I think "teaching" children that people who believe different things are going to spend eternity being tortured in a fiery dungeon after they die qualifies as "teaching their followers to be bad people". Luckily most people dismiss these absurd lessons as soon as possible, but the effort is made right from the get-go.
Isn't that the basis of every religion?.
-Believe and follow this religion and you will go to heaven.
If people didn't think that any other religious people that didn't believe in their religion wouldn't go to hell then what is the point of these religions?
If you were a Catholic I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think that all religions are gonna live in peace in heaven.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDBTZ12
I cannot explain how god got into power but there has to be something that explains how the human body and this earth was formed. Everyone has their choice of what to believe in and that's fine.
Proposing a God does nothing to explain anything, it only pushes the question back one more level. I might as well say "the beginning of the universe is incomprehensible and cannot be explained" as "God is incomprehensible and cannot be explained". As a reason for belief, it fails entirely - yet for some reason it is continually raised as if it actually had some power to convince.
However, in principle it may indeed be possible to explain the beginning of the universe, which would be the ultimate attack upon the "God" hypothesis. If that day ever comes, it'll make the debate over evolution seem like a mild disagreement between good friends in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDBTZ12
It's impossible to disagree with anyone's opinions because it is impossible to prove them wrong or even prove it right. Without people believing in religion i think this world would be a lot worse.
The existence of a God or gods is not a question of proof, it is a question of probabilities. You can't use logic to *prove* God exists, which has been a mistake of philosophers through the ages. Either it exists, in which case your proof is superfluous, or it doesn't, in which case your proof is wrong.
Looking at the evidence for or against a God allows you to assign a *probability* to its existence using logic, however. I can certainly disagree with an opinion based on faith, and you can disagree with one based on probabilities - but what I can't do is accept that "faith" is an unanswerable argument and that people of faith should not have their beliefs questioned.
I can't *prove* that faith is misplaced, but I can certainly point out where it conflicts with observed reality. You are free to point out any flaws in my reality, as well - if you can find them.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I cannot explain how god got into power but there has to be something that explains how the human body and this earth was formed. Everyone has their choice of what to believe in and that's fine.
Proposing a God does nothing to explain anything, it only pushes the question back one more level. I might as well say "the beginning of the universe is incomprehensible and cannot be explained" as "God is incomprehensible and cannot be explained". As a reason for belief, it fails entirely - yet for some reason it is continually raised as if it actually had some power to convince.
However, in principle it may indeed be possible to explain the beginning of the universe, which would be the ultimate attack upon the "God" hypothesis. If that day ever comes, it'll make the debate over evolution seem like a mild disagreement between good friends in comparison.
The existence of a God or gods is not a question of proof, it is a question of probabilities. You can't use logic to *prove* God exists, which has been a mistake of philosophers through the ages. Either it exists, in which case your proof is superfluous, or it doesn't, in which case your proof is wrong.
Looking at the evidence for or against a God allows you to assign a *probability* to its existence using logic, however. I can certainly disagree with an opinion based on faith, and you can disagree with one based on probabilities - but what I can't do is accept that "faith" is an unanswerable argument and that people of faith should not have their beliefs questioned.
I can't *prove* that faith is misplaced, but I can certainly point out where it conflicts with observed reality. You are free to point out any flaws in my reality, as well - if you can find them.
I agree 100 percent with your post that faith and proof are different things. I have faith in god doesn't mean i can prove there is a god because no one can.
There is no right or wrong conclusion in this thread but it is pretty interesting to hear all sides of the argument. I respect every religion equally or people who have no religion at all. All that really matters in the end is if we are good people.
If the Ark were true and a mass extinction due to flood took place where is this world wide layer of bones and plantlife? It takes millions of years to turn these things into fossil fuels so wheres the evidence?
Fossils don't take millions of years to form. They merely require the right conditions. Crude oil can be produced in the lab using organic material, heat and pressure. If my memory serves me correctly they were even experimenting with producing crude in the desert using solar power and waste organic material. The layers of bone and plant life from the flood are found in most of the fossils and carbon deposits uncovered today.
That kind of suggests that shortly after the flood there were some pretty significant seismic shifts. I've heard Creation scientists who have suggested that most of the mountain ranges we have to day were formed in the year the waters covered the earth and the immediate years after that. They even quote mathematical evidence suggesting that the erosion rates of these ranges demonstrate that.
