Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In all fairness to atheists, what you wrote has not way of being tested and proved. What I do not share with atheists is that you can come to a conclusion based on facts that may show something happend. If they claim show me God, it is a good question but it is not diferent to me if they say evolution is the answer when they cannot show you the past either. Can you test something immaterial like the sould? If so, how?
You may be able to convince some people the possiblitiy of its existence but you need to show some types of fact to at least conclude it is possible. With this statement you don't. Take care.
One doesn't need to see the past to experience evolution as we have vaccinations that are developed from the product of evolution. We also have representatives of the past that show the progression and sometimes the degression of species. Theists have nothing even remotely similar, which suggests that God isn't real, though not definitively.
One doesn't need to see the past to experience evolution as we have vaccinations that are developed from the product of evolution. We also have representatives of the past that show the progression and sometimes the degression of species. Theists have nothing even remotely similar, which suggests that God isn't real, though not definitively.
Evolution is another subject that IS open to interpretation of facts. The same facts have led to other interpreting differently. However, I am not one to get into evolution much, actually. From what I have read it seems to me both sides do have their valid points. To me it seems facts interpretations have been influenced on a lot of preconceptions and biases. Take care.
It is true that there are arguments on both sides. What I would say is that the arguments against often turn out to be overdrawn if not just wrong (e.g the attempts to dismiss the 'Lucy' skeleton) and when they are valid, are really more questions about the mechanism and evidence rather than calling the theory into question. There is really a huge amount of evidence support for it.
I'd say that Lucy, the feathered dinosaurs and DNA confirmation have been the biggest chunks of Proof.
If one is interested, it is illuminating to look up creationist -site claims and search it on talk origins. Given that it is obviously on the Evo side, the counters to the claims can be telling.
Snippet:
It's an intelligence breaker when you think about people praying to and believing in something they have not only never seen, but have never heard. One of the things that give God life is the fact... Whenever something good happens to someone, they immediately assume God made it happen. What if it was just luck? What if it was just your hard work an unrelenting will? Something that doesn't exist shouldn't get credit for spans of one's life that go right.
When babies are made in the womb, it is God. I say no, it's not God, it's the fact the female hominid's body has the ability to nourish developing hominids from within, why? Because the cells that make up the female hominid's body just work in that department. Everything we see and find on our planet can be traced back to space itself.
It is true that there are arguments on both sides. What I would say is that the arguments against often turn out to be overdrawn if not just wrong (e.g the attempts to dismiss the 'Lucy' skeleton) and when they are valid, are really more questions about the mechanism and evidence rather than calling the theory into question. There is really a huge amount of evidence support for it.
I'd say that Lucy, the feathered dinosaurs and DNA confirmation have been the biggest chunks of Proof.
If one is interested, it is illuminating to look up creationist -site claims and search it on talk origins. Given that it is obviously on the Evo side, the counters to the claims can be telling.
As I said, for example, what you just cited. I have read about Lucy from the opposite side. The same about the cell, abiogenesis, etc. I can go on and on.
I will tell you my conclusion on subjects like evolution and creation. They are no different than when people argue from the Liberal vs Conservative, Democracy vs Socialism, Religious vs Nonreligious, Republican vs Democrats, and on and on and on. Heck, Christians vs Christians! How about Muslims vs Muslim, Catholics vs Catholics.
All side on each of the issues named above and lots of others do claim to make sense and have their "proof".
The bottom line to me? ALL are still humans that share the same traits.
Example:
I have seen atheist accuse theists of imposing their views on others. That is a true statement. However, in the scientific academia you better be in line with what they believe because if not, you are banned, blacklisted in the scientific media. You will not be able to publish much in their world. The results? I have seen atheist claiming that such individuals do not have the support of the scientific community. It is no different than theists have done in the past and today as atheists claim.
It is what is know as "groupthink". I am sure you know that is a common word in the management field.
