Continuation of Christianity debate.

[nunz]

Luns, only a few people preach that way. Most atheists just don't do religion. I've been atheist my entire life, it's not like I quit a curch and looked for a replacement. Those are unitarians.

While that may be true for you...most of the atheists here do preach their own beliefs. ....

Unriggable, if Christianity or Theism is such a farce, then why do they go there and constantly harass them and offer up why they believe differently. That's preaching!

Nobody here is forcing them to believe in God. If they want to believe that the purpose of their lives are different, by all means...go ahead. I doubt they could control their impulses to discourage Christians with their witty cliches.

...., nunz etc just flatout refuse to accept evolution.....
I am stating my reasons for why nunz is wrong. That's why I post. I don't think I have said anything about why a god can't exist, I've only bashed specific gods who are believed by some to be that precise.

Where in the bible does it say that the creatures and animals where created as they are today?

Ahem ... I never said that all evolutionary theory is wrong. I have however said I believe in creation and a creator. I have been very careful to only disprove those parts of evolutionary theory commonly held as an absolute truth but lacking in proof yet still used to 'disprove' creationism. Most of my arguments have been from a scientific point of view, and rarely have i referenced the bible.

I have also never said I have totally rejected all evolution or have completely discarded it as a theory. I do however reject evolution by selective adaptation (based on lack of fossil records) and sudden mutation (based on incompatibility of breeding ability between species). I have also worked to debunk most of the misguided drivel we get shoved down our throats as truths about the origin of humans but that are based on faulty science of atheistic belief.

I have also never claimed God created animals in exactly the form we see them today.

A lot of atheists are claiming I believe things based on their beliefs about what they think I believe. And who said atheisits have no belief system?

[nunz]

Oh come on, backglass! We have every right to express our opinions just like you do. .....So we have just as much right to discuss our opinions as you do. You're just trying to silence any opposition to your worldview with no discourse.

Except that there aren't any classes on atheism, are there? And no, biology, mathematics and other sciences do not count. The fact that they don't mention god is not enough to make them atheistic.

An......

Um .. sorry to disagree but...
I went to a teachers college and took a course in comparative religion. It was actually a course in comparative morality - or should I say a course espousing the idea that there is no absolute morality. We never discussed religion except to try to knock the three christians in the class off their moral absolutism. No absolutes = no god.

Unfortunately one atheist had to leave the course as he realised he couldn't morally decide if it was morally right (or if there was a moral imperitive) to intervene when a man was raping a child. After all if there is no god then there is no absolute morality. This for him was so traumatic he left t/col. I admired him for his honesty and consistency of atheistic belief and pitied him coz he had realised the true end point of atheism as far as morality and meaning go.

The fact science doesn't mention god doesn't make them atheistic. However a science which debunks the idea of a creator using pseudo science and espousing anti-god theorys as absolute truths is atheistic. Atheism is the denial of a god. Any science which is dedicated to the denial of god is by definition atheistic. True science should allow for an exploration of evolution and creationism as theories which can be either seen as opposing each other or potentially complimentary depending how far down the radicalised track you stand on each theory. The only time you can absolutely say there is no god is when we ourselves become omniscient.

[flashleg8]

Atheism is a belief or religion. It is a belief there is no god or gods. To be an atheist you have come to the point of saying, 'there is no god!!'.

However, an agnostic / agnosticism on the other hand is not a religion or belief. It is an understanding that a person doesn't know whether or not there is a god and so is undecided. Agnostics have no belief either way.

A - No , theis - God = Atheist

To be an Atheist you must state, "There is no god / gods". You make a statement of belief. Is atheism a belief? Yes it is. The only person who can know for sure there is no god is a person who knows everything about every corner of every universe or state of being there is. If you do not know everything (being omniscient) then there is the possibility God is sitting in the corner of some room, on a planet circling another star somewhere or maybe is out to lunch in another universe or plane of being.

Just because an atheist states there is no god does not make it true. It only makes it a statement of belief.

One post at a time! Have some courtesy.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief.
If a child was never taught about any supernatural beings or gods they would be an atheist. Not by choice, but by default.

