Continuation of Christianity debate.

[raith]

That many of them do indeed bring value to the discussions. As far as Colossus, or you or I go...it's impossible to separate the fact that everyone has a bias in interpreting data. My bias is rooted in how my life changed once I accepted Christ. I don't think you could deny a bias in your own life in how you view what I or other Christians have written in these forums, perhaps some of which is based on your educational background.

I think one of the problems with the basic statement "everyone is biased" as a tool to bring Scientific Theory and Religious Theory to the same level is just a fog statement. The intent is to cloud the issue with out actually saying anything. Are scientists biased? On any individual basis and at a group level? YES Does there bias color their view of the data? YES. Is it the same thing as a Creationist bias in interperting the data? NO.

The difference is this. A scientist starts with a hypothosis (a guess) about what the outcome of a the interaction of a set of variables is and then goes about testing it. Do their biases effect the conclusion. Probably (they need there grant money), but whatever conclusion they come up with there are plenty of other scientists (some with grant money riding on a different conclusion) who will then test the hypothosis and often come up with different results. before an idea is given much credence it is check by many individuals (with all kinds of different biases) over and over. Despite this rigorous testing do theories and ideas once held as truth change and even get thrownout? yes. because science is constantly checking and rechecking and gaining facts and knowledge and often admits when it is wrong.

the Creationist or Religious scientist starts with what they know to be the TRUTH and tries to find evidence that supports the already set in stone Conclusion. And everyone else in the community also already knows the TRUTH and agrees with it. Therefore there is no one in the community that is really checking for problems. They may disagree on the finer points but since the CONCLUSION is already known, all they can do is disagree on the ways to reach that conclusion. And they dont admit they are wrong because they cannot be wrong.

Therefore saying that a scientist's bias is the same as a Religious Scientist/Creationist's (im not really sure what to call them) is not valid statement. they dont equate.

If I think that water flows up the the waterfall and I go out and find a place where the wind blows really hard and pushes water up cliff to prove my thought am I right? there will be plenty of folks out there who will show me that I may be wrong. If I KNOW that water flows up the waterfall I will go out and find others who agree with me and we will all look at my upward flowing waterfall and congratulate each other. Does that make me right?

[MR. Nate]

The difference is this. A scientist starts with a hypothosis (a guess) about what the outcome of a the interaction of a set of variables is and then goes about testing it. Do their biases effect the conclusion. Probably (they need there grant money), but whatever conclusion they come up with there are plenty of other scientists (some with grant money riding on a different conclusion) who will then test the hypothosis and often come up with different results. before an idea is given much credence it is check by many individuals (with all kinds of different biases) over and over. Despite this rigorous testing do theories and ideas once held as truth change and even get thrownout? yes. because science is constantly checking and rechecking and gaining facts and knowledge and often admits when it is wrong.

the Creationist or Religious scientist starts with what they know to be the TRUTH and tries to find evidence that supports the already set in stone Conclusion. And everyone else in the community also already knows the TRUTH and agrees with it. Therefore there is no one in the community that is really checking for problems. They may disagree on the finer points but since the CONCLUSION is already known, all they can do is disagree on the ways to reach that conclusion. And they dont admit they are wrong because they cannot be wrong.

Therefore saying that a scientist's bias is the same as a Religious Scientist/Creationist's (im not really sure what to call them) is not valid statement. they dont equate.

I think your incredibly naive to believe that the current crop of scientists, especially in an issue like evolution, have not already decided on the conclusion.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ - Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997



Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . - Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

[raith]

I think your incredibly naive to believe that the current crop of scientists, especially in an issue like evolution, have not already decided on the conclusion.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ - Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997



Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . - Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

And I think you are incredibly gullible to believe that the creationists have any sort of valid argument.