I'm sure that the so-called creation 'scientists' have mathematical evidence about the erosion rates of mountains. Just like they have evidence that the amount of moon dust would be many feet deep on an old moon, or that the speed of light is slowing down, or that salt concentrations in the ocean prove a young earth. Now, if all mountains were created at the same time (in the aftermath of the flood), wouldn't they all have, more or less, the same erosion rates? Obviously, there would be differences in climate conditions (wind and rain) and hardness of the rock. But the major differences between old ranges like the Appalachians or the Pre-cambrian Shield versus newer mountains like the Himalayas or the Rockies? That becomes harder to explain.
I'm also curious how a flood would cause the extinction of trilobites, seeing as they lived in water.
__________________ You don't stay up at night wondering if you'll get an Oleg Saprykin.
This has been explained by countless Creation Scientists. The account of the flood says that 2 of every kind was kept with the exception of a few species where more was kept. In other words the Ark didn't need more than two members of the canine family or deer family and so on. The variations we see since the flood are the variations within species we see today. Also it would make sense for the young to be taken which would require less space. If God drew all these animals to the Ark it would follow that He would have also had a hand in preserving them and dispersing them.
Not really, there's a wide variation among creationists as to if kinds were on the ark, or all species were on the ark.
And has been asked of countless creation "scientists" a) define kind (there is no rigorous definition, it all goes back to hand waving) so that this can be examined and b) the rate of evolution required after the flood FAR exceeds any observed rate of evolution. So on one hand creation scientists say that there is insufficient evolutionary change possible to create new species (or kinds even though to say something can't happen when something hasn't been defined makes no sense) even given millions or billions of years, then in the next breath they claim that tens or hundreds of thousands of new species evolved rapidly over a few hundred years, without identifying the mechanism behind such a rapid evolution, or providing any evidence that such a rapid rate is even possible.
I've never seen anything remotely close to actual science referring to "kinds" or actually demonstrating how any of what you claim is possible. And these are PERFECT claims with which to make inroads on, if there was actual scientific data to support them then they should be published.
Though I know your answer to that, that there's a grand conspiracy among atheistic scientists (ignoring the fact that a large # of scientists aren't atheists).. and when you get into grand conspiracy theory territory, well it's easy to see how credible those kinds of claims are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
That's because when you look at layers beneath the earth's surface you see millions of years of slow evolution. I see layers of sediment left over by a world wide flood. After all that's how a fossil is formed: the Animal or plant must be quickly covered by sediment to avoid scavengers and allow the minerals to slowly leech in to the space where the bones are slowly disintegrating.
What you or I see doesn't matter, what you can demonstrate through a coherent theory in geology matters. And your view is based on ignorance of geology; the idea that the various layers (google varves) could all have been laid down by a global flood has been seen as foolish by geologists for over a hundred years. By Christian geologists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Science doesn't have genetics to work with; They have fossils.
Incorrect. If you notice the words I used I said "extant" species, that means species that are alive today. Through genetics you can analyze the genes in a living population and if there was a bottleneck in the past.. i.e. if the population was reduced to a very small number of individuals, you can see it in the genetics of every individual that is alive. This has been show in various species at various times, but what is lacking is a genetic bottleneck in ALL species at one specific time in the past. So again that either means the flood did not happen, or that someone messed with all the genes after the fact in such a way to hide the evidence and make it look like the species didn't have a bottleneck far past the time of the flood. If the latter, that's an important theological question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Fossils are not produced except in extraordinary conditions. If they were and evolution was true one would expect to easily track the evolution of mankind.
So first you say fossils require extraordinary, then you say it should be easy to track.. seems like a contradiction. Either way, they have tracked the evolution of mankind, quite extensively. I've provided some resources for you if you want to actually learn about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Beyond the flood those conditions have been rarely met. I suppose the floods produced by Mount Saint Helens is a contemporary example of such conditions being produced but, they don't happen enough to show any bottleneck.
Nor would they unless most of the individuals in a population were wiped out. I don't know of any species that resides around only Mount Saint Helens that could have had 99% of its individuals wiped out. However there are other species where similar situations occured around volcanoes where you can see the genetic bottleneck in modern individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Your problem as always is in your interpretation of the evidence. History is 5% evidence and 95% supposition based on that 5% evidence. Any science based on history cannot be embraced with the same confidence as science confirmed by the scientific method. It's too easy to see something in your grilled cheese sandwich that's not there.
