.
Reality Junkie Said: "The problem with this statement is, that gravity is a conclusively, objectively proven theory."
Really? Please point me to any scientific literature that actually explains what gravity is in scientific terms?
Reality Junkie Said: "Christianity is hardly that, if it were, then I would be one."
Then you should be, because there's as much factual information to explain Christianity as there is to explain gravity.
Reality Junkie Said: "The two facts that Christianity has no objective, conclusive proof in it's favor AND that nobody knows for sure what happens if you live a bad life, discredit your claim."
As I said, there's as much factual information to explain Christianity as there is to explain gravity. This statement speaks volumes about your understanding of Christianity. You really don't understand it at all do you?
Reality Junkie Said: "I repeat, there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity."
I disagree.
Reality Junkie Said: "Christianity remains as special as any other religion/faith, where unproven, untestable premises are adopted"
You would also have to include neo darwinian evolutionism here as well then.
Reality Junkie Said: "This presents a serious problem for conversion based on a reasonable, logical framework. I don't resist conversion because I'm in denial, or because I am ignorant. I resist it because I apply to it the same rules I apply to a remarkable claim"
Like evolutionism, or Islam, or Hinduism?
Reality Junkie Said: "The same applies to scientists and rational thinkers as a whole. Because of this, we are essentially immune to faith-based conversion"
But you believe in the metaphysical, philosophical belief system called evolution don't you?
Reality Junkie Said: "Does this mean we are doomed to hellfire?"
Yes, but not for the reasons that you think - "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
Reality Junkie Said: "Well, this is dangerous, and it's this thinking that will perpetuate human war and conflict."
How so? You just said that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. The human war and conflict won't come from Christians.
Reality Junkie Said: "I touch on this in my video. You will notice that from culture to culture, the conscience that you are 'given' initially can vary quite heavily."
I don't agree. The conscience we are given initially is the same, but it can be influenced and shaped by the culture or environment it resides in. Even so, there is always a level of morality. As an example, In tribal cultures, while it might be all right for them to murder and eat somebody from another tribe, it is not right for them to eat somebody from their own tribe.
Reality Junkie Said: "Religions like Christainity have carried on the prejudice and hatred against social minorities such as homosexuals not because it was genuinely evil, but because they did not understand it, and were frightened of it. Not frightened in a explicit way, but simply fearful of touching it."
First of all, any prejudice or hatred inflicted by Christians on these groups was and is clearly wrong. Christ never has and never would treat these people in such a way. Having said that, He would clearly show these people that their behaviour was wrong and offensive to a Holy God.
Reality Junkie Said: "Would you apply this principle to everything else today that we do not fully understand?"
If the Word of God has anything to say about it, yes.
Reality Junkie Said: "There is no adequate explanation that explains crop circles. Divinely inspired?"
As I said, no, the Word of God says nothing about crop circles. If it did, and it said they were divinely inspired, then yes.
Reality Junkie Said: "What about the fact that we sleep? Is that something God gave to us because we don't understand how it works, how it came to be? Where on earth is the reasoning behind that? Why would you think that assuming a magical being created it is the natural course of thought to take when presented with such a problem?"
As above.
Reality Junkie Said: "LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Nothing flies and has four feet."
Be very careful here and realise that you are quoting an English translation of a Hebrew text. There are numerous instances in both the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament where the translation into English does lead to some inconsistencies...but remember, the English translations are not inspired, the original language texts are. Having said that, the passage you quoted doesn't teach the anatomy of locusts, but the legitimate foods of the Jews in Old Testament times, which it does just fine.
Reality Junkie Said: "I'll throw in a contradiction:
* James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
* Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
But I guess theres an interpretation to had on that one too."
Yes there is, (the Hebrew word for tempt in Genesis 22:1 is correctly translated test, whereas the Greek word in James 1 means tempt as expected by the context) but I doubt it would satisfy someone such as yourself who refuses to compromise his atheistic presuppositions. Because in reality, that's what it's all about isn't it? It's nothing to do with evidence. The supposed evidence just serves to bolster your atheistic worldview, and silence your conscience. It certainly is the case with me, and I readily admit it. Christianity cannot be proved by scientific evidence...but there is enough evidence there to support my theistic presuppositions. What I find so frustrating is that atheists refuse to admit this (I can't believe they can't see that this is the case). You don't start from a neutral position, consider all the evidence and come to an objective rational conclusion that there is no God. You start with the assumption that there is no God, then gather every bit of evidence you can find that appears to support that assumption. I do the same, only I start with the assumption that there is a God, then gather every bit of evidence I can find that appears to support my assumption. And there's as much to support my position as yours.
Reality Junkie said: "You see, you can interpret the Bible to justify good OR evil; truth OR falsehood."
I agree, but that doesn't make the Bible untrue, just because some idiot wants to interpret it in a way that was never intended, for his own ends.
Reality Junkie Said: "I saw that one coming, and I seriously question the validity of your claim that Hinduism copied and bastardised Christianitie's moral code."
On what basis?
Reality Junkie Said: "But anyway, why are you acting like Christianity and the Bible is a proven fact? If it was such, it wouldn't be a faith!"
I'm not, but I could say the same for your metaphysical evolutionary dogma.
Reality Junkie said: "Your faith-based claims hold little water to me."
As do your faith based evolutionary claims to me.
Reality Junkie said: "Only to yourself do they seem like things that should be accepted on thier own merit."
Ditto.
Reality Junkie said: "It's this dangerous leap into the abyss of religious belief that I view as a plague on people."
Just like evolutionism.
Reality Junkie said: "Are you implying that Muslims, Hindus etc, do not believe that the things thier religion claim are true?"
Not at all...if you read what I wrote I said that they all very sincerely believe that what their religions' claim is true...but the sincerity of their belief does not make what they believe true. As I said, I can very sincerely believe that the earth is flat, but it does not make it so.
Reality Junkie Said: "It's all about the strength of thier belief, because you yourself as a testament to what strong convinction can cause a person to say. To say that the Bible is a proven factual historical account is absolute nonsense, and no conclusive proof has even been put forward."
I think you'll find that it has. Archeaology has verified over and over again the validity of the historical claims in the Bible. As well as contemporary (to the Biblical record) non Biblical literature (Josephus being one example).
Reality Junkie Said: "In the word of claim-making, there will ALWAYS be a critical eye looking at the claim in question. And the Bible has been made a laughing stock to the point where even practicising Christians will actually OMIT the first half of it so they can feel comfortable with believing in it."
I think that statement is a bit of a straw man. No scholar of any worth has ever regarded the Bible as a laughing stock. The only ones that do are people like Richard Dawkins (whose school you seem to have come from), who, because they cannot discredit it in any other way resort to school-yard name calling and intimidation techniques, touting their intellectual prowess and claiming that all Bible believers are ignorant luddites. I don't know of any genuine Christians who regard the Old Testament in this way (unless they've been seriously intimidated and have given way to the liberal so called “intellectual elite”, or were never true Christians in the first place).
Reality Junkie said: "The authority of the Bible has left nothing but an aftertaste in the academic community,..."
Maybe in the liberal, unbelieving academic community.
Reality Junkie said: "...not because people are frightened, not because people are ignorant or have some sort of agenda, but because it has little credibility when put to the test."
That's nonsense. They just don't want to appear to be a bunch of luddites like the ones who believe in the divine authority of scripture.
What tests has it been put to that it has ever failed. If it had, it would be such a laughing stock to all that no-one would believe it. But it has millions of believers past and present in its absolute divine authority and inspiration...and a large number of these people are scholars on a level that make Dawkins look like a schoolboy. But I suppose all these just have a screw loose.
Thanks for replying, I'm very happy that you are taking the time to respond to me.
So you have no faith in anything? I find that hard to believe. For that to be true you would have to know everything...and I'm sure you'd admit you don't. The fact is, just because you don't align yourself with any organised religion, doesn't mean you don't exercise faith.
Let us not confuse definitions here. I mean religion when I say faith. For me to say I do not place faith in anything would be untrue, as I do it on a daily basis. But there is a difference between adopting a religion, complete with a specific moral code and other features (for example, the Bible, the belief in resurrection), and placing expectations in how the world around me works based on what I KNOW.