My point was that at least in science you have a set up where there are many different sets of eyes and minds from many different backgrounds and belief system looking at the same thing, and in order for something to become generally accepted among this group it must have a lot of data, experimentation, more data, more experimentation and so on backing it up. At this point, yes most of the scientist out there have come to generally consider the theory of evolution as the probable explaination of how life on this planet has gotten to the point it is. And most of them are now currently working from that assumption. However, if some other data came out or some other discovery popped up that pointed to a different explanation and it withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community. the Theory of evolution may be thrown out, revised, changed, or evolve. It may not be a quick process (nobody likes to admit they are wrong) or it might be an instantaneous process (the evidence is so overwhelming - ie God suddenly appears and turns us all into duckbilled platypuses (correct plural form? platypie maybe) so that we can finaly get the joke).

Creationists on the other hand can not change their theory no matter what evidence the see or chose not to see. There is no room for skeptisim.

If I chose i can go out and read all the data out there on evolution and see the history of how it has changed and been revised, refined over the years. I can see where the data came from and decide if it is possible. I could also take the data out there and pick and chose what data I look at and make connections whereever I chose in order to support any theory (I use the word here with its everyday usage definition) I come up with.

Right now I see the theory of evolution as the most probable explanation out there based on the data I have seen (in no way comprehensive). That doesnt mean that I am not open to other possibilities if there is evidence (credible) to support them. You (I apologize if I am way off base here on my assumptions about your stance on creationism/evolution) can not by the nature of your beliefs be open to other possibilities.

By the way I read you quote the first time and dont really see its significance to the argument.

All that aside I have never understood why evolution and the bible can not coexist. I wouldnt pretend to know the mind of God (if there is a God. The possibility of which I am very open to.) regardless of my knowledge of the bible which was written by some guys I have no knowlege of. I dont trust people in general with out that trust being earned and I am a lot less likely to trust somone who tells me that they know the ultimate Truth and what is best for me. That I would call naive

[OnlyAmbrose]

All that aside I have never understood why evolution and the bible can not coexist. I wouldnt pretend to know the mind of God (if there is a God. The possibility of which I am very open to.) regardless of my knowledge of the bible which was written by some guys I have no knowlege of. I dont trust people in general with out that trust being earned and I am a lot less likely to trust somone who tells me that they know the ultimate Truth and what is best for me. That I would call naive

For the record, Catholics and a few other Christian denominations have accepted evolution in coexistance with the Bible.

[luns101]

For the record, Catholics and a few other Christian denominations have accepted evolution in coexistance with the Bible.

Are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

[OnlyAmbrose]

For the record, Catholics and a few other Christian denominations have accepted evolution in coexistance with the Bible.

Are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

I'm not certain on the specifics- to be perfectly honest, I've never viewed the evolution debate as particularly important. I'm not too concerned with how God made us as much as the fact that He did.

As to my personal belief (though again, I really don't put much thought into the topic), I don't think there's enough evidence for human evolution to stand on two feet (something about a missing link which hasn't been found?) - my understanding of the theory of human evolution is something like this:

Monkeys........Humans...........Assorted apes
......\.................|......................../
........\...............|....................../
..........\.............|..................../
............\...........|................../
..............\.........|................/
...............MISSING LINK


My understanding is that human evolution doesn't propose that we came from monkeys, but rather that monkeys, apes, and us all descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR- the missing link.

I have mixed feelings on the topic. For one thing, why couldn't Adam and Eve (ie the first humans) have been evolutionarily different from us? If God created them so long ago (and I've never been entirely convinced by statements that the Bible insists that the Earth has been around for 6000-something years), then it is only natural and logical that they should evolve.

Natural selection is not a theory, it's a logical fact (which we've managed to somewhat get around with the advent of medical technology). And, given enough time, it's only logical that said natural selection would have visible effects.

Anyways, I have an article on the subject for those truly interested in Catholic teaching on the matter, but the most important excerpt is probably this:

As the Church recognized, certain theories evolution are incompatible with the Catholic faith, as are the materialistic ideas often associated with them. That evolution would operate apart from God’s sovereignty, for example, or that it produced the soul of the first man, or that man has no soul—all of these are incompatible with the faith and unprovable as matters of science.

On the other hand, it is not clear that every possible theory of evolution is incompatible with the faith. Though the majority interpretation of Genesis 1–3 in Christian history had been quite literal, there was also a strain of less insistence on the literal. In fact, the greatest of the Church Fathers, Augustine, speculated in ways that were congruent with certain aspects of modern cosmology and evolutionary thought (see his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis).