Atheist may complain that theists are constantly trying to push their views. Well, atheist do the same. Once you get into the middle of a discussion between two christians sharing their views with each other about some Bible point, you are doing the same! Preaching your views to others to show them the "truth".
Human nature applies to ALL as I said. So in your group you have your share of those biased individuals that may not realize are as close minded and irrational as they atheists they accuse of being such way.
For example: I have read quite often the claims that atheist are so irrational. Well, when there are theists with Nobel Prize recognition, PhDs., leading scientists that make claims that there is a creator, no way they can be right. I have read some of their work using scientific principles and data but I venture to guess you will say they are wrong how they reason and make no sense.
What I said does not prove theism is right but that theism does have some interesting points to consider. If you only discuss with the average individual that may not have the high education level commensurate to your regarding science and logic, of course you may look like some erudite. To me the perception from some is that they seem to love being condescending by aiming at those that may not have the education they have.
I started to look as some debates on YouTube a while ago between theists and atheist. I have seen atheists that the tactics they use are to demean and be condescending. They make fun of the opposition to have the audience laugh at the opposite side. Atheists have done the same I must say.
I do not know you to question your sincerity and honest of your views. I simply point out what I observe in general regarding human nature on this subject and many others where people love to argue and believe they are correct and know the "truth". Take care.
As I said, for example, what you just cited. I have read about Lucy from the opposite side. The same about the cell, abiogenesis, etc. I can go on and on.
I will tell you my conclusion on subjects like evolution and creation. They are no different than when people argue from the Liberal vs Conservative, Democracy vs Socialism, Religious vs Nonreligious, Republican vs Democrats, and on and on and on. Heck, Christians vs Christians! How about Muslims vs Muslim, Catholics vs Catholics.
All side on each of the issues named above and lots of others do claim to make sense and have their "proof".
The bottom line to me? ALL are still humans that share the same traits.
Example:
I have seen atheist accuse theists of imposing their views on others. That is a true statement. However, in the scientific academia you better be in line with what they believe because if not, you are banned, blacklisted in the scientific media. You will not be able to publish much in their world. The results? I have seen atheist claiming that such individuals do not have the support of the scientific community. It is no different than theists have done in the past and today as atheists claim.
It is what is know as "groupthink". I am sure you know that is a common word in the management field.
Atheist may complain that theists are constantly trying to push their views. Well, atheist do the same. Once you get into the middle of a discussion between two christians sharing their views with each other about some Bible point, you are doing the same! Preaching your views to others to show them the "truth".
Human nature applies to ALL as I said. So in your group you have your share of those biased individuals that may not realize are as close minded and irrational as they atheists they accuse of being such way.
For example: I have read quite often the claims that atheist are so irrational. Well, when there are theists with Nobel Prize recognition, PhDs., leading scientists that make claims that there is a creator, no way they can be right. I have read some of their work using scientific principles and data but I venture to guess you will say they are wrong how they reason and make no sense.
What I said does not prove theism is right but that theism does have some interesting points to consider. If you only discuss with the average individual that may not have the high education level commensurate to your regarding science and logic, of course you may look like some erudite. To me the perception from some is that they seem to love being condescending by aiming at those that may not have the education they have.
I started to look as some debates on YouTube a while ago between theists and atheist. I have seen atheists that the tactics they use are to demean and be condescending. They make fun of the opposition to have the audience laugh at the opposite side. Atheists have done the same I must say.
I do not know you to question your sincerity and honest of your views. I simply point out what I observe in general regarding human nature on this subject and many others where people love to argue and believe they are correct and know the "truth". Take care.
There can be facts on both sides, but there is only one truth. Typically, there is a default "truth", i.e. people aren't abducted by aliens, which the objective evidence supports. If someone makes a claim to the contrary, then the preponderence of the evidence must side with the claimant before the NEW default can be accepted. At this point, the objective evidence sides with science and against the existence of a god(s).