Now you may immediately think that me using the word KNOW is quite an arrogant thing to do, but I view knowledge as a much more fluid entity. It's ultimately how we interpret reality. Science strives for an ideal. The ideal of finding truth. Much like a musician may search for perfection in how they play thier instrument, scientists reap knowledge by observing the world around them in detail. Hypothisese are posulated, experiments to test them are formed, and the process repeats itself until there is little doubt that what the scientist is observing is actually factual, and then climbs the mountain that is peer review and intense scrutiny. Because while many scientists want to make a big buck, every other scientist will be firing all they have at each other to shoot thier theories down. And when it happens, it happens. But theories that rise despite this (and the most groundbreaking ones always get the most flak), they become accepted as fact.
That is the scientific method. It's the best thing we have to find out the world around us. When applied properly, it produces knowledge, and that knowledge is then utilised.
I have faith in the reliability and power of the scientific method. But the faith I place on it is purely based on past experiances with it. And its this trust I have when reading scientific papers, when reading textbooks. That's how knowledge propagates, and how it may itself be reshaped as science progresses.
So I do excercise 'faith' in a sense. And I think there is nothing wrong with it. But the faith you and I are talking about are two utterly different animals.
"es, if they disagree with the Word of God, they are wrong. I don't have the truth and never claimed to, the Bible does, and it's available to anyone."
When I read this, I raise eyebrows. You never claimed to have the truth, but the Bible does? Well you believe in it, hence you do claim to have the truth. I am all for knowing the truth, in the most objective manner possible (sans emotional attachment), and that is why I reject Christianity, or any religion for that matter.
"Really? Please point me to any scientific literature that actually explains what gravity is in scientific terms?"
May I firstly stress that it is a theory, as much as evolution or the big bang are theories. And may I stress what happens when someone misinterprets the word 'theory'. You get something along the lines of this.
http://machineslikeus.com/articles/WarningGravityIs.html
This quote is a gem, as it is actually quite parallel to an anti-evolution argument:
'While micro-gravity is observed when, for example, dropping an egg on the floor, this does not prove that macro-gravity exists.'
So as you can see, theories can have immense proof for themselves, whilst still remaining a theory.
I should now move on to state that the theory of gravity itself is a theory that describes and predicts how objects of various masses attract each other, and the descriptions are verified, and countless predictions work.
If you are looking for something you can actually look at, then you should not look at theories. A theory can be accepted as factual, if it withstands whatever skeptics can throw at it, and has immense amounts of evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the scientific community that it is correct.
The problem when dealing when a theory such as evolution is that it conflicts with things that people of faith consider to be the truth. The only reason there has been such a ruckus about it in the US is because it is interpreted to violently conflict with creationism, most notably Young Earth Creationism.
"Then you should be, because there's as much factual information to explain Christianity as there is to explain gravity."
Erm. I spent a year in Lebanon with a Muslim who tirelessly tried to convert me, and the case he put was about as strong as what you are putting to me. From an intellectual point of view, it is a stalemate. Set of unproven claim 1 versus Set of unproven claims 2. And I repeat, if Christianity truly had the truth, and was special, it would not be a religion, and scientists would be all over it. If something with such strong implications as what a religion would bring can't be observed or proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of skeptical inquiry, it should not be worthy of one's time. And I have no guilt to feel for rejecting it, as it wasn't the devil that made me do it, it was rational thought.
"As I said, there's as much factual information to explain Christianity as there is to explain gravity. This statement speaks volumes about your understanding of Christianity. You really don't understand it at all do you?"
I have read into debates between Christians, atheists, theologicans, and historians alike as to how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether or not it should be credible.
I have participated in the discussion of and have learnt much of 'Intellegent Design' theory, which is just creationism with a cool name. It is a theory, sure, but the 'evidence' produced for it is a huge farce, and peppered with Bible references to support it. In a scientific theory! That, to me, is ludicrous.
I might not know all of it, but I certainly know enough to say the things I say about it. And rejection of the Bible based on it's controversial origin is very much a part of that.
"I disagree."
What proof do you have of this assertion?
"You would also have to include neo darwinian evolutionism here as well then."
This is an interesting response. So are the reponses:
"Like evolutionism, or Islam, or Hinduism?"
"But you believe in the metaphysical, philosophical belief system called evolution don't you?"
In these responses you send the messages that:
- You place the theory of evolution on the same faith-based podium as religion
- You think that accepting the theory of evolution requires you to adopt a metaphysical, philosophical belief system (?)
Now while I think I have a pretty good idea of what you mean when you say that, I would like your explanation for saying that.
"Yes, but not for the reasons that you think - "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18"
So I am doomed to hellfire because I reject Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I see.
"How so? You just said that there isn't a worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. The human war and conflict won't come from Christians."
I did say that there is no worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. But my point here was one encompassing religion in general, and how people have killed each other (Christianity has it's own horrific legacy) in the name of thier religion. That was my point. To me, to kill or torture someone else because they don't share your belief system is atrocious. And I repeat, many a Christian in history has committed such acts.
"I don't agree. The conscience we are given initially is the same, but it can be influenced and shaped by the culture or environment it resides in. Even so, there is always a level of morality. As an example, In tribal cultures, while it might be all right for them to murder and eat somebody from another tribe, it is not right for them to eat somebody from their own tribe."
To which I completely disagree. To assume that all (healthy) humans are psychologicaly similar at birth is a highly ignorant thing to do. You can have a child born in tribal Africa or somewhere in the Pacific Islands, and immediately whisk him or her away at birth to a country with different values, and if this is done enough times, you will definetely notice a behavioural difference.
As horrible as it sounds, racial groups are NOT different purely in culture or looks. There is no magical genetic barrier seperating our outward apparances and psychological makeups.
Morality is loosely described as how we attribute certain things to be positive or negative. And we are a social animal, things such as killing one's own family, that just wouldn't make any sense! Tribes themselves are the result of human tendencies to group togther to collectively boost thier chances of survival. It makes perfect sense.
"First of all, any prejudice or hatred inflicted by Christians on these groups was and is clearly wrong. Christ never has and never would treat these people in such a way. Having said that, He would clearly show these people that their behaviour was wrong and offensive to a Holy God."
But that is something that a homosexual would take extremely personally, as they aren't just delighting in sodomy and aren't possessed by demons. They prefer to be intimate with members of the same sex due to romantic reasons, not cause they like it in the pipehole. Even a god would be ill-equipped to underestimate the power of love. And as odd as it sounds, it occurs between people of the same gender. So if this 'wrong', if you think that it's a mental illness, they need to be 'striaghtened' or 'rehabilitated' or however you want to put it, if you think it's just a bad habit they need to kick, they have every reason to reject this so called holy scripture. Because it is not indicative of an understanding, loving god at all.
"If the Word of God has anything to say about it, yes."
You would unflinchingly take every word of the Bible and hold it as true, despite whatever doubts are being cast on it?
"As I said, no, the Word of God says nothing about crop circles. If it did, and it said they were divinely inspired, then yes."
This concerns me. You see, I don't think like that, my brain doesn't work like that. And that is why, as I said before, I would be immune to conversion.
"Be very careful here and realise that you are quoting an English translation of a Hebrew text. There are numerous instances in both the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament where the translation into English does lead to some inconsistencies...but remember, the English translations are not inspired, the original language texts are. Having said that, the passage you quoted doesn't teach the anatomy of locusts, but the legitimate foods of the Jews in Old Testament times, which it does just fine."
So an illegimate food would be any animal that flies and has four feet? What kind of catastrophic failure in the translation process has led to something like that?
"Yes there is, (the Hebrew word for tempt in Genesis 22:1 is correctly translated test, whereas the Greek word in James 1 means tempt as expected by the context) but I doubt it would satisfy someone such as yourself who refuses to compromise his atheistic presuppositions. Because in reality, that's what it's all about isn't it? It's nothing to do with evidence. The supposed evidence just serves to bolster your atheistic worldview, and silence your conscience. It certainly is the case with me, and I readily admit it. Christianity cannot be proved by scientific evidence...but there is enough evidence there to support my theistic presuppositions. What I find so frustrating is that atheists refuse to admit this (I can't believe they can't see that this is the case)."