[nunz]

OK. For the last time, Luns, you cannot equate the arguments posed by members of this site, including me, with atheism as a whole. You've yet to respond to the assertion made by me several times that there are billions of atheists around the world who don't care what you believe and won't argue with you at all!!!
....'.

Ok ... lets debunk the idea there are billions of atheists who wont argue with us at all.


1 - Firstly we need to prove there are billions of atheists.
To do that there must be at least 2 billion atheists. (so that there can be billions - plural).
Worldpopulation = 6.5 billion give or take a few million ( http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html&sa=X&oi=answers&ct=result&usg=AFrqEzcpGOETqaj2WQHrCy0J0kMsATPqhg) To my detractors ... please not I am citing now
Christians - 2.1 billion so that leaves 4.4 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion so that leaves 3.1 billion
Hinduism: 1 billion (inlcuding sikhs etc) - that leaves 2.1 billion
Chinese traditional religion: 0.4 billion - that leaves 1.7 billion
Buddhism: 0.4 billion - that leaves 1.3 billion
Primal-indigenous: 0.3 billion - that leaves 1.0 billion
African Traditional & Diasporic: 0.1 billion - that leaves 0.9 billion

Cites:
http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions

This should be accurate plus or minus 0.5 billion

Bugger - there are only around 200m atheists ... looks this myth is debunked unless ...

hmmmm ... Guiscard is right ... those billions of aethists wont argue with us at all ... they don't exist




* BTW - For those who think Christians don't have a sense of humour ... THIS WAS SATIRE or IRONY - proudly bought to you by the number three and sponsored by God.
[/url]

[nunz]

Atheism is a belief or religion. It is a belief there is no god or gods. To be an atheist you have come to the point of saying, 'there is no god!!'.

However, an agnostic / agnosticism on the other hand is not a religion or belief. It is an understanding that a person doesn't know whether or not there is a god and so is undecided. Agnostics have no belief either way.

A - No , theis - God = Atheist

To be an Atheist you must state, "There is no god / gods". You make a statement of belief. Is atheism a belief? Yes it is. The only person who can know for sure there is no god is a person who knows everything about every corner of every universe or state of being there is. If you do not know everything (being omniscient) then there is the possibility God is sitting in the corner of some room, on a planet circling another star somewhere or maybe is out to lunch in another universe or plane of being.

Just because an atheist states there is no god does not make it true. It only makes it a statement of belief.

One post at a time! Have some courtesy.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief.
If a child was never taught about any supernatural beings or gods they would be an atheist. Not by choice, but by default.

No the child would be agnostic. Agnosticism is an absence of belief. Atheism is the belief there is no god. Agnosticm is passive. Atheism is active.

As for multiple posts ... I believe it is a courtesy to try to respond to those who have responded to me.
<humour>
If you are a christian you would believe it is polite and right for me to reply to mulitple posts as the bible states we should be ready at all times to give an answer ....
As an atheist you would not know if it is right / courteous or not for me to make multiple posts as you have no absolute measure of right or wrong to judge me against. What is right for me might be wrong for you so it would be best not to judge.
As an agnostic you would not know if there was a post or not.
</humour>

[nunz]

Is Christianity unscientific? Yes. The Bible and Christianity is not designed to be scientific. It is about relationships between humans and God.

However ...

Where I weigh in is when people claim that scientific facts lead to the conclusion that adaptive evolution is true or that it some how proves there is no god.

There is no solid scientific rationale or proof to accept selective adaptation as a scientific fact. The fossils just don't show it. And yet we are taught that things slowly evolved from pond slime (humour) to humans over time through adaptations by species to their environment that lead to the evolution of the human species.

At school we are taught that as truth. We are also taught in schools that these changes happened by random chance and mutation. To say that is to explicitly or implicitly deny the possibility that there might have been a guiding force involved in an evolutionary process or else that a higher power created species as they are, some of which died out and others thrived.

To teach either adaptive evolution or intelligent design or pure creationism is to teach a form of faith. To leave one out is to force learners to adhere to a faith through ignorance. To teach them all at least allows choice to decide.