Full article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

But once again, I must emphasize that i really don't see the Earth-shaking importance of this issue. I'm not concerned very much over how God created us - the fact that He did is enough for me, though of course curiosity often leads me to speculate and study the scientific theories- I really don't see science to be altogether hostile to religion (the science community, on the other hand, is a different story )

[Jenos Ridan]

So i guess that's just one of the many scriptures that were only for the early church, and no longer apply to Christians.

What you fail to notice this that now we have access to prosperity in this age. Does that then mean that poor (materially speaking) christians are an old evil? No. But all good things (barring that which catters to your flesh) are not to be shunned because of some poverty doctrine. What does the Lord have to say about what the meek inherit? THE EARTH! If you are a good christian and don't sow into your sin but sow into the Kingdom, you will be rewarded. Not just in the spiritual sence, but good things will come your way. Don't worry about riches, if God feeds the birds and clothes the grass then what cause is there for worry? Are riches bad? Only if they become a new (false) god for you.

Congratulations jenos! The "CC Jesus Freaks" are by far the most shallow, superficial examples of Christianity that i have found (and in this country, that's saying a lot), and you are without a doubt the pick of the litter.

How is following the Great Commission being selfish? Tithing? Riches are bad only if they interfere with you praising the Lord's name. In other words, a false god. You fail repeatedly to address this point, so explain your behavior. I said that the Word tells us not to worry about the material, it's all in God's very capable hands. And if you have more to give, how is that then evil that you have the means? I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, if I came into riches somehow I'd be estatic, as would anybody with half a brain. The difference is, I'm not the greedy, self serving hypocrite you'd like to paint me as. Ever hear about 'Not bearing false witness'? Where do you get off judging people anyway, by what right? What exactly is your agenda here? 'Cause it is terribly obivous that you have one.

[MeDeFe]

Jenos, I think b.k. was referring to the fact that your post is so incredibly corny and cliche. A lot of wrappings and not much substance.

[MR. Nate]

My point was that at least in science you have a set up where there are many different sets of eyes and minds from many different backgrounds and belief system looking at the same thing,

So you're saying that lots of people with diverse beliefs about the origin of the world came together, looked at the data, and came up with evolution? How about this: About the time that western culture started rejecting the Bible as a source for authority, a fellow came up with a theory on how life could have come into being outside of God, as this gained traction with atheists, they fought to have it included in school curricula. After those children grew up, the theory gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community.

and in order for something to become generally accepted among this group it must have a lot of data, experimentation, more data, more experimentation and so on backing it up.

So we've taken amino acids, watched them evolve into humans, repeated the process to make sure it wasn't a fluke, tested it to make sure that they were human, and that's why we accept evolution? I don't recall seeing THAT published. Perhaps something other than observation which has lead to the theory of evolution, making it something less than scientific.

PS - for raith - I noticed this discussion is beginning to get testy, and it may have been my fault for calling you naive. I shouldn't have written that, and I apologize.

[CrazyAnglican]

There is a bit of cowardice, in my eyes to those (not necessarily you) who say "I'm not going to be concerned with (insert problem here) because my god(s) will take care of everything" instead of facing up to reality and dealing with life.

The vast majority of Christian doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, missionaries, soldiers, etc. would tend to shed some doubt on that notion. It's a good thing that we don't have to rely on the atheists and agnostics (less that 1% of the population of our country) to get everything done and take life on for us. By all means, hang onto the fallacy though. Let me make it clear, though, the atheists and agnostics are every bit as noble, courageous, and helpful as anyone else. This is no attack on them.

I'm reasonably sure you'll be attacking all of these Christians, though, because they believe in God and an afterlife, and that this is somehow a flaw that gives them courage. Perhaps they wouldn’t do so much without believing in them. That would tend to make them .....atheists, though....right? If they are doing less for society as atheists, doesn't that suggest that their Christian life has worth and isn't wasted?

Remember I never denied the validity of any other lifestyle. You were the one who denied the validity of mine. It’s interesting that you brought this topic up. You seem to be doing everything possible to get out of it.