You don't start from a neutral position, consider all the evidence and come to an objective rational conclusion that there is no God. You start with the assumption that there is no God, then gather every bit of evidence you can find that appears to support that assumption. I do the same, only I start with the assumption that there is a God, then gather every bit of evidence I can find that appears to support my assumption. And there's as much to support my position as yours."
You are talking to an ex-Christian here. I stopped believing in a god simply because I realised I was believing in the existence of something I could not sense at all, and had no reason to continue doing so. That was enough for me to say 'wait a minute, what on earth am i doing?'.
"I agree, but that doesn't make the Bible untrue, just because some idiot wants to interpret it in a way that was never intended, for his own ends."
I agree, I was merely illustrating the potential destruction a religion preaching goodness etc. can wreak, in the hands of the wrong person.
"On what basis?"
On the basis that Hindu text goes back thousands of years before Christianity began. I do not know enough about this aspect to really put an argument to you, but that age difference is quite interesting to me.
In fact, I hear quite interesting claims discussing the origins of Christainity itself, one being that it was cobbled together from paganism and Egyptian mythology (with quite confronting evidence to support it).
"I'm not, but I could say the same for your metaphysical evolutionary dogma."
As I have mentioned earlier in thie response, I ask you to clarify what you mean by that.
"As do your faith based evolutionary claims to me."
I would be more than happy to give you an indepth lesson in evolutionary theory, which would I believe shatter many misconceptions you have about it.
"Ditto."
But I haven't accepted evolutionary theory on it's own merit! If that is all it had going for it, it would have been scrapped the minute other scientists laid eyes on it.
"Just like evolutionism."
How it poisons the mind, I have absolutely no idea. Please expand on that.
"Not at all...if you read what I wrote I said that they all very sincerely believe that what their religions' claim is true...but the sincerity of their belief does not make what they believe true. As I said, I can very sincerely believe that the earth is flat, but it does not make it so."
You are yet again saying that they are wrong, but as a person not affiliated with any religion, I see the pot calling the kettle black.
"I think you'll find that it has. Archeaology has verified over and over again the validity of the historical claims in the Bible. As well as contemporary (to the Biblical record) non Biblical literature (Josephus being one example)."
Please explain?
"I think that statement is a bit of a straw man. No scholar of any worth has ever regarded the Bible as a laughing stock. The only ones that do are people like Richard Dawkins (whose school you seem to have come from), who, because they cannot discredit it in any other way resort to school-yard name calling and intimidation techniques, touting their intellectual prowess and claiming that all Bible believers are ignorant luddites. I don't know of any genuine Christians who regard the Old Testament in this way (unless they've been seriously intimidated and have given way to the liberal so called “intellectual elite”, or were never true Christians in the first place)."
Firstly, I fully applaud what Dawkins is doing. Atheism has needed a voice to speak on it's behalf for a long time, and an evolutionary biologist as well, that's a bonus.
Now for your comment about saying how Christians who ignore the Old Testament are not genuine Christians, I would actually agree. But that doesn't work in your favor. I think that a genuine Christian/Muslims/etc is a fundamenalist, literalist believer, who takes every word in thier holy book seriously. Of course there is interpretation, but certain moral stances (anti-homosexuality, for one) result from this. And to me, this is what breeds violence.
"Maybe in the liberal, unbelieving academic community."
You realise that tens of thousands of scientists, all of different faiths and political views, contruibute to the acadmic community? Those who break off don't do it because it is liberal, or atheist. No real scientist would use Biblical scripture in his work, because it would be laughed off the table, for good reason! To condone the use of ancient text in what is supposed to be an objective scientific analysis defeats the purpose.
"What tests has it been put to that it has ever failed. If it had, it would be such a laughing stock to all that no-one would believe it. But it has millions of believers past and present in its absolute divine authority and inspiration...and a large number of these people are scholars on a level that make Dawkins look like a schoolboy. But I suppose all these just have a screw loose."
I see an appeal to the masses/belief, and an appeal to authority here.
Reality Junkie Said: "Let us not confuse definitions here. I mean religion when I say faith. For me to say I do not place faith in anything would be untrue, as I do it on a daily basis. But there is a difference between adopting a religion, complete with a specific moral code and other features (for example, the Bible, the belief in resurrection), and placing expectations in how the world around me works based on what I KNOW. "
If this is the case you should be able to give me some scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Would you like to suggest any?
Reality Junkie Said: "That is the scientific method. It's the best thing we have to find out the world around us. When applied properly, it produces knowledge, and that knowledge is then utilised."
I am aware of and have no problem with the scientific method (neither has any other sensible Christian), but evolutionary theory does not apply this scientific method in reaching its conclusions.
Reality Junkie Said: "So I do excercise 'faith' in a sense. And I think there is nothing wrong with it. But the faith you and I are talking about are two utterly different animals. "
I don't see any difference at all.
Reality Junkie Said: "When I read this, I raise eyebrows. You never claimed to have the truth, but the Bible does? Well you believe in it, hence you do claim to have the truth. I am all for knowing the truth, in the most objective manner possible (sans emotional attachment), and that is why I reject Christianity, or any religion for that matter."
Then you should also reject evolutionism.
Reality Junkie Said: "May I firstly stress that it is a theory, as much as evolution or the big bang are theories. And may I stress what happens when someone misinterprets the word 'theory'. You get something along the lines of this.
http://machineslikeus.com/articles/WarningGravityIs.html
This quote is a gem, as it is actually quite parallel to an anti-evolution argument:
'While micro-gravity is observed when, for example, dropping an egg on the floor, this does not prove that macro-gravity exists.'"
Please don't insult my intelligence and misrepresent Christianity by claiming that all Christians argue in such a naïve way as used in the link and quote you cite here (this is a favourite technique of Mr. Dawkins, and is frankly pathetic, akin to claiming that all Christians believe that the earth is flat). This is in no way parallel to the arguments given by sensible Christians that challenge the theory of evolution. I think you'd be better off reading Michael Behe's research (outlined in his book “Darwin's Black Box”), which, despite the crys of many evolutionsists, still remains a serious and unanswered challenge to orthodox evolutionary theory.
Reality Junkie Said: "The problem when dealing when a theory such as evolution is that it conflicts with things that people of faith consider to be the truth."
As well as conflicting with much empirical science (see the reference to Behe above).
Reality Junkie Said: "Erm. I spent a year in Lebanon with a Muslim who tirelessly tried to convert me, and the case he put was about as strong as what you are putting to me. From an intellectual point of view, it is a stalemate. Set of unproven claim 1 versus Set of unproven claims 2. "
This is my whole point – I'm glad you admit it. So what makes your unproven claims any more valid than mine (please don't say evidence – we both examine the same evidence, just come to equally valid but different conclusions about it).
Reality Junkie Said: "And I repeat, if Christianity truly had the truth, and was special, it would not be a religion, and scientists would be all over it. If something with such strong implications as what a religion would bring can't be observed or proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of skeptical inquiry, it should not be worthy of one's time."
The problem here is, that you are trying to measure and prove the existence of something with instruments and techniques not suitable for doing it. How can you measure or prove the infinite with finite means?
Reality Junkie Said: "And I have no guilt to feel for rejecting it, as it wasn't the devil that made me do it, it was rational thought."
Of course it was.
Reality Junkie Said: "I have read into debates between Christians, atheists, theologicans, and historians alike as to how the Bible should be interpreted, and whether or not it should be credible."
So what.
Reality Junkie Said: "I have participated in the discussion of and have learnt much of 'Intellegent Design' theory, which is just creationism with a cool name. It is a theory, sure, but the 'evidence' produced for it is a huge farce,..."
That's a strange statement, because it's the same evidence that's produced for evolution – as explained above.
Reality Junkie Said: "What proof do you have of this assertion?"
The most vocal atheists in the world today (Dawkins et.al.) Spend 90 something percent of their time and effort attacking Christianity in particular. The secular world media has a serious anti Christian agenda. The world's education system has a serious anti Christian agenda. Now if Christianity is such nonsense, why expend so much time and effort in challenging it - just leave it alone and it'll go away, surely.
Reality Junkie Said: "In these responses you send the messages that:
- You place the theory of evolution on the same faith-based podium as religion. Absolutely.
- You think that accepting the theory of evolution requires you to adopt a metaphysical, philosophical belief system (?)"
Absolutely, because it has no basis in empirical science and the scientific method.
