Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Neutrino]

I would disagree with your assumption. At some point those people groups separated themselves from God. I don't know if God sent later prophets, (we have no evidence one way or the other) but if He did, they were rejected. And for all the prophets that Israel received, they still crucified Jesus when he came. Don't underestimate the desire of humanity to reject God.

You are saying that absolutely no-one, not one of the hundreds of millions of people alive at the time, was prepared to try and find a different religion? Not one of all these teeming masses was prepared to obey the booming, sourceless voice or believe in the burning bush?

Considering the percentage of the population which believes in some form of religion and the regularity with which new religions are created, this is horrendously unlikely.

God didn't create mindless drones because they cannot love. God wanted us to love Him. Love is always a choice.

Monkeys and other higher apes can certainly show love without sentience and the unpredictability that goes with it. I'm sure my dog, who's belly I am scratching at the moment is directing something very close to affection or even love in my direction.

Why bother with sentience and the vastly increased unpredictability that goes with it when you cn get the same result for vastly decreaced effort?

Anyway, god should be capable of making any object or person, mindless or otherwise, display as much love and affection as he wanted.

P.S. Would you say, or does it say anywhere in the Bible, whether or not god is Infinite?

Look it up yourself: Romans 11:33 Psalm 90:2 1 Timothy 1:17 Heb 1:8-12 [/quote]

I already knew that, it was just my shoddy way of broaching the subject

If god is infinite (and so he must be infinite in every way) then, in addition to being infinitely just, he must also be infinitely unjust. If he is infinitely merciful, he must also be infinitely cruel.

Puts a whole new twist on god, dosen't it

I'm not sure about the veiling of women or the forbidding of pork in the Evangelical church today, but I see your point. You're arguing for a libertarian freedom, which means essentially freedom from rules. I would argue that true freedom occurs within limitations. Think of driving. Are you less free because you and your fellow drivers obey traffic lights? Would absolute anarchy on the roads be true freedom? Or are the rules set down to enhance the freedom of everyone?

Actually, I have heard of a experiment in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) in which all road-rules (with a few exceptions) were removed. The experiment reduced road accidents enormously.
Shows not all rules are good ones (and you'd have to have had a lobotomy to think so anyway)
If you really want me to find it then I will, but I really don't have enough time right now.

Anyway, how exactly does limiting the consumption of certain foodstuffs, designating certain days to be spent doing one activity and just generally limiting freedoms help to enhance freedom?

[Jehan]

1) i think your dog is using you man, i'm sorry but hes just in it cos you feed him.
2) i think based on your comment of how much effort God has to put into things that you are reading that we are saying we believe in a God who is beyond human limitations, but you are arguing against the existence of a God who is very limited.
3) your point about God being infinite in both directions is flawed, a ray which starts at x = 0 and heads off in the positive direction and is not limited in that direction is infinite, doesn't mean it has to be negative and positive.
4) most studies would tell you not wearing a seat belt increases our chances of being seriously injured in a car accident, also i went to Rome and people don't seem to obey traffic lights there, i and my cousin both nearly got run over but dodged just in time. I'm pretty sure most drivers would agree that road rules are a good thing. Just like most people would agree that not envying people is good for you, i mean, tell me which ones of the ten commandments apart from the first one, that you disagree with in principle and in practice, i think that would make an interesting debate.

[MeDeFe]

Actually, I have heard of a experiment in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) in which all road-rules (with a few exceptions) were removed. The experiment reduced road accidents enormously.
Shows not all rules are good ones (and you'd have to have had a lobotomy to think so anyway)
If you really want me to find it then I will, but I really don't have enough time right now.

Yes, please find it, an experiment like that would interest me very much.

[Stopper]

Actually, I have heard of a experiment in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) in which all road-rules (with a few exceptions) were removed. The experiment reduced road accidents enormously.
Shows not all rules are good ones (and you'd have to have had a lobotomy to think so anyway)
If you really want me to find it then I will, but I really don't have enough time right now.