Huh? I'm right here buddy!

No you're not, friend. You just won't admit it.

The point we were arguing was, of course, that a Christian life is not, by definition, a life wasted.

Living your life in reality now? Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

I would never claim that Mother Theresa wasted her life simply because she is religious....

By my definition, living a fantasy life filled with magical beings, no matter the religion is a waste.

You’re pretty much saying “in your opinion” here, aren't you. You are entitled to your opinion, however, weak and flimsy it may be. My opinion was supported with evidence and examples. Yours you tried to support with fallacies and contradictions. If you want to hold on to a groundless accusation that you admit you can't prove, by all means do.

You don't seem to think so, ..... and are "hell bent" (:lol:) on making me "prove it" somehow...which we both know I never will be able to do to your satisfaction.

Yes, my satisfaction. Hey, I’d like a shred of evidence or at least a consistent point. I’m picky and unreasonable that way. The fallacies were from an atheist’s website (no need to fear indoctrination) http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm . You might like to peruse them between groundless rants. By all means fell free to attack me and people like me again. It’s a suitable substitute, if you can’t find fault with what we’re actually saying.

As far as your ad hominem attack suggesting that I'm "threatened" by your groundless accusation. No, not especially just curious if there was any logical basis for it. But as Mr Nate just said this is starting to get a little testy. I don't think I've said anything that wasn't polite, but If I have I apologize and assure you that you haven't offended me.

Cheers

[flashleg8]

[

Hey, I’d like a shred of evidence or at least a consistent point. I’m picky and unreasonable that way. The fallacies were from an atheist’s website (no need to fear indoctrination) http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm . You might like to peruse them between groundless rants. By all means fell free to attack me and people like me again. It’s a suitable substitute, if you can’t find fault with what we’re actually saying.

Good link! People have been using those fallacies left right and centre on these forums, atheist/believer or not.

I'm with you that if we're going to have a debate on a subject then we should try to avoid personal attacks and try to use reason and valid arguments (and incidentally negating invalid arguments) to convince and stimulate debate.

If someone’s argument is weak (i.e. uses your fallacies) then it makes his point weak.

[CrazyAnglican]

Thanks man,

That was kind of what I was going after; attack what I say not who you think I am.


Cheers

[heavycola]

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . - Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

Biogenesis and evolution by natural selection are not the same thing.

I have just had a horrible epsiode of deja vu... must stop typing...


Ambrose the 'missing link' is a gap in the fossil record. And even WITHOUT the fossil record, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It exists in the dna in every cell in every living thing on the planet.

[luns101]

After I accepted Christ, I was searching for a way to learn more about my new faith. I started reading books by Greg Laurie. He now has a radio ministry which can be heard on the internet. If anyone is interested in knowing more here's the website. You just have to click on "Launch Player" to hear the message.

http://www.harvest.org/radio/index.php/1.html#

Why do I post this?...because there's a certain element which is lost in our discussions here. After all, we can only post text. Mr. Laurie presents what, for me, is a concise and articulate presentation of what I believe Christianity to be.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ambrose the 'missing link' is a gap in the fossil record. And even WITHOUT the fossil record, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It exists in the dna in every cell in every living thing on the planet.

I already said that I am indeed a subscriber to the theory of evolution. Read the article if you want the "official" Catholic belief.

[Backglass]

The vast majority of Christian doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, missionaries, soldiers, etc. would tend to shed some doubt on that notion.

The vast majority of non-religious doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, free thinkers, soldiers, etc. would tend to agree I am sure.

It's a good thing that we don't have to rely on the atheists and agnostics (less that 1% of the population of our country) to get everything done and take life on for us.

Actually 3-9% of the population depending on how you classify. Christianity is by far the most popular but the number of lemmings has no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea to jump off the cliff.

By all means, hang onto the fallacy though.

...as I am sure you will yours.

Let me make it clear, though, the atheists and agnostics are every bit as noble, courageous, and helpful as anyone else.

Yup...I believe in people...not superstitions.