Reality Junkie Said: "Now while I think I have a pretty good idea of what you mean when you say that, I would like your explanation for saying that."
As Above
Reality Junkie Said: "So I am doomed to hellfire because I reject Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I see."
Exactly - As long as your clear about that.
Reality Junkie Said: "I did say that there is no worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. But my point here was one encompassing religion in general, and how people have killed each other (Christianity has it's own horrific legacy) in the name of thier religion. That was my point. To me, to kill or torture someone else because they don't share your belief system is atrocious. And I repeat, many a Christian in history has committed such acts."
Many who have professed Christianity have committed such acts, but that doesn't make them Christians. Christ said in reference to Christians, “...you will know them by their fruits...”, the list of which do not include murder and or torture.
Reality Junkie Said: "To which I completely disagree. To assume that all (healthy) humans are psychologicaly similar at birth is a highly ignorant thing to do."
I said nothing about humans being psychologically similar at birth – the conscience has nothing to do with the psychological make up of the person, it's an attribute of the soul, which every human has. Morality is hard wired into every human soul, and can be diminished (or enhanced) in different ways and to different degrees, depending on the environment of the person, but you cannot extinguish it completely.
Reality Junkie Said: "You can have a child born in tribal Africa or somewhere in the Pacific Islands, and immediately whisk him or her away at birth to a country with different values, and if this is done enough times, you will definetely notice a behavioural difference."
Of course, but this has nothing to do with my point – the basic morality of the person is still the same.
Reality Junkie Said: "As horrible as it sounds, racial groups are NOT different purely in culture or looks. There is no magical genetic barrier seperating our outward apparances and psychological makeups."
Not sure what you mean here.
Reality Junkie Said: "Morality is loosely described as how we attribute certain things to be positive or negative. And we are a social animal, things such as killing one's own family, that just wouldn't make any sense!"
Why not?
Reality Junkie Said: "Tribes themselves are the result of human tendencies to group togther to collectively boost thier chances of survival. It makes perfect sense."
But what if killing your own family in some way boosted your chances of survival – would it then be acceptable?
Reality Junkie Said: "But that is something that a homosexual would take extremely personally, as they aren't just delighting in sodomy and aren't possessed by demons."
They can take it however they like, what they are doing is offensive to God, and they will be judged for it.
Reality Junkie Said: "They prefer to be intimate with members of the same sex due to romantic reasons, not cause they like it in the pipehole."
So sex with a member of the same gender doesn't enter into it then?
Reality Junkie Said: "Even a god would be ill-equipped to underestimate the power of love."
What an arrogant and ridiculous statement. God defines what love is, but that doesn't mean He must tolerate sin.
Reality Junkie Said: "And as odd as it sounds, it occurs between people of the same gender."
Still doesn't make it right.
Reality Junkie Said: "So if this 'wrong', if you think that it's a mental illness,..."
I didn't say any such thing
Reality Junkie Said: "they need to be 'striaghtened' or 'rehabilitated' or however you want to put it,..."
saved would be a better term
Reality Junkie Said: "Because it is not indicative of an understanding, loving god at all."
An understanding, loving God that just tolerates any and every form of sin in the name of some kind of love I suppose?
Reality Junkie Said: "You would unflinchingly take every word of the Bible and hold it as true, despite whatever doubts are being cast on it?"
Yes. Because it's the product of an infallible omnipotent being's mind and not the product of a finite, fallible and arrogant human's.
Reality Junkie Said: "This concerns me. You see, I don't think like that, my brain doesn't work like that. And that is why, as I said before, I would be immune to conversion."
If you accept evolution you think exactly like that.
Reality Junkie Said: "So an illegimate food would be any animal that flies and has four feet? What kind of catastrophic failure in the translation process has led to something like that?"
This is one of the few times in the Bible where translators have real trouble with nouns. Animal names and the names of jewels are two of the more difficult things to translate, believe it or not. Colours are another. To Austronesian peoples (including the speakers of Indonesian Balinese, Javanese and the Polynesian languages), there was no "brown". Instead it was a variant of red.
In this case, we must go back to the original Hebrew and see what word was used for what, in English bibles, is translated "insects". It was, in fact, the word sherets, which CAN, indeed, be translated "insect", but has the general meaning of "swarming thing".
Here is a quote from an expert site I found, which explains it:
The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.
What is common among all the creatures mentioned is that they have short legs and often travel together in groups. In fact, the Bible defines sherets as "crawling on its belly" and "whatever walks on all fours."What is common in this group of crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles is that they all crawl on "all four" legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However, the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low to the ground on at least four legs. Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but atheists actually make this claim. However, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:
'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. (Leviticus 11:21)
The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.
Reality Junkie Said: "You are talking to an ex-Christian here."
Another contradiction in terms – you may have claimed to be a Christian, but if you really were you would still be.
Reality Junkie Said: "I stopped believing in a god simply because I realised I was believing in the existence of something I could not sense at all, and had no reason to continue doing so."
Just like evolution.
Reality Junkie Said: "That was enough for me to say 'wait a minute, what on earth am i doing?'."
Just the opposite happened to me with regard to atheism and evolutionism.
Reality Junkie Said: "On the basis that Hindu text goes back thousands of years before Christianity began. I do not know enough about this aspect to really put an argument to you, but that age difference is quite interesting to me."
Krishna was born about 3000 B.C. Christianity was in operation before then.
Reality Junkie Said: "In fact, I hear quite interesting claims discussing the origins of Christainity itself, one being that it was cobbled together from paganism and Egyptian mythology (with quite confronting evidence to support it)."
I suppose you consider the Da Vinci code to be factual as well do you?
Reality Junkie Said: "As I have mentioned earlier in thie response, I ask you to clarify what you mean by that."
What I mean by it is that evolutionism is not science. It violates the scientific method and is therefore an ideology, based as much on faith as any religious system.
Reality Junkie Said: "I would be more than happy to give you an indepth lesson in evolutionary theory, which would I believe shatter many misconceptions you have about it."
I understand evolutionary theory just fine thanks. And I could give you some lessons which would show it's total inadequacy.
Reality Junkie Said: "But I haven't accepted evolutionary theory on it's own merit! If that is all it had going for it, it would have been scrapped the minute other scientists laid eyes on it."
So why on earth do you accept it then?
Reality Junkie Said: "How it poisons the mind, I have absolutely no idea. Please expand on that."
Because it claims that everything in existence came into being by some blind process of evolution, which is not true – therefore it causes people to believe a lie, which is poisoning the mind.
Reality Junkie Said: "You are yet again saying that they are wrong, but as a person not affiliated with any religion, I see the pot calling the kettle black."
You can see what you like, they are wrong, and so are you.
Reality Junkie Said: "Please explain?"
See this link: http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/josephus.html for the Josephus references.
For the archeaological evidence, may I suggest that you take a visit to the British Museum in London where there are a multitude of exhibits that verify the historical records of the Bible, including at the very least various well preserved artifacts from the Royal Tombs of Ur, excavated by Sir Leonard Wooley between 1922 and 1934, the city of Ur have been discovered and excavated in 1854 (the existence of which incidentally, prior to its discovery was vehemently denied by critics of the Bible). If you can't do that then may I recommend a book which lists the various artifacts and actually acts as a good guide were you to visit the museum itself – the book is called Heritage of Evidence. http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?recnumber=1621
Reality Junkie Said: "Firstly, I fully applaud what Dawkins is doing. Atheism has needed a voice to speak on it's behalf for a long time, and an evolutionary biologist as well, that's a bonus."
This speaks volumes.
Reality Junkie Said: "You realise that tens of thousands of scientists, all of different faiths and political views, contruibute to the acadmic community? Those who break off don't do it because it is liberal, or atheist. No real scientist would use Biblical scripture in his work, because it would be laughed off the table, for good reason! To condone the use of ancient text in what is supposed to be an objective scientific analysis defeats the purpose."
But they'll use Darwin's Origin of Species, hmm.
Reality Junkie Said: "I see an appeal to the masses/belief, and an appeal to authority here."
I see an appeal to common sense.
“If this is the case you should be able to give me some scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Would you like to suggest any?”
Sure. The first being fossil evidence, and the distrubition of said fossils in three dimensions in rock layers.