Yes, please find it, an experiment like that would interest me very much.

It's not this, is it? It was only the removal of traffic lights. And it wasn't in a Scandinavian country.

[flashleg8]

Actually, I have heard of a experiment in Norway (or some Scandinavian country) in which all road-rules (with a few exceptions) were removed. The experiment reduced road accidents enormously.
Shows not all rules are good ones (and you'd have to have had a lobotomy to think so anyway)
If you really want me to find it then I will, but I really don't have enough time right now.

Yes, please find it, an experiment like that would interest me very much.

It's not this, is it? It was only the removal of traffic lights. And it wasn't in a Scandinavian country.

I've actually heard of that experiment too, perhaps it was indeed that Dutch one you quoted Stopper - though I thought it was without all road markings too (not just traffic lights). Apparently people drive more carefully as they are forced to pay greater attention to the road - not just blindly follow signs and markings thinking they will be safe. Interesting I thought, seems counterintuative at the start though I remember reading the results were impressive.

[Backglass]

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

...and yet, they are still opinion...not fact.

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

Despite your seeming attempts to put me in that box, I havent and don't.

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

See above re: Opinion.

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.

Yup..I'm so unreasonable for not believing in supernatural beings. The nerve!

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.

Gosh, you sure showed me! Boy, do I feel put in my place!

Thanks for setting me on the straight & narrow.

Cheers!

[CrazyAnglican]

-----> Deleted Post

Backglass,

Sorry, I was an idiot.......you can quote me and put it in a sig if you'd like. I don't know you well enough to tell when I've pushed things too far. You may be perfectly okay with the way things were going in our discussion, but that's not the point. I didn't know and I pushed anyway.
It was my fault; I conceed the point. Sorry to have placed my point above a person.

CA

[luns101]

Just don't start mentioning bananas.

[CrazyAnglican]

Bananas?

[luns101]

It seems that someone took a Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron presentation out of context and only showed the part which makes it look like the banana, by itself, is proof of God's existence (a watered-down version of the intelligent design argument).

[Backglass]

Just don't start mentioning bananas.

Or monkey's.

[luns101]

Just don't start mentioning bananas.

Or monkey's.

Agreed:

[MeDeFe]

I'm starting to feel hungry...

[CrazyAnglican]

How about a banana?

I've certainly been acting like a monkey; I guess I'm lending credence to evolution theory. Luns don't ask me if it's micro or macro-evolution. I have no earthly idea what that means!

[raith]

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.

1. No I am not saying that. Let me clarify. What I said was basically that Some guy may have been the first to come up with a coherent explanation for the how life had ended up in the many diverse forms that he could observe or had second hand knowledge of and backed it up with data. and that This explanation and data has since been looked at by lots of people with diverse beliefs about the origins of the world. These many people have added more data, tested and retested the data, revised parts of the overall explanation in light of the data since that first guy, and fought to have that explanation put into school curricula. I have not read all of Darwin's work but I dont think that he ever tried to explain how life came into being outside of God. I dont think his work or later work on evolution that followed has ever attempted to prove or disprove God or God's hand in the matter, and I dont think his work even attempted to scientifically explain the origin of life itself and maintained that God was the original cause. I may be wrong but I believe darwin was a pretty religious man from a religious background. Whether atheists decided that evolution disproves god is something between atheists and their god. As far as those who have fought to have the theory of evolution included in school curricula... I think that most people involved were not atheists but were religious christians who may have altered there views from a strict constructionist interpertation of the bible to a more allegorical one in the face of the evidence in front of them. And as to the influence having the theory of evolution taught in schools has had on children... of course it has influenced their beliefs and outlook on life. I dont see a problem with that. If something taught in school doesnt do that then it shouldnt be taught in school. Did it instill in them a blind hatred of religion and an automatic rejection of all things religious... no.