I'm reasonably sure you'll be attacking all of these Christians, though, because they believe in God and an afterlife, and that this is somehow a flaw that gives them courage. Perhaps they wouldn’t do so much without believing in them.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps they aren't capable on their own and need the crutch of a "sky-daddy" to get them through the day. Some don't.

You’re pretty much saying “in your opinion” here, aren't you.

Multiple times. Thanks for following along! This entire thread is opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, however, weak and flimsy it may be.

And you are entitled to yours no matter how irrational and delusional it may be.

My opinion was supported with evidence and examples.

I am still waiting for any evidence of an afterlife, magical gods or demons. Got any pictures? (grilled cheese notwithstanding)

The fallacies were from an atheist’s website (no need to fear indoctrination) http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm .

Any atheist website is just the opinion of one person, as atheism isn't a religion...just a classification.

As far as your ad hominem attack suggesting that I'm "threatened" by your groundless accusation. No, not especially

Well good. Glad to hear you have a thick skin.

Cheers

On that we agree!

[mr. incrediball]

i don't suppose anyone has read "the god delusion" by richard dawkins? it's really eye openiong, i recommend religious nuts read it.

[vtmarik]

Just because a list of logical fallacies comes from an atheist website doesn't mean that those fallacies aren't real.

Wikipedia has information on all of those fallacies.

[unriggable]

i don't suppose anyone has read "the god delusion" by richard dawkins? it's really eye openiong, i recommend religious nuts read it.

All it does is further polarize the sides. No reason in reading it, besides he's really narrowminded. I've read it, and as much as I agree with it I've heard the exact same arguments coming from the Christian side.

[MR. Nate]

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . - Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

Biogenesis and evolution by natural selection are not the same thing.

The point remains that both deists and atheists have something invested in returning the results they want. There are preconceptions on BOTH sides.

[unriggable]

Stephen (steven?) hawkings once said that abiogenesis is the most likely theory and likely since life arose fairly quickly once the earth became habitable with liquid water.

[CrazyAnglican]

This entire thread is opinion.

Perhaps, but some opinions are worth more than others, because the people who hold them can defend them without contradicting themselves.

Living your life in reality now? Or to find out at death that you wasted your life worshiping fantasies. I choose the former.

I would never claim that Mother Theresa wasted her life simply because she is religious....

By my definition, living a fantasy life filled with magical beings, no matter the religion is a waste.

Despite the contradictions you seem think you speak for most atheists without actually quoting any of them.

The vast majority of non-religious doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, free thinkers, soldiers, etc. would tend to agree I am sure.

Even when I’ve quoted some who seem to disagree with you, or at least your methods.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm .

I'm with you that if we're going to have a debate on a subject then we should try to avoid personal attacks and try to use reason and valid arguments (and incidentally negating invalid arguments) to convince and stimulate debate.

If someone’s argument is weak (i.e. uses your fallacies) then it makes his point weak.

Just because a list of logical fallacies comes from an atheist website doesn't mean that those fallacies aren't real.

Wikipedia has information on all of those fallacies.

EDIT> Thanks vtmarik. I missed yours earlier.

You have, however, shown a masterful penchant for misquoting. I could do it too; it just seems a little silly. There’s no sense in misquoting you to make your words seem unreasonable. They are pretty much unreasonable to begin with.

All that being said,

Dude! I’m messing with you! I’m not serious, I could care less about whether you think I’m wasting my life, or what you think at all for that matter. You’ve been thread hopping and messing with folks for months now…I just figured it was your turn.

Cheers

On that we agree!

[Jenos Ridan]

Jenos, I think b.k. was referring to the fact that your post is so incredibly corny and cliche. A lot of wrappings and not much substance.

I think of money this way: if I have the means and by virtue of what I believe I give and give not out of some twisted notion of ritual and duty, then how is the fact I have the means make then the means evil?

[Jenos Ridan]

Just because a list of logical fallacies comes from an atheist website doesn't mean that those fallacies aren't real.

Since when did fallacies become real? If it is false, should it not then be, well, fake?

[Jenos Ridan]

Actually, I think b.k. barunt hangs out in the Flamewar forums too much. Might affect debating skills when all you do there is yell at people.