That's because you are unaware of a huge amount of the evidence, and a huge amount of the actual science that goes on, as well as the methodologies themselves. You can't make conclusions in science based on 95% supposition. When assumptions are made there are CLEARLY defined and very clearly shown how they impact the results.. that is basic science, of those things are not included then a paper wouldn't be published.
If there wasn't a single fossil and the only thing we had to work with was the genetic evidence, then evolution would still be undeniable. This is the same kind of genetic evidence that proponents of the death penalty trust to condemn someone to be executed.
Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" is a very good read for non-genetics experts about the genetic evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Legions of scientists and billions of dollars have been spent over the last 100 years looking for evidence to demonstrate this Universe could come into being without a Creator. Today we know much more about the natural world. It's too bad the lines between what we know and what scientists are hoping they are seeing has become so blurred.
Incorrect, legions of scientists and billions of dollars have been spent following the evidence to it's logical conclusions, regardless of the outcome. You are projecting your own method (presume the conclusion you desire then look for evidence to support it) onto others.
There's even proof for what I say. Before, cosmologists thought the universe was steady-state; it had always been there forever. Then Hubble came along and all the new data pointed to an expanding universe. Many scientists didn't like the new model because it implies a beginning of the universe, which can be viewed as having religious connotations. However because of the data and science done, they were FORCED to accept it. Now no reasonable scientist rejects the big bang history. A few do, but do so based not on the evidence, but on their dislike of the religious implications. No one takes them seriously because they don't base their views on the evidence, but on the implications of the evidence.
Just like most "creation scientists". They're not ignored and marginalized because the scientific community doesn't like what they say. They're ignored because those creation scientists reject things in science based on if it agrees with their specific interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago, evidence be damned.
So why don't you read those books I've recommended and learn what the evidence really says? If cost is an issue, I can get copies for you.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I don't know how the animals got there. Again history is 95% supposition. There is this verse in Genesis :
Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
That kind of suggests that shortly after the flood there were some pretty significant seismic shifts. I've heard Creation scientists who have suggested that most of the mountain ranges we have to day were formed in the year the waters covered the earth and the immediate years after that. They even quote mathematical evidence suggesting that the erosion rates of these ranges demonstrate that.
The whereabouts of the ark is kind of a silly question. You simply don't find wooden structures lasting thousands of years. If it exists intact that in and of itself would be a miracle. I can see portions of it being salvaged as well. The work it would have taken to produce lumber from raw logs in those days would have been immense. I can't see them letting it go to waste unless they had to leave the area quickly.
So if I have this right (which I may not, correct me if I'm wrong), koala bears didn't have to walk and swim 15000 kilometers from Turkey to Australia, because a few thousand years ago Australia wasn't very far away from Turkey.
Is that it?
Regarding my silly question about the boat, is it really that silly? I mean if that boat existed, it was the greatest thing ever built or ever will be built. They wouldn't have just torn it up for firewood.
Why would they have to leave the area quickly? They were the only people left on earth, weren't they? So there couldn't have been a threat from other people. And they were skilled at handling animals, so predators couldn't have forced them out. And they had plenty of experience with natural disasters. What could have forced them to leave the area quickly, leaving that awesome boat behind?
The question of God is a philosophical question, ultimately. There are two roads in human wisdom, the road to Athens and the road to Jerusalem. One leads down the path of reason and the other to revelation. Philosophy is the road to Athens and thus, at first glance, most philosophers soar above the clouds and see that there is no God. However, I think to all reasonable people, the revelation given to humanity through faith or theology in God is extremely mystifying. Even to the most material reductionist there remains the tantalizing glimpse into a human soul of sorts. We are more than just physical creatures, call it an increased cerebral cortex, call it culture, whatever.
I think to answer this question of all questions reasonably requires more than just a scientific hypothesis. It requires anyone willing to delve into the great literary and philosphical works of humanity to see what the great minds thought, as well as to glimpse the huge variety of human experience in things such as love and justice.