Another strong factor is homologies, essentially similarities between lifeforms which, when compared to the fossil record, suggest an evolutionary history. An example would be pentadactyly in many animals. Another example would be on the chemical level, where all life shares DNA (or a variant), and also shares key features in many metabolic processes. Another interesting factor is the CONSERVATION of many features, both chemical and physiological.
And the last, and most obvious, which is essentially evolution in practice, is observable genetic flow between populations. Many experiments and studies, especially in microorganisms (which tend to have a very fast growth rate and fluid genetics) show that the genetic mechanisms for which evolution do occur, and produce results. These processes are looking at an inch in the spectrum. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that it can’t run for a mile. Not to mention the marriage of all these different types of evidence into a cohesive whole, and the continual discovery of evidence that fully supports it.
“I am aware of and have no problem with the scientific method (neither has any other sensible Christian), but evolutionary theory does not apply this scientific method in reaching its conclusions.”
What a blatantly dishonest thing to say. Of course it does. You sure you know what the scientific method is??? Because to make such a outrageous claim, I will need to see evidence. A comment like that is a slap in the face to all the scientists who devoted their lives to refining this theory, as well as those who critiqued it in a valid manner. You keep treating it like a dogma, when it is a theory that is always being refined, solely on the basis of evidence. No theory should be treated like dogma. The big bang theory is still a theory, yet there is a ridiculous amount of evidence that points towards it, hence, it is the best explanation we have. I reject creationism because there simply is less objective evidence (and by less, I mean virtually zero) to support it. And until evidence is found that turns heads in the scientific community, it will always be that way.
“I don't see any difference at all.”
Your difference is that your faith leads you to believe that the words of a thousand year old text ring true, that there is an afterlife, that unbelievers go to burn in eternal fire, that essentially, a magical sky daddy is watching our every move.
My faith is in the ability of us to build an accurate picture of reality by repeated, objective observations made by a large amount of people. This is why I will never accept religion. This is why I will never commit belief to something my brain tells me is patently absurd. I am as likely to become a Scientologist and believe the teachings of Xenu (as many have done) as I am to worship Christianity. And once you understand why, you can begin to realize how utterly unfair it would be if there was a god that you speak of, a god that would punish those who listen to their common sense. Once you realize why you don’t have any reason to believe in any other gods, you will realize why I don’t have any reason to believe in yours. And if that train of thinking leads me to an eternity in Hell, then I don’t really think I would want to go to Heaven anyway.
“Then you should also reject evolutionism.”
You appeared to skip the words ‘sans emotional attachment’ in reading what I said. I don’t accept evolution’ism’ because I feel it explains my world view best (which would be plain stupid), I accept it because of the scientific community’s convinction that it is correct, combined with my own perusal of the evidence and arguments behind it to decide if they make sense of not. Not in any part of this is my emotion involved. When I understood evolution, I didn’t start praying to Darwin, or feel like my life was worth living, or decide I could kill my parents because im an animal, or whatever. I simply accepted the theory, and moved on. The rest of my study in biology actually made a world of sense when evolutionary contexts were applied.
“Please don't insult my intelligence and misrepresent Christianity by claiming that all Christians argue in such a naïve way as used in the link and quote you cite here (this is a favourite technique of Mr. Dawkins, and is frankly pathetic, akin to claiming that all Christians believe that the earth is flat). This is in no way parallel to the arguments given by sensible Christians that challenge the theory of evolution. I think you'd be better off reading Michael Behe's research (outlined in his book “Darwin's Black Box”), which, despite the crys of many evolutionsists, still remains a serious and unanswered challenge to orthodox evolutionary theory.”
Firstly, do not take that as an insult. That’s quite a reactionary thing to do, and there was no need for it.
Secondly, my reference has little to do with Christianity itself, it is to do with creationism in general. Even some paganists think that all life was created by a higher power or powers. Whilst evangelical Christians are indeed leading the fight to reinstate creationism as a ‘scientific theory’ in the West (aka intelligent design), there are plenty of people of all religious walks who are creationists. Do not take what I said as an insult to you, or to your religious denomination. I don’t do that.
Thirdly, the person (who we can both happily agree is incorrect) I linked to made an argument which was indeed parallel to a popular creationist argument regarding the relation (and apparent dissociation) of microevolution to macroevolution, something which I touched early in this post.
“As well as conflicting with much empirical science (see the reference to Behe above).”
I googled Behe, and found his most popular argument, that is irreducible complexity. He uses the example of a mousetrap having separate parts, which all are critical in ensuring that mousetrap functions, it is therefore irreductible complex.
In his words:
"If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex."
Now I immediately shook my head upon reading this, as this has very little to do with science and evidence, as much as it has to do with flawed logic. I looked further and found rebuttals which summed up why I was so uncomfortable with this argument.
Essentially, Behe has done something quite bad by equating a fully built mousetrap as the only means to trap a mouse. The logic immediately falls apart when you realize that each of those components, or only a couple of components, when utilized in ways that Behe’s mousetrap wasn’t built for, can still achieve the end goal, that is, trapping a mouse. Obviously, this explanantion has little to do with evolutionary theory, it simply puts a big fat crack in a logical pillar of his argument.
Apparently, ‘irreducible complexity’ is the theme of his entire writing, and there is a lot of material on the internet that shows quite clearly that it fails in very fundamental ways. It should not be used as a support for any argument, be it creationist or otherwise.
“This is my whole point – I'm glad you admit it. So what makes your unproven claims any more valid than mine (please don't say evidence – we both examine the same evidence, just come to equally valid but different conclusions about it).”
Firstly, in some ways, we clearly do not examine the same evidence. For example. I point back to pentadactly earlier in my post. Whales and dolphils are aquatic placental mammals, and share a host of similarities. Now, they have a five-finger bone structure in their flippers, while fish have fins that don’t have any bone in them. You must ask, why on earth would this be the case?
“The problem here is, that you are trying to measure and prove the existence of something with instruments and techniques not suitable for doing it. How can you measure or prove the infinite with finite means?”
Because using ‘finite means’ is the only tool we all have in discerning beyond a reasonable doubt what is and is not reality. And if god is not reachable by such means, we have no reason to accept that such a god exists.
“Of course it was.”
What a very patronizing thing to say. I don’t know how to respond to that. I’m yet again reminded of the fact that I am conversing with a person who thinks that my mind is poisoned by demons.
“That's a strange statement, because it's the same evidence that's produced for evolution – as explained above.”
That was that best you had? Come on. Just because it used the ‘same evidence’, that doesn’t mean that it is batty. We can both observe lightning, and based on how we interpret it, we can go from saying that is caused by electric imbalances to ‘goddidit’ in a few easy steps. You make a weak point.
“The most vocal atheists in the world today (Dawkins et.al.) Spend 90 something percent of their time and effort attacking Christianity in particular. The secular world media has a serious anti Christian agenda. The world's education system has a serious anti Christian agenda. Now if Christianity is such nonsense, why expend so much time and effort in challenging it - just leave it alone and it'll go away, surely.”
If you define a anti-Christian agenda as the resistance of teaching creationism in a science lesson, then I think that most of the world’s respectable academia would be very anti-Christian. I, like many people in the field of education, are very alarmed by this movement, as we want to protect the soft impressionable minds of children from confusing solid scientific theory with the agenda of the religious lobby. Teach it to your heart’s content in religious ed, but until creationism can stand the test of criticism, can produce enough scientific evidence to trump evolution (which is a hell of a lot), and can essentially explain away the microevolutionary processes that we can physically observe, it should remain in the church, and not in the laboratory.
“Absolutely, because it has no basis in empirical science and the scientific method.”
No comment.
“As Above”
Even, in an alternate universe, evolutionary theory had no actual scientific basis (a laughable claim), you fail to explain to me why one should be by default associating a philosophical world view with a scientific theory. You fail to explain this to we.
“Exactly - As long as your clear about that.”
I will need more than the threat of damnation to be converted to a religion.
“Many who have professed Christianity have committed such acts, but that doesn't make them Christians. Christ said in reference to Christians, “...you will know them by their fruits...”, the list of which do not include murder and or torture.”
I can hardly argue with that, because I personally think that the group of people that adhere the closest to their religion – fundamentalists – are the closest to embodying the values that their religion and holy texts preach. However, whether or not that is a good thing is up for debate.