I came late to my Christian faith (20 years old). My search was because I knew or believed I am not an accident. The thought that I am a random collection of chemical processes was totally illogical to me. I think thereforeI am, not I think therefore I am random. You cannot think logically in a truely random universe. I knew that before I was a christian.

However as a pre-christian or agnostic I also knew that evolution through slow selective adaptation was a crock. There was no scientific proof. No slow change presented by fossils. No evidence of species mutating today. No signs of strong mutations causing new species or re-breeding back into its original species.

I was also taught conflicting facts. As an example the 1st(?) law of thermodynamics states all things tend towards chaos. Traditional evolutionary theory goes against this primitive physical law.

As a philosopher (like so many teens) I read much and thought much. Everything from pink floyd to Siddartha Gautama (the bhudda). One of the things that stuck out was the sequal to the book, 'The Exorcist'. In it the main character asked, <abbreviated and condensed>'If we went to mars and found an eye in the sands, we wouldn't say, oh look what random chance has done. We would assume someone else got there first. The same though applies if we found something much more simple such as a camera. '

Yet as a youngster I was meant to swallow the god denying idea we were randomly created. A freak accident caused by lightening and chemicals. Some monster from a primordial ooze made good.

Today if we were to go to mars and found a straight line or a square we wouldn't assume it is a freak chance. WE would think it was intelligently designed and executed. Yet my teachers tried to make me believe the massive job of the universe was all a freakish accident.

As a Christian I know there is a God. It is not a faint hope there might be a God but my reality and experience is that there is a God. As a Christian and a thinker I get to worship God for the wonders I see He has designed in in the world around me. Scientific wonderment is amplified by the delight of a child figuring out puzzles his Dad has created for him and my Dads delight is in my exploration and discovery of all He has made.

Do I expect you to believe in God because of my experience? No. However I will fight with all that is within me to debunk the myths and out right lies I ( and many of you) have been presented as 'scientific truth'. Why would I want to see unsustainable ideas such as C14 dating proving dinosaurs are millions of years old or selective adaptation despite fossil evidence robbing others of the joy of exploring scientific (and hopefully one day) spiritual truth unfettered by lies.

Can Christians be scientists? Yep. It is just we believe science is an opportunity to explore a lovingly created universe rather than a meaningless pursuit of knowledge as after all we are just random chemicals.

HTH

[Jenos Ridan]

If we forbid jay, backglass, vt marik, and Rev. Kyle from posting, it should be ok

<yawn> I have come to realize you cant argue with the insane, and if you believe in magical beings....you are.

So, I'm insane because I believe my life has purpose, that I am more than the mere sum of my parts and that there is something greater than me to look up to and aspire to be like? I thought so! Seems you never heard of FAITH!

[Jenos Ridan]

Many have believed differently but as an argument against all belief that is weak. I am not trying to convince you I am merely putting it out there. Like, I said it is not for me to save you but Christ, if it is his will then you will know the truth if not then you won't. It all rests between you and him.

Understood. And likewise I hope that one day you can understand that this is all just fiction, that life is nought but a glorious accident and that to move forward the human race has to advance beyond this superstitious nonsense. It all rests between you and common sense.

Then thoughts and emotions are all an illusion, a cruel and sick joke. I've thought it out, if all i am is the end result of a long chain of biochemical reactions, then I am not real; I don't think, I merely react.

[heavycola]

To teach either adaptive evolution or intelligent design or pure creationism is to teach a form of faith. To leave one out is to force learners to adhere to a faith through ignorance. To teach them all at least allows choice to decide.

No! If these theories are equally valid, then so are the creation myths of every culture that has ever existed. Why there is this attitude that evolution denies the existence of a supreme being baffles me.

Theological questions are outside science. Whether a creator lit the evolutionary touch-fuse is one, for example; but evolution itself is taught because it fits the evidence. It is not some secular conspiracy.
Teach creationism in religious studies class, alongside every other creation myth, because they are all equally valid beliefs. Evolution belongs in a science classroom.