The Bible is currently read by all moderns through the lens of either criticism or dogmatism. Calgaryborn and others see it as the divine word of God, without error and without contradiction. Other rationalists read it through the eyes of the Higher Critics; viewing it as essentially a politically incorrect document of a late Bronze Age tribe's myths.
Even though the Bible is an artificial construct. That is, the original writers of all the books never intended or imagined that their work would be compiled into a single document for the use by three major world faiths. It does most likely represent an interesting conversation regarding the exact same questions that we are discussing now. We should give the Ancients more credit. Does anyone think that we have really made any more "progress" over the possibility or means of God or Creation? The first two chapters in Genesis represent two entirely different retellings of the Creation myth, one of them wholly adapted from another older Babylonian Creation myth. The point is that they were most likely not entirely convinced of anything, just like we should be.
Last edited by peter12; 09-07-2009 at 02:36 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Yes please. You must be smarter than the thousands of scientists who have been fighting back and forth of how this actually happened.
So please enlighten me.
They are? news to me!
Earth! most "normal" scientist agrees with this. Even with our primitive tools we now can see stars forming and very soon we'll be seeing actual planets forming.
And before you say, "thats the science way" sorry, evidence that makes any sense at all supports this. There is zero real evidence of god and the bible (except it is a book) most of these tales written in the Bible were spoke of 4000 years earlier by the Sumerians, there is also zero evidence of a single creator other than drummed up fantasys in peoples heads.
I cannot explain how god got into power but there has to be something that explains how the human body and this earth was formed. Everyone has their choice of what to believe in and that's fine.
Everyone has a choice, but there's also the evidence to consider. All the evidence points towards all life on earth having a common ancestor. If you'd like some resources about this let me know, I can provide books, websites, etc. The scientific community is not arguing about this, and even most Christians accept evolution.
The only people rejecting evolution are those who adhere to a specific literal translation of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDBTZ12
It's impossible to disagree with anyone's opinions because it is impossible to prove them wrong or even prove it right.
I disagree, if you find a hoof print in your front yard, it could have been a horse, a zebra, or a unicorn. Lets assume that all look identical for now. Whatever left the hoof print is gone now. While you can't prove what animal left the hoof print, would you say that all three (horse, zebra, unicorn) are equally likely? If not, why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDBTZ12
Without people believing in religion i think this world would be a lot worse.
If this were true then primarily atheistic nations should be cesspools and have a far lower standard of living; and that's very visibly untrue.. quite the opposite in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
It's nice to see a discussion like this where the athiests have not called we believers morons. I'd urge any non-believer to read The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins, why headed the human genome project. He's one of the most respected scientists in the world and looking the incredible complexity of the universe turned him from an athiest to a Christian.
I have that book and I'm not convinced that that's actually what converted him, but it is an interesting book (I haven't finished it yet though).
However it is interesting to note that Collins accepts and supports evolution, and he's an evangelical Christian.
Even Micheal Behe, poster child for Intelligent Design and someone who often speaks for the Discovery Institute, key witness during the Kansas trial, also does not deny evolution! He just contends that at specific points an external designer intervened to nudge things along. But Behe accepts a 4.5 billion year old earth, and common descent.
If these Christians who have dedicated their lives to the field accept evolution (for the most part, choosing to believe that some external force guided the evolution), why can't the rest?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Crap, I recall something like that but totally forget what it was about.
Elaborate so I don't have to watch the movie again.
The main character was near Jerusalem and was tossing pebbles at a bush. Suddenly the bush bursts into flame. He then says to his friend something like "A single spark and a creosote bush turns to flame".
It was all about him questioning his faith - in those days there were people who took the bible stories as factual, and he was demonstrating how bushes in the areas can basically burst into flame pretty easily.
I hadn't heard about that particular myth being debunked yet, so I found it enlightening.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
The Following User Says Thank You to Flashpoint For This Useful Post:
I'd urge any non-believer to read The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins, why headed the human genome project. He's one of the most respected scientists in the world and looking the incredible complexity of the universe turned him from an athiest to a Christian.
I'd urge any "non-believer" to follow the gay rights example, and start speaking up against organized religion.
Quote:
“It’s not about carrying banners or protesting,” said Herb Silverman, a math professor at the College of Charleston who founded the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, which has about 150 members on the coast of the Carolinas. “The most important thing is coming out of the closet.”
Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.