“I said nothing about humans being psychologically similar at birth – the conscience has nothing to do with the psychological make up of the person, it's an attribute of the soul, which every human has. Morality is hard wired into every human soul, and can be diminished (or enhanced) in different ways and to different degrees, depending on the environment of the person, but you cannot extinguish it completely. “
Alright, you think we all have souls, I forgot about that. Dogs don’t have souls, and thus don’t have a conscience. This is territory that I don’t want to go into, because I reject your premise of us having souls, and say that to the best of our knowledge, our ‘conscience’ resides purely in our brain, and is thus subject to pressure via selection. Nothing is hard wired in any living thing. Nothing is safe from change. But you will disagree with that, so we should leave it at that.
“Of course, but this has nothing to do with my point – the basic morality of the person is still the same.”
‘Basic morality’ is simply the facets of morality that humanity as a whole has conserved amongst the vast majority of it’s population. It has no special status, it is just the way it is.
“Not sure what you mean here.”
I’m saying that many Africans in are not just dark skinned, they tend to have a higher muscle density (hence their reputation for being athletic and strong), have on average a lower IQ, and have a higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia. This isn’t just an anomaly. While it’s very politically sensitive ground, I am saying that humans are diverse creatures, and we all have genetic traits that even on a regional scale, affect EVERY and ANY aspect of our biological makeup. And this diversity reaches down to the very fabric of what we are. The only reason why we don’t see many people with radically different ‘basic moralities’ is because of the resultant violent conflict that would occur. It simply is not a advantageous thing to have.
“Why not?”
Because our family and communities had very close genetic makeups, not to mention that a social bond is stronger between family members because of a highly conditioned reciprocal pattern. It increases that ‘strain’ of human DNA’s chance of surviving. And because it does that, THAT is the reason WHY it came to be that way. The humans didn’t think that and behave to make it happen, the favorable conditions of being very social were pressured on us, and we conformed to that mold.
When you pour water down a rocky slope, the water doesn't part itself to make way for the rock, the rock simply, by it's nature, and with the help of gravity, parts the water itself, and lets the water fill grooves. This concept can be loosely applied to asking why something is the way it is. Many people tend to put the chicken before the egg here.
“But what if killing your own family in some way boosted your chances of survival – would it then be acceptable?”
For some, sure. It would depend on the magnitude of this ‘boost’. If it were for the last scrap of food on a desert island, then that very well may happen.
For example, you know doubt heard of the famous story of the sports team whose plane crashed in the Andes, and only a few survived by eating their fellow teammates (who died from the cold)? One even ate his own sister. The concept of right, wrong, what is taboo, what isn’t, it all goes out the window if we are pushed hard enough.
“They can take it however they like, what they are doing is offensive to God, and they will be judged for it.”
Alright, well if God really wanted them to stop it, I thought he would have let them know personally. But since God appears to cherry pick who he reveals himself to, we will be seeing plently of homosexuals on a one way ticket to hell.
“So sex with a member of the same gender doesn't enter into it then?”
It doesn’t have to. The same way heterosexual relationships can pan out. It can just be hand-holding and cuddling.
“What an arrogant and ridiculous statement. God defines what love is, but that doesn't mean He must tolerate sin.”
One man’s sin is another man’s pleasure, I can only observe from my position.
“Still doesn't make it right. “
This brought a chuckle from me. I see a blatant ‘nu-uh’ here.
“I didn't say any such thing “
I retract.
“saved would be a better term “
It would be a better term, but it masks a bigoted message. 'Homosexuality requires redemption for one to be truly good', is what I see here.
“An understanding, loving God that just tolerates any and every form of sin in the name of some kind of love I suppose?”
No, I never said that. If we have two consenting adults, man or woman, who want to sexually stimulate each other, I think that HOW we go about doing it should not be touched upon by any law whatsoever. It is simply none of God’s business what people do in their bedrooms. Some people have very bizarre fetishes, which to me, is more revolting than sodomy. But despite that, I see no business in me, you, or even some holy text intervening and dictating what can and cannot be done.
“Yes. Because it's the product of an infallible omnipotent being's mind and not the product of a finite, fallible and arrogant human's.”
Once again, I ask for proof of such a claim. Until then, the arrogance I am displaying is pale in comparison to the ‘holier than thou’ message that Christians, and in fact, any religious person for that matter, implies in their talk.
“If you accept evolution you think exactly like that.”
How very wrong. I pointed out earlier in this post why I think that is wrong.
“This is one of the few times in the Bible where translators have real trouble with nouns. Animal names and the names of jewels are two of the more difficult things to translate, believe it or not. Colours are another. To Austronesian peoples (including the speakers of Indonesian Balinese, Javanese and the Polynesian languages), there was no "brown". Instead it was a variant of red.
In this case, we must go back to the original Hebrew and see what word was used for what, in English bibles, is translated "insects". It was, in fact, the word sherets, which CAN, indeed, be translated "insect", but has the general meaning of "swarming thing".
Here is a quote from an expert site I found, which explains it:
The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.
What is common among all the creatures mentioned is that they have short legs and often travel together in groups. In fact, the Bible defines sherets as "crawling on its belly" and "whatever walks on all fours."What is common in this group of crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles is that they all crawl on "all four" legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However, the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low to the ground on at least four legs. Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but atheists actually make this claim. However, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:
'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. (Leviticus 11:21)
The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.”
A good explanation, so I will back off on that one.
“Another contradiction in terms – you may have claimed to be a Christian, but if you really were you would still be.”
No, I’m pretty damn sure I was a Christian. I don’t need somebody else to tell me what I was and what I wasn’t. That would be a very presumptuous thing to do. Then again, you are a fundamentalist, so by your level of adherence to the Bible, yes, I was not a Christian.
“Just like evolution. "
God and evolution are two very different things. And you know it. Retorts like that lower standards of discourse here. If you want to make such claims, explain why you do.
“Just the opposite happened to me with regard to atheism and evolutionism.”
Atheism and evolution’ism’ are different things. One is a theological stance, and one is a scientific theory. And until you make that distinction, you will be stuck in a rut here.
“Krishna was born about 3000 B.C. Christianity was in operation before then.”
Wait… what?! Proof please.
“I suppose you consider the Da Vinci code to be factual as well do you?”
It was a good read, but no. I don’t. How is that relevant?
“What I mean by it is that evolutionism is not science. It violates the scientific method and is therefore an ideology, based as much on faith as any religious system.”
Proof.
“I understand evolutionary theory just fine thanks. And I could give you some lessons which would show it's total inadequacy.”
Inadequacy as compared to creationism? This will be good. And by the way, I am not convinced that you really know that much about evolution, I think you only know the basics. The true realization occurs once you apply the concept to other aspects of biology, and see how they come together so well.
“So why on earth do you accept it then?”
Obviously, accepting it on it’s own merit isn’t what I have done. This is a very silly question to ask.
“Because it claims that everything in existence came into being by some blind process of evolution, which is not true – therefore it causes people to believe a lie, which is poisoning the mind.”
Well, at least you were to the point. Evolution’ism’ is a lie. A lie told by Charles Darwin, an atheist conspirator, I’m guessing?
“You can see what you like, they are wrong, and so are you.”
Very nice. This just affirms to me the immovable position you have adopted, and how I can only do so much to shake it. Which is not a good thing in my opinion.
“See this link: http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/josephus.html for the Josephus references.”
Once again, a rock hard, ground breaking piece of evidence:
‘In short, while there is reason to doubt the validity of any references to Jesus Christ in the works of Josephus, the general consensus is that they are genuine at least in part. ‘
You are aware that many Jews are convinced that Jesus existed in the reign of Tiberius, correct? Why would that be?
“For the archeaological evidence, may I suggest that you take a visit to the British Museum in London where there are a multitude of exhibits that verify the historical records of the Bible, including at the very least various well preserved artifacts from the Royal Tombs of Ur, excavated by Sir Leonard Wooley between 1922 and 1934, the city of Ur have been discovered and excavated in 1854 (the existence of which incidentally, prior to its discovery was vehemently denied by critics of the Bible). If you can't do that then may I recommend a book which lists the various artifacts and actually acts as a good guide were you to visit the museum itself – the book is called Heritage of Evidence. http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/products.asp?recnumber=1621”
These exhibits, please give me an example of what I might find.