I was also taught conflicting facts. As an example the 1st(?) law of thermodynamics states all things tend towards chaos. Traditional evolutionary theory goes against this primitive physical law.

Nunz you are disingenuous! You mean the second law: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Or entropy, in other words. But we don't live in a closed system, we have a massive store of negative entropy - the sun. I have heard this 'argument' before and am happy to clear it up.

Yet as a youngster I was meant to swallow the god denying idea we were randomly created. A freak accident caused by lightening and chemicals. Some monster from a primordial ooze made good.

OK first up, natural selection is anything BUT random... anyway...
I WENT to a religious school, where i was taught all about evolution. It is NOT a god denying idea! It is a scientific theory that fits the evidence, nothing more, nothing less. Questions like, why does the universe work according to these strict, life-giving laws? or, why does science do such a good job of describing our universe? are where the dispute lies, IMHO, and are for another argument. Evolution OTOH is science.

Consider this: IF the bible said gravity was actually the devil pulling us all towards the earth's surface by little invisible strings, then newton would have come under the same fire as darwin. We would be arguing about gravity, which you would describe as a god-denying heresy.
That's how this seems to me.

[Jenos Ridan]

My thought is, I'm far more concerned with the why than the how. I could very care less about how the universe came into being, I want to know why. And by nature, science cannot answer that question.

[spurgistan]

The thing is, science class exists to teach science. The question of why, unfortunately, can neither be answered nor properly related to a strict scientific discussion, as it is inherently subjective. Take that one up in philosophy class.

[Jenos Ridan]

Basically, I agree. The journey is more important than the destination, right?

[b.k. barunt]

To teach either adaptive evolution or intelligent design or pure creationism is to teach a form of faith. To leave one out is to force learners to adhere to a faith through ignorance. To teach them all at least allows choice to decide.

No! If these theories are equally valid, then so are the creation myths of every culture that has ever existed. Why there is this attitude that evolution denies the existence of a supreme being baffles me.

Theological questions are outside science. Whether a creator lit the evolutionary touch-fuse is one, for example; but evolution itself is taught because it fits the evidence. It is not some secular conspiracy.
Teach creationism in religious studies class, alongside every other creation myth, because they are all equally valid beliefs. Evolution belongs in a science classroom.

I was also taught conflicting facts. As an example the 1st(?) law of thermodynamics states all things tend towards chaos. Traditional evolutionary theory goes against this primitive physical law.

Nunz you are disingenuous! You mean the second law: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Or entropy, in other words. But we don't live in a closed system, we have a massive store of negative entropy - the sun. I have heard this 'argument' before and am happy to clear it up.

[quote] The second law of thermodynamics states that "Energy withing a closed system will become more disorganized over time. Ever hear of the "solar system"? The earth is a part of that closed system. Happy to clear that up for you. Cheers.

[heavycola]

To teach either adaptive evolution or intelligent design or pure creationism is to teach a form of faith. To leave one out is to force learners to adhere to a faith through ignorance. To teach them all at least allows choice to decide.

No! If these theories are equally valid, then so are the creation myths of every culture that has ever existed. Why there is this attitude that evolution denies the existence of a supreme being baffles me.

Theological questions are outside science. Whether a creator lit the evolutionary touch-fuse is one, for example; but evolution itself is taught because it fits the evidence. It is not some secular conspiracy.
Teach creationism in religious studies class, alongside every other creation myth, because they are all equally valid beliefs. Evolution belongs in a science classroom.

I was also taught conflicting facts. As an example the 1st(?) law of thermodynamics states all things tend towards chaos. Traditional evolutionary theory goes against this primitive physical law.

Nunz you are disingenuous! You mean the second law: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Or entropy, in other words. But we don't live in a closed system, we have a massive store of negative entropy - the sun. I have heard this 'argument' before and am happy to clear it up.

The second law of thermodynamics states that "Energy withing a closed system will become more disorganized over time. Ever hear of the "solar system"? The earth is a part of that closed system. Happy to clear that up for you. Cheers.