Theist scientists aren't typically in the fields that study biology, astronomy, or physics. And, they'll typically end up stating that what they believe is "by faith". I believe, with a bit more investigation, you'll find that atheist/agnostic scientist don't have meetings in an attempt to blacklist theist scientists. Typically they are areligious, with little interest in concluding one way or another. Of all career fields, scientists could be considered the most objective, since their theories must be confirmed by their peers and who try to discredit their own findings before they can be accepted as theories.
Last edited by Amaznjohn; 06-27-2013 at 02:07 PM..
Thank you. el amigo, the bottom line is evidence. It is evidence supported by a corpus of proven results, checks and repeats. It is not like the to and fro of political or religious debate. Science is not a matter of opinion but of validated fact.
Those who push views that are not shown to be scientifically valid cannot complain that their papers are refused by peer -reviewed journals. A person who wrote a piece arguing for the Flat earth or the geocentric system has no business in complaining that they are not published just because he might believe it.
If you have bought into the creationist gambit that they are kept out of publishing by a cabal of atheist professors, you have been misled.
You are quite right to say that many scientists do believe in God and some may even be Creationist. But I can assure you that in one or two cases (not all, by any means) while they can publish, get awards and be perfectly rational in their work, as soon as they get onto the subject of religion, reason seems to go out of the window.
Now as to the attitude, I can assure you that theist apologists yield nothing to atheist in mockery and contempt. It is also false to suppose that we think Christians are uneducated or stupid.
The axioms are, religious Faith makes intelligent people sound stupid, and a theist, once they deconvert, are some of the best and brightest atheists we have.
While it can be irritating to deal with someone who sounds contemptuous and superior, what matters is the validity of their argument. If it sound then perhaps their tone is justified.
So to do the bottom line again, the case for or against the reality of God (whatever one takes that to mean) is best decided on sound reasoning and validated evidence, not on ad hom. discrediting of the opposition.
Actually the things you mention are rarely if ever mentioned as rewards. By far the most prevalent reward is success of ones descendants, in other words evolutionary success. Considering that ones descendants generally live in the same culture, if God's morality really does contribute to societal success, then this makes sense.
I don't think this is a very accurate view of what the Bible says. It is certainly an interpretation, but you have to avoid a lot of scripture to get there...
Abraham, being blessed by god was (Gen 13:2) "very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold", he was promised vast amount of land, children, and fame, a reputation for being the founder of a great nation if he would live a godly life (Gen 17:1-9).
The entire book of Job, really, but for specifics see Job 1:1-5 and Job 42:12-17, where Job is given as a reward for his faith children, wealth, and a long life.
Proverbs has several as well. Proverbs 3:5-10 promises wealth and health for godly living. Proverbs 9:10-11 also states that long life is a reward for a holy life. Proverbs 16:7 promised that a righteous man will have a peaceful life.
These are just a few. I think there are quite a few more in Proverbs, I haven't even begun trying to recall the Psalms, or think through the Prophets, but there is quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
I would be more than happy to. In fact I will submit every single one of the ten commandments to this test.
1. Respect the god(s) that were worshipped when your culture was founded. If you change god(s), your culture is doomed.
2. Keep your god(s) abstract. When you start worshipping too many physical things, you will have problems.
3. Do not misuse your god(s) to justify evil or your culture will lose its integrity and decline.
4. Adhere to rituals that give people self-discipline so that they can keep morality.
5. Honor the ways of your anscestors and don't forget your history or you will lose your way.
6. Do not murder members of your community.
7. Do not have sex with another man's wife in your community.
8. Do not steal from members of your community.
9. Do not tell lies against members of your community.
10. Do not allow conditions to develop where many members of your community covet what other members have.
In the above, "you" is plural referring to members of a community/culture/society. Now look at all rising and declining cultures. In all rising cultures, the above laws were respected. And in all declining culture, none of the above was respected.