If people didn't think that any other religious people that didn't believe in their religion wouldn't go to hell then what is the point of these religions?
You might want to reword that.
Other religious people might disagree that "the point" of their belief is to condemn everyone who doesn't agree with them to an eternity of misery.
The whole idea of punishing every individual throughout humanity based on the actions of of a few individuals is morally corrupt. Not a single person here would agree that a child should go to jail if their parent commits a crime. Or that a race of people should be condemned because of the actions of a few (a black person stole my car therefore all black people are thieves). That every innocent should be condemned to infinite punishment for a finite (and arguably innocent, if people didn't know good from evil, how can they be held responsible in the first place) sin does not come across as moral or just.
EDIT: Oh, and regarding common ancestry of all life on earth, that's one of those things that in another 100 years will be viewed in exactly the same way that people who use the Bible to try and support a flat earth or support slavery are today. Already more Christians than not accept evolution, it will filter down to the evangelicals and such eventually.
I hear you. In short - it was just part of the deal.
In choosing to grant humanity free will, God showed his love ultimately. God didn't just choose to create stuff and sit around aloofly - he desired (desires) interaction with his creation, namely his most prized work, humans. Due to his nature, that freedom has limits from our point of view (free to choose, but not free from consequence - else what's the point). God chose to limit himself in making us autonomous (but not disconnected), but did not choose to limit his other godly characteristics - He is still holy, righteous, omnipotent, etc. As such, any sin (ie. anything opposing God's holy character) simply cannot exist in relation to Him.
God knew that if humans blindly followed and worshiped Him it wouldn't be real or genuine. That's why the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil existed - to make free will worthwhile; to cause a constant choice to be made: follow God, or don't follow God.
Expulsion from the Garden (expulsion from God's direct presence) was the only possibility, short of scrapping the whole plan and starting over. All of humanity was indeed affected by the folly of two. They chose to satiate their curiosity and give in to the temptation of the Serpent, even in spite of the warnings of their creator, God. This opened their eyes to good and evil - something that could never be undone, and something that has forever been passed down from parent to child. To quote Don Henley, it truly was, "The end of the innocence."
God put the warning out there to protect them from themselves, in a sense. It would be unjust if he did not punish their disobedience.
Children born from fallen parents who lacked the means to change not only their own plight, but certainly their children's as well, were subject to the very same stipulations. Their eyes had been opened, their very flesh had been defiled. That's how each offspring inherits not only genetic material, but also a sinful nature from their parents. [Only God has the ability to overcome such defilement, which was later used to conceive Jesus. This was presumably done after humanity endured the consequence of original sin (ie. life under the Law) for long enough.]
Again, God was more than entitled to smite humanity completely, even for arguably "just" reasons from our point of view. Due to the tribulations that were ahead, some people (I hope not many) might claim that He should have. I have faith that He made the decision He did based on the knowledge of the existence of an eventual goal (a home) that is far better than this place. A home where humans are deeply and forever content.
What exactly will that prove? I hate organized religion as much as the next person, but I don't really get why people have to get up on the pedestal and 'speak out' against it.
Gay rights is a different story, because millions of people were being denied a basic right. Nobody is being denied anything by being involved in organized religion. It is there CHOICE afterall, to be a part of that organized religion.
I hear you. In short - it was just part of the deal.
But it didn't have to be. You mention free will, that without the ability to disobey then we wouldn't have free will. I disagree. Aside from the fact that I'm not convinced that free will exists to begin with (but I'll grant that for this), it's entirely possible to limit choices and still have free will. I cannot fly, I cannot walk through walls, I cannot choose to not be subject to the laws of the universe.. yet I have free will.
God could have created things in such a way that sinning was just as impossible as walking through walls, yet still retaining free will. But God didn't. Do you think it's possible to sin in heaven? If not, then there's no free will in heaven.
If I tempt my son with a temptation I know he is incapable of resisting, then I am responsible, not him.
Instead of making a garden and a circumstance where it's all or nothing for all of the human race based on two people, he could have created two realities, one for those who follow and one for those who choose not to. Or some other setup that isn't morally corrupt.
God being clear about his existence or clear about right and wrong does not mean people are blindly following; it's perfectly clear my wife exists, is my free will removed?
It still boils down to disproportionate punishment; it's supposed to be eye for an eye, not all the eyes for one eye.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