What's your point? Nunz was suggesting that aggregations of energy and information such as living things cannot exist according to the second law. Of course the sun will burn out, the solar system will not exist one day... but we have, for the next few billion years i think, a store of negative entropy.

[MeDeFe]

I am not going to reread every post made 2 weeks or less ago. I simply don't have the time, I will however attempt to answer your more recent posts.
I will also not be quoting my older posts and your responses to them, that would make this too long and messy to be read easily.
Go back to your second post after April 13th and recheck paragraph by paragraph if you aren't sure what I'm referring to.


nunz, the only dating method you have argued against is C-14. Whenever another method was mentioned you ignored up until today.
"refined estimates", new methods -> new (refined) estimates.


Give adaption a million (or ten) years time. How much do you think a species can change? I think quite a lot.


You never said that there was no proof for evolution and all for creationism in so few words, but every few posts you claimed you had debunked this and that and found indications for what you like and seen no proof for for the contrary. I think it's a good paraphrase.


In all your ramblings up to that point I had not seen anything truly coherent. At best it was "glued together".


So low odds for the current situation are your best indication? Sorry, but that's not a scientific method.


There is no physical proof for a global flood happening at one time, if you can show me some, feel free to do so and I will reconsider my position. Unless this flood is to be read metaphorically, and then it might refer to a meteor shower wiping out dinosaurs. Written several million years after it happened, unless dating methods were really screwed up and someone was there to see it and decided to use a metaphor to describe it. That sounds really silly, doesn't it?
I'm no expert on dating methods, far from it, but I think I can remember some of them using elements with a half-life of several billion years. I feel there's not much chance that would be screwed up very much by some meteors.


And who's to say we've found every fossil there is? The earth's a big place to dig, and we haven't looked everywhere yet. Or that enough fossils of every clearly discernible evolutionary step has survived to tell us something useful?





For your post a few hours later:

Oh come on, backglass! We have every right to express our opinions just like you do. .....So we have just as much right to discuss our opinions as you do. You're just trying to silence any opposition to your worldview with no discourse.

Except that there aren't any classes on atheism, are there? And no, biology, mathematics and other sciences do not count. The fact that they don't mention god is not enough to make them atheistic.

An......

Um .. sorry to disagree but...
I went to a teachers college and took a course in comparative religion. It was actually a course in comparative morality - or should I say a course espousing the idea that there is no absolute morality. We never discussed religion except to try to knock the three christians in the class off their moral absolutism. No absolutes = no god.

Unfortunately one atheist had to leave the course as he realised he couldn't morally decide if it was morally right (or if there was a moral imperitive) to intervene when a man was raping a child. After all if there is no god then there is no absolute morality. This for him was so traumatic he left t/col. I admired him for his honesty and consistency of atheistic belief and pitied him coz he had realised the true end point of atheism as far as morality and meaning go.

The fact science doesn't mention god doesn't make them atheistic. However a science which debunks the idea of a creator using pseudo science and espousing anti-god theorys as absolute truths is atheistic. Atheism is the denial of a god. Any science which is dedicated to the denial of god is by definition atheistic. True science should allow for an exploration of evolution and creationism as theories which can be either seen as opposing each other or potentially complimentary depending how far down the radicalised track you stand on each theory. The only time you can absolutely say there is no god is when we ourselves become omniscient.

Comparative religion is not science and we're not arguing morality here. Maybe another thread?

What's a "science dedicated to the denial of god"? Name one science where a majority of people set out and say "there is no god and we're going to prove it". As opposed to them looking at facts and searching for natural explanations (not logical, the flying spaghetti monster is logical, but definitely not natural) to the observed phenomena. Creationism is not a natural explanation, it involves the supernatural. That's also almost word by word what luns said at one point, that natural sciences should allow for the supernatural. To me that's an oxymoron, the supernatural has no place in natural sciences. Whether as an explanation or as something to be disproven.

[Kugelblitz22]

The thing is, science class exists to teach science.

Can you imagine the uproar if the science teachers marched into Sunday mass demanding that evolution be taught in the church?