May I also say that regarding the city of Ur, the dispute STILL exists about whether this place is actually Ur Kasdim, which is referenced in the Bible.
“This speaks volumes.”
Volumes about what? About me? What, that I am atheist and accept the theory of evolution?
“But they'll use Darwin's Origin of Species, hmm.”
Excellent. Proof that you do not understand very much of evolutionary theory. The Origin of Species was a groundbreaking book, but it contained many flaws, posulates, and open ended questions. The edges were frayed, so to speak. Do you realize that amount of refinement that has happened to the theory since it’s conception? It’s almost unrecognizable. The Origin of Species, much like Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, had flaws in it. It was by no means perfect. However, it since then has been supported by many new discoveries, and as we learn more about biology itself, we understand more about how much sense evolution makes when applied.
“I see an appeal to common sense.”
No, you committed a logical fallacy there.
You said: "Sure. The first being fossil evidence, and the distrubition of said fossils in three dimensions in rock layers."
Then you'd better go and tell Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History which houses the world's largest fossil colletion – sixty million specimens), I quote “If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them [in my book Evolution].” He also says “Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.” Or perhaps you should tell David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, he said “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much...We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins time.”
You said: "What a blatantly dishonest thing to say. Of course it does. You sure you know what the scientific method is??? Because to make such a outrageous claim, I will need to see evidence. "
No problem (and this is apart from what I've already said regarding the fossil record above). A simple and basic outline of the scientific method can be given as follows (if I'm incorrect on this I'm happy to be corrected):
1.Define the question
2.Gather information and resources (observe)
3.Form hypothesis
4.Perform experiment and collect data
5.Analyze data
6.Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7.Publish results
8.Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.
Now, despite your Googled oversimplification and inadequate rebuttal of Behe's hypothesis (please see Behe's valid response to this rebuttal here: http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp, in which he shows that his argument stands and his hypothesis remains valid), Behe's hypothesis, which would slot in at step 6 in the outline above, is a valid starting point for a new hypothesis in step 6, because it is based on real observed structures of cellular components and has has never been refuted (as shown in the article above and other articles). Therefore, by the scientific community refusing to consider his valid hypothesis (probably due to its implications for current evolutionary dogma), and instead their attempting to discredit it by glossing over critical details and trying to build straw men arguments, the scientific method is violated (by simply refusing to consider new valid scientific evidence that allows the scientific method to take its course), and the current evolutionary theory therefore, if clung to, is clung to by faith, because it fails to stand up to serious close scrutiny.
You said:"That was that best you had? Come on. Just because it used the ‘same evidence’, that doesn’t mean that it is batty. We can both observe lightning, and based on how we interpret it, we can go from saying that is caused by electric imbalances to ‘goddidit’ in a few easy steps. You make a weak point."
Again, please don't misrepresent Christians by claiming that their arguments against evolutionism and for creationism amount to 'goddidit'. This is a Dawkinian tactic, and is either very ignorant or very dishonest.
"Then you'd better go and tell Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History which houses the world's largest fossil colletion – sixty million specimens), I quote “If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them [in my book Evolution].” He also says “Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else.” Or perhaps you should tell David Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, he said “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much...We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins time.”"
Colin Patterson’s quote is taken wonderfully out of context. Allow me to post the whole statement:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.’
One of his points regards Archaeopteryx, and whether or not it gave rise to all modern birds, or a cousin species, and his uncertainty in making a claim either way due to no evidence.
Although his wording in my opinion is quite clumsy, he is essentially stating that the fossil record ON IT'S OWN is not enough to make one certain of ancestry and relation.
Making up reasons why you think natural selection would make fossilzed animal (a) evolve into fossilized animal (b) is totally unscientific.
Which I totally agree with. It slots in to evolutionary theory in such a way that links are made across different fields of science into paleontology to render the fossil record useful and relevant.
Colin Patterson, however is NOT, I repeat NOT, suggesting that fossilized remains are not valid sources of evidence for evolution.
Regarding your quote on David Raup, here’s a link I found that points to the rest of what David Raup said, and shows how you have also taken what he said out of context:
http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/Raup_quote.htm
If you want me to go into detail about how I think you have done so, and do not want to read the link, I'd be happy to. But the person in that link pretty much hits it on the head.
What I encounter about debating creationists is that they love to take quotes from qualified scientists and throw them at you, almost always taking them out of context. You should stop this habit, because it’s a very ineffective way of trying to make a point. Besides, even if these scientists DID say what you were trying to portray them as saying, that would STILL not lend much weight to your argument, as you would be employing an appeal to authority fallacy.
Concerning your ‘proof’ to me that you know the scientific method:
Ripping a step by step analysis of the scientific method from Wikipedia is not enough to convince me that you truly understand it. It is this very method that was employed in discovering and integrating fossil evidence into the theory of evolution, and to say otherwise would be plain ludicrous. However, if you still say otherwise, I want you to prove to me how using fossil evidence to support evolution was unscientific in any way, or did not utilize the scientific method. And do it by giving me valid examples. Until then, I will assume that you actually don't (or at least didn't) understand what the scientific method entails.
“Now, despite your Googled oversimplification and inadequate rebuttal of Behe's hypothesis (please see Behe's valid response to this rebuttal here: http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp, in which he shows that his argument stands and his hypothesis remains valid), Behe's hypothesis, which would slot in at step 6 in the outline above, is a valid starting point for a new hypothesis in step 6, because it is based on real observed structures of cellular components and has has never been refuted (as shown in the article above and other articles). Therefore, by the scientific community refusing to consider his valid hypothesis (probably due to its implications for current evolutionary dogma), and instead their attempting to discredit it by glossing over critical details and trying to build straw men arguments, the scientific method is violated (by simply refusing to consider new valid scientific evidence that allows the scientific method to take its course), and the current evolutionary theory therefore, if clung to, is clung to by faith, because it fails to stand up to serious close scrutiny.”
Ignoring your groundless claims about evolution being unable to stand up to close scrutiny, I post a link in response:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html
This counter to Behe’s response ‘A Mousetrap Defended’ points out that Behe missed the point of what he was responding to. That is, components of what Behe claims to be an ‘irreducibly complex’ system can still be ‘fully-functional in other biochemical contexts’.
By taking the mousetrap and showing that each part of it can be used on it’s own to achieve the goal of trapping a mouse (they act as simpler mousetraps), the claim that Behe made, which was ‘all components have to be in place before any mice are caught’, is debunked, and thus, his whole analogy falls apart.
Now what Behe was trying to convey in his reponse that even the simplest mousetrap would require intelligence to design, a contention that is not being challenged by me, nor by the person who triggered him to write the response in the first place. But unfortunately, this very contention rests on the aforementioned claim/analogy, which has been shown to be seriously flawed. And, obviously, such a contention on it’s own would be of little usefulness to an argument for intellgent design.
Hopefully you have realized that Behe is NOT presenting a logically sound argument, and you will stop trying to support it.
“Again, please don't misrepresent Christians by claiming that their arguments against evolutionism and for creationism amount to 'goddidit'. This is a Dawkinian tactic, and is either very ignorant or very dishonest.”
I never said that. What I said was that there are many phenomena that are unaware of, and to jump to supernatural conclusions would be an intellectually bankrupt thing to do. My example about lightning shows this, and it is this same basis ideology that lies at the core of creationism.
Granted, it isn’t as simple in creationism/intelligent design’s case, as these beliefs are deeply rooted in many religions. This inherent bias, unfortunately, renders it completely and utterly incompatible with a rational and objective train of thought.
This is something you have to understand. I do not accept evolution because I am atheist, or a 'Dawkinian' or an ‘evolutionist’ (I love these labels you use by the way) due to any particular world view. I believe we touched on this a few posts ago. I accept evolution because it is a very solid theory. If the theory of creationism had objective, overwhelming evidence for it, it would be accepted as the best explanation! Pure and simple.
You see, there is more at stake if you lose support for creationism (we are talking about Young Earth Creationism here, as you are a fundamentalist), as a tenet of your religious denomination will be knocked down, which is a completely unacceptable thing for you to let happen. If evolution was really proven completely untenable somehow, then I would gladly accept it (Charles Darwin himself, while shocked, would be happy, to learn of such a thing), and learn how on Earth things went wrong.
You claim 'evolutionists' have ulterior motives repeatedly throughout your discourse. Here’s a comparison to make.