2. I did not say that the testing of the theory of evolution involved recreating the whole evolutionary process and I think you know that. A bit of a disingenuous statment to say that I did. Let me attempt to clarify anyway. I believe that the theory of evolution and the data behind it has been tested repeatedly through experimentation and observation that support different aspects of the overall theory and I believe that there have been experiments that recreate a small portion of the evolutionary process such as observing organisms that have a very short life cycle and seeing how the organisms have changed over time in response to changes in environment. You are right though no one has ever taken an amino acid and induced it to evolve into a human being. No one has ever gone up and touched the sun but given all the information about the sun derived from experiments and observations I am sticking with the belief that the sun is hot.

3. No testiness on my part and apology for calling me naive is not needed and therefore not accepted (I got to call you gullible in response ), It would be no fun and of no use to have discussions like this with people who agreed with everything I said. After all, if long ago my great great great great great great great great (+ abunch more greats) grand father curious george had agreed with all his buddies and stayed up in the tree instead of climbing down to hit something with a rock then we wouldnt even be having this discussion

[Jenos Ridan]

How about a banana?

I've certainly been acting like a monkey; I guess I'm lending credence to evolution theory. Luns don't ask me if it's micro or macro-evolution. I have no earthly idea what that means!

Ii you want an explanation, I'll give you the simple one: mirco-evolution is within a species (meaning birds remain birds only 'better' over time), were as macro-evolution is birds sprouting gills and becoming fish over even more time. Saavy?

[CrazyAnglican]

Oh..... okay that was simple enough.

Thank you

[Backglass]

were as macro-evolution is birds sprouting gills and becoming fish over even more time. Saavy?

It's no wonder you think you think it's bunk if this is what you are preached.

[MeDeFe]

The only thing that's bunk is history.

[CrazyAnglican]

were as macro-evolution is birds sprouting gills and becoming fish over even more time. Saavy?

It's no wonder you think you think it's bunk if this is what you are preached.

Okay, So what I got from Jenos was that micro-evolution is within the species (a moth species changing color to match a change in its surrounding?) and macro-evolution is a change that constitutes an actual change in species (a lung fish being the progenitor of some species of reptiles? Flying reptiles going on to be the progenitor species of some avians?).

Backglass your understanding of it is different? What's your take on it? It's not my area so I don't know where you think Jenos is off the mark.

(P.S. I'm not trying to bait you. I'm just curious. I'm not a bad guy; we just got carried away in the last exchange .)

[MR. Nate]

I was away for the weekend, which is only a poor excuse for submitting the following: an embarrassingly long post.

You are saying that absolutely no-one, not one of the hundreds of millions of people alive at the time, was prepared to try and find a different religion? Not one of all these teeming masses was prepared to obey the booming, sourceless voice or believe in the burning bush?

As someone who appears to reject religion out of hand, you're talking about percentages in the religious community, not commitment. Let me tell you about something different. God doesn't really want ritual. God didn't tell Moses, "Go sacrifice an animal, for I am hungry" but "Go to one of the most powerful nations in the world, tell them that their socio-economic system is about to be destroyed, because I'm going to remove their labor force" God isn't looking for people to "try a new religion" He's looking for people to commit their lives to Him. So I can see how, despite sometimes supernatural intervention, people would reject God, not just in Israel, but all over the world. Try reading Psalm 14, which is about the people we know that God revealed Himself to.

Why bother with sentience and the vastly increased unpredictability that goes with it when you can get the same result for vastly decreased effort? Anyway, god should be capable of making any object or person, mindless or otherwise, display as much love and affection as he wanted.

I think you're clouding the issue. If you believe that that you can have "the same result" from a friendship with a brilliant monkey that you can with an average human being, you need some new friends And the issue is not the DISPLAY of love or affection. God doesn't care about external displays. It's about CHOOSING to love God. God wants us to choose to love Him, not mindlessly react when He gives us the banana.