[got tonkaed]

Can you imagine the uproar if the science teachers marched into Sunday mass demanding that evolution be taught in the church?

I am quite confident given their general understanding nature in terms of evolution being solely taught in science classes that they would handle the situation you described quite well and would respectfully ask those teachers to take their lessons somewhere else.

[Guiscard]

Can you imagine the uproar if the science teachers marched into Sunday mass demanding that evolution be taught in the church?

I thought this thread was dead

That's an interesting point actually... Would any of the more militant theists like to respond? I strongly strongly doubt that evolution and the 'science' you are disagreeing with are taught on an equal basis in Sunday schools and suchlike.

[Backglass]

So, I'm insane because I believe my life has purpose, that I am more than the mere sum of my parts and that there is something greater than me to look up to and aspire to be like? I thought so! Seems you never heard of FAITH!

One does not have to believe in magical creatures to have a life FULL of purpose and joy. I do.

Seems you never heard of FAITH!

Blind faith is...well...for the blinded. I prefer to live with my eyes wide open and without biblical blinders.

[Guiscard]

My thought is, I'm far more concerned with the why than the how. I could very care less about how the universe came into being, I want to know why.

Ever stop to consider that there might not be a why?

[heavycola]

My thought is, I'm far more concerned with the why than the how. I could very care less about how the universe came into being, I want to know why.

Ever stop to consider that there might not be a why?

The idea that there is no 'why' fills me with what i can only describe as religious awe! As does pontificating on evolution and natural selection...

i wonder sometimes whether god is actually just a failure of imagination.

[flashleg8]

My thought is, I'm far more concerned with the why than the how. I could very care less about how the universe came into being, I want to know why.

Ever stop to consider that there might not be a why?

The idea that there is no 'why' fills me with what i can only describe as religious awe! As does pontificating on evolution and natural selection...

i wonder sometimes whether god is actually just a failure of imagination.

What a great line!

[b.k. barunt]

To teach either adaptive evolution or intelligent design or pure creationism is to teach a form of faith. To leave one out is to force learners to adhere to a faith through ignorance. To teach them all at least allows choice to decide.

No! If these theories are equally valid, then so are the creation myths of every culture that has ever existed. Why there is this attitude that evolution denies the existence of a supreme being baffles me.

Theological questions are outside science. Whether a creator lit the evolutionary touch-fuse is one, for example; but evolution itself is taught because it fits the evidence. It is not some secular conspiracy.
Teach creationism in religious studies class, alongside every other creation myth, because they are all equally valid beliefs. Evolution belongs in a science classroom.

I was also taught conflicting facts. As an example the 1st(?) law of thermodynamics states all things tend towards chaos. Traditional evolutionary theory goes against this primitive physical law.

Nunz you are disingenuous! You mean the second law: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Or entropy, in other words. But we don't live in a closed system, we have a massive store of negative entropy - the sun. I have heard this 'argument' before and am happy to clear it up.

The second law of thermodynamics states that "Energy withing a closed system will become more disorganized over time. Ever hear of the "solar system"? The earth is a part of that closed system. Happy to clear that up for you. Cheers.

What's your point? Nunz was suggesting that aggregations of energy and information such as living things cannot exist according to the second law. Of course the sun will burn out, the solar system will not exist one day... but we have, for the next few billion years i think, a store of negative entropy.

Yea . . . and according to global warming theories, where does that leave us?

[MeDeFe]

What does global warming have to do with entropy?

[spurgistan]

What does global warming have to do with entropy?

Everything. What we have right now (at least, are supposed to have) is a earth system that balances out over time. Solar heat enters, some is stored in the earth systemsome is reflected back out to the solar system, and some is reflected back out. A lot of fragile climate patterns (wind, ocean current, etc.) are reliant on this balance. Well, then mr cunning human and his combustion enter the story. Greenhouse gas emissions result in more heat being trapped in the system, and many of these fragile processes break down into entropy. And, as Sergeant Barnes would say, "When the system breaks down, WE break down." (Love that quote) In effect, climate change IS entropy, in that it's the breakdown of a (more or less) organizied system.