To me your additions have only clarified what I think is a huge problem with biblical morality. The phrase "in your community" is the out that allows tremendous abuses. In fact that phrase seems to negate the third comandment entirely. The implication here is that it is ok to murder people outside your commuinty. It essentially say that there was nothing wrong with the Israelites slaughtering entire people groups, killing babies, and forcing the girls into permanent sexual slavery, because they were "not like us".
Using this logic, it can be easily show that any atrocity can be justified as long as you make your community narrow enough. Blow up a building? as long as it is "the others" who get killed, your interpretation would have us believe it is entirely moral. Wars of aggression, like the German invasion of Czechoslovakia, or the Mongols attacking China? Moral. Concentration camps? Moral. Native American Genocide? Moral. Rape of Nanking? Moral.
To even approach being a useful morality, it appears to me that it would need to be universally applied so that murder, lying, etc... are unequivocally wrong, no matter who you do it to. The OT application of this morality is much more similar to what you outlined, so I have to believe you got it correct there. The question is, what good is standard of morality that can excuse any atrocity against anyone outside the group?
While the Bible can be used as a standard of morality, I would question if it is a useful one. It it were universally applied, the world would devolve into a patchwork of warring religio-nation-states with no constraints on human rights (at least of the other guy), no framework of what is acceptable behavior between these nations, and no reason to ever compromise (can't betray your god by changing your beliefs...). In short it seems like the recipe for a brutal, bloody, second dark age. Humanity has struggle for hundreds of years to get out of the endless cycle of killing, rape, torture, and other mindless violence. Why would we want to go back there?
To even approach being a useful morality, it appears to me that it would need to be universally applied
This is liberal thinking, that morality must be universal. I am not arguing here, I am just saying that my view is different. I find humanity to generally be despicable. This is from my personal experience. My view is that only those people who follow some clear moral code deserve to live, which I estimate to be about 2% of humanity. I am sure you disagree, but with your relativism, you should recognize my view as just another morality. And the Hebrew Bible happens to be a perfect fit for my morality.
Quote:
While the Bible can be used as a standard of morality, I would question if it is a useful one. It it were universally applied, the world would devolve into a patchwork of warring religio-nation-states with no constraints on human rights (at least of the other guy), no framework of what is acceptable behavior between these nations, and no reason to ever compromise (can't betray your god by changing your beliefs...). In short it seems like the recipe for a brutal, bloody, second dark age. Humanity has struggle for hundreds of years to get out of the endless cycle of killing, rape, torture, and other mindless violence. Why would we want to go back there?
My view is the opposite. I believe that human evolution is a continuing process. I believe that war is a positive evolutionary force while peace is a negative evolutionary force. All great societies emerged from warring states. When there is prolonged peace, humans devolve and become more immoral and less intelligent. I explain this in detail here:
I don't think this is a very accurate view of what the Bible says. It is certainly an interpretation, but you have to avoid a lot of scripture to get there...
Abraham, being blessed by god was (Gen 13:2) "very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold", he was promised vast amount of land, children, and fame, a reputation for being the founder of a great nation if he would live a godly life (Gen 17:1-9).
Genesis 13:2 doesn't connect Abraham's success to God. And Genesis 17:1-9 is actually a perfect illustration of my point that rewards go to future generations.
Quote:
The entire book of Job, really, but for specifics see Job 1:1-5 and Job 42:12-17, where Job is given as a reward for his faith children, wealth, and a long life.
Proverbs has several as well. Proverbs 3:5-10 promises wealth and health for godly living. Proverbs 9:10-11 also states that long life is a reward for a holy life. Proverbs 16:7 promised that a righteous man will have a peaceful life.
These are just a few. I think there are quite a few more in Proverbs, I haven't even begun trying to recall the Psalms, or think through the Prophets, but there is quite a bit.
Yes Job is a counterexample, being one of many views expressed in the writings in the Bible. Ecclesiastics is a totally different view which questions rewards altogether. And Proverbs is a big mix. The Hebrew Bible supports multiple views, but the Torah itself is pretty consistent on this, with the focus being on evolutionary success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