The creationist lobby is driven, funded, and perpetuated not by proper unbiased scientists, but by people with a religious agenda. ‘We evolved from goo’, ‘there are no transitional fossils’, and the hilarious banana argument, are examples of absolute idiocy, parroted by men as respected in the creationist community like Ray Comfort. Of course, they offer no proof. Just complete ignorance.
In contrast, men like Richard Dawkins and Christiopher Hitchens, while showing thier complete disdain of religion (which I am slightly less militant about), still explain evolutionary theory the way it is, and continue to be the ones who instigate discussion and debate. I have yet to see one creationist who can withstand their inquiries. And it is that rational, gentle yet firm style of argument that I want to be able to truly emulate one day.
And one thing I will always stand by is that religion should have absolutely ZERO influence in a truly scientific community. Zilch.
Notice how there is virtually no such thing as an atheist creationist? There are a few atheist panspermians
(a hypothesis which to this day is still very weakly supported), which is as close as it gets really, but the chief premise of creationism is that there exists an immaterial, onmi-everything deity/god/creator.
And this is why I find the term ‘intellegent design’ distasteful, as it is trying to draw attention away from the fact that the existence of God/Allah is a premise. And that is why it is not a scientifically credible argument. That is why the scientific community rejects it. In the same breath as telling you about 'intellgent design', an apologist will then attempt to explain things like the Great Flood to you, or try to show you how dinosaurs actually walked with humans.
There is no conspiracy. Many scientists have the viewpoint I do, not because we have a thing against Christianity (of which you appear to be thoroughly convinced), but because we apply our thought free of any religious constraints when trying to discern the reality of what our chosen field may cover, whether or not we have a faith.
Reality Junkie Said:
"This counter to Behe’s response ‘A Mousetrap Defended’ points out that Behe missed the point of what he was responding to. That is, components of what Behe claims to be an ‘irreducibly complex’ system can still be ‘fully-functional in other biochemical contexts’.
By taking the mousetrap and showing that each part of it can be used on it’s own to achieve the goal of trapping a mouse (they act as simpler mousetraps), the claim that Behe made, which was ‘all components have to be in place before any mice are caught’, is debunked, and thus, his whole analogy falls apart."
What? Did you bother to read Behe's response? I'll post it again just in case: http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp
Far from Behe "missing the point of what he was responding to...", it's the responders who missed the point of Behe's response. He clearly states that you can indeed use individual parts of the conceptual mousetrap to catch a mouse, but the mousetrap is simply an illustration. To then say that because individual components of a conceptual mousetrap can be used to catch a mouse, that individual biochemical components can also be used to do the same or other things is just total speculation, because no-one is able to provide a single example of one of these components and what function they serve. This is exactly the point of Behe's response. And until someone provides a real example of one of these conceptual components, Behe's argument is perfectly logically sound.
This is typical of evolutionary thinking and argumentation - so long as you can propose a process to explain something, whether the process is ever observed is neither here nor there.
Behe argues well here: http://www.trueorigin.org/behe06.asp, that evolutionary theory is not a true scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, because the minute you conduct any experiment to prove the validity of evolution and it fails, you just get the excuse that the conditions weren't correct, or selective pressure wasn't applied corrrectly, or not enough time was given.
Listen, let's assume that all your evolutionary observations and proposed processes were all scientifically correct (which they're not). The process describes exactly how things came to be (which it doesn't). What difference does all that make, because there is still no explanation of how it all started and where it all came from in the first place (although there is plenty of speculation).
So I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, and wait for our deaths for the big secret.
“To then say that because individual components of a conceptual mousetrap can be used to catch a mouse, that individual biochemical components can also be used to do the same or other things is just total speculation, because no-one is able to provide a single example of one of these components and what function they serve. This is exactly the point of Behe's response. And until someone provides a real example of one of these conceptual components, Behe's argument is perfectly logically sound.”
Wonderful. I’ve been waiting for the request of an example!
Firstly, you still have not directly addressed the problem with Behe’s claim that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Can we both agree that he is incorrect in that regard, as it has been proven that individual components can be used to achieve the same function (or different) as the mousetrap itself? As far as who’s missing whose point, are you able to agree with me there?
What you are telling me is HIS point is that nobody can find an example of one of the components and what function they serve IN REALITY. Which I will refute in a minute. But, you, and Behe for that matter, has yet to directly address the point that attacked his mousetrap argument in the first place.
Despite everything we have just discussed, are you still insisting that Behe’s mousetrap is irreducibly complex?
Alright, what better way to provide an example than to take a system that Behe claims IS irreducibly complex, then suggest otherwise?
Excuse me if I am unable to refute it myself, I am not a biochemist, and this stuff is getting beyond my field.
How about the claim that Behe made regarding bacteria flagellum? He stated the because it had no many genes coding it, and because of it's structure, it was irreducibly complex.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
Here is an argument positing that it is possible for such a flagellum to evolve through small steps. Whether or not it does through natural selection is irrelevant (but wait a minute, isn't natural selection the thing that Behe is rejecting? How can you accept evolution occured, yet say certain things are irreducibly complex? In fact, in the context of a creationist's point of view, is it even relevant?)
To be honest, whether or not one deems it irreducibly complex or not does not mean that it couldn’t have evolved anyway.
As I read more and more of Behe’s work, and look at what critics have to say about him, I realize that although he is an accomplished biochemist, he is not very good at constructing logical arguments. One major failure pertaining to his ‘theory’ is that it isn’t even testable! I’ve just realized! How on earth does one even begin to start testing the validity of whether or not something is immune to creation via a process like natural selection?
Behe’s arguments, even though they are logically flawed, fall into but one of many alternatives to natural selection. The problem is, he has no evidence to support his claims. Who is to judge what is too complex or what isn’t? Who is to say that we cannot infer that the evolutionary ‘baby-steps ‘ we are able to experimentally verify cannot bring about larger changes with more time, with the potential for speciation (which Behe, to his credit, doesn’t do)?
Evolution is merely a theory, but so is the Big Bang. It is being refined every year, accumulating evidence for it. Natural selection, however, is a process that we cannot be certain of as a driving factor in evolution. There are alternatives, such as ‘neutral mutation’. Behe is welcome to present his own alternative, but until it is both logically sound, and has objective, experimentally testable evidence to support it, it will remain as irrelevant as creationism.
Finally, what do you make of this quote?
‘For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.’
I’ve just realized that, oddly, Behe actually has no problem with evolution, apart from the process of natural selection. Not to mention, that the concept of irreducible complexity is in itself a highly subjective label to apply to things. So you have more to contend with than I do when it comes to this guy. I will read more of his writing, despite what I already think about him, because I wonder what he thinks the driving mechanism behind speciation is.
Reality Junkie said: "Firstly, you still have not directly addressed the problem with Behe’s claim that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Can we both agree that he is incorrect in that regard, as it has been proven that individual components can be used to achieve the same function (or different) as the mousetrap itself? As far as who’s missing whose point, are you able to agree with me there?"
No. The fact that any of the individual components in themselves can act as a successful mousetrap is immaterial. Behe's mousetrap is irreducably complex, because if you take away any single component from that mousetrap (and not modify any others in the same step - which would be equivalent to an evolutionary mutation), it no longer successfully functions as a mousetrap. And if you try and do it in the other direction (which is what evolution proposes actually occurs), the problems become even more insurmountable (as explained here:http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm).
Regarding the article on the flagellum, I'm not sure if you've read it but it seems to me that it argues against your position and not for it.
I'm well aware that Behe is not a theist, I simply cite him as an example of a still unanswered challenge to evolutionary dogma.
You said "Who is to say that we cannot infer that the evolutionary ‘baby-steps ‘ we are able to experimentally verify cannot bring about larger changes with more time, with the potential for speciation (which Behe, to his credit, doesn’t do)?"
No-one's to say that you cannot infer that the evolutionary ‘baby-steps ‘ we are able to experimentally verify cannot bring about larger changes with more time, except that inference is not science, it's speculation, and there is zero evidence for these larger changes.
As for your statement that "...I’ve just realized that, oddly, Behe actually has no problem with evolution, apart from the process of natural selection...".
I'd like to ask the question, take away natural selection from evolution and what do you have left?
Post a Comment
<< Home