If god is infinite (and so he must be infinite in every way) then, in addition to being infinitely just, he must also be infinitely unjust. If he is infinitely merciful, he must also be infinitely cruel.
Puts a whole new twist on god, doesn't it.

This argument only works if you use an Eastern definition of morality, making what is evil, or cruel or unjust an equal and opposite force of what is good, or merciful or just. A Christian definition would be that evil is a perversion of the good: Cruelty is not the equal and opposite of mercy, it is rotten, perverted version of just punishment. Injustice is not the opposite of justice, it's a perversion of "love" toward people who don't deserve it, or punishment toward those who haven't done anything wrong.

Shows not all rules are good ones (and you'd have to have had a lobotomy to think so anyway) If you really want me to find it then I will, but I really don't have enough time right now.
Anyway, how exactly does limiting the consumption of certain foodstuffs, designating certain days to be spent doing one activity and just generally limiting freedoms help to enhance freedom?

I'd like to see the study, and you'll notice that they kept SOME rules. I'm not arguing that every rule ever made is good. I don't believe that, I've flaunted my share of stupid rules. That being said, when you look through the law, a lot of the rules make sense for the time and place of the Israelites. Pork and shellfish tended to carry a lot more disease than say, sheep. Sabbath wasn't a day to do "one thing" it was a day on which work was forbidden. It never says "you have to spend the Sabbath solemnly at the temple." It says, it's a day to relax and enjoy the fellowship of God.

I believe that the theory of evolution and the data behind it has been tested repeatedly through experimentation and observation that support different aspects of the overall theory and I believe that there have been experiments that recreate a small portion of the evolutionary process such as observing organisms that have a very short life cycle and seeing how the organisms have changed over time in response to changes in environment. You are right though no one has ever taken an amino acid and induced it to evolve into a human being. No one has ever gone up and touched the sun but given all the information about the sun derived from experiments and observations I am sticking with the belief that the sun is hot.

No one denies that there is heavy scientific evidence that microevolution takes place. What ID proponents argue is that without any real evidence for macro-evolution, changes that can be said to change an animal into distinct species, there is no hard evidence for evolution, only data that has contested interpretations. For all their claims of believing wholeheartedly in the scientific process, evolutionists take their primary claim, that time plus chance will produce new species, entirely on faith. That is the sticking point.

[luns101]

I'm just curious. I'm not a bad guy; we just got carried away in the last exchange .)

Don't believe him for a second, Backglass. If he wasn't such a bad guy then why does he live in Georgia?

[CrazyAnglican]

Yep,

Bulldogs.............GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!


Hey!

What's so bad about people from Georgia!!!??!!? What about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. !!!??!!? Was he a bad guy just because he was from GEORGIA!!!???!!!?!

What about that luns? Can you defend that logically?


Now let me be clear, I 'm not attacking people in California (Even if they are Hoosiers). There are probably a lot of good people in California. I'm just saying; there's nothing wrong with being from Georgia.

[Backglass]

I'm just curious. I'm not a bad guy; we just got carried away in the last exchange .)

Don't believe him for a second, Backglass. If he wasn't such a bad guy then why does he live in Georgia?

Good point luns...I saw Deliverance.

I am just saying that many who doubt evolution often use such far-fetched examples. "Then tell me evolutionist...WHY are there no Elephants with WINGS? HMMM?!" I don't claim to be some evolution expert by a loooooong shot, there are others here with far more knowledge of the subject than I, but the concept makes sense to me. Then again I am not religious so perhaps that's why evolution seems to be perfectly logical and ID does not...and vice versa with you theists. Perspective.

Much like Luns & Jay thinks Ann Coulter is a hot blonde and I think she is a horse faced hag. It's all perspective.

[luns101]

Much like Luns & Jay thinks Ann Coulter is a hot blonde and I think she is a horse faced hag. It's all perspective.

Not true, my friend! If you check the other threads I included Ann Coulter on the list of best-looking men in the world...right up there with Rosie O'Donnell